Matching court-ordered services with youths' clinically-identified treatment needs: predicting treatment success with young offenders
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Under Canada's youth justice legislation, rehabilitation and reintegration of young offenders is an important principle. An empirically supported model of service delivery attending to the principles of risk level, criminogenic need, and responsivity provides direction in this regard. To date, research on this model has evaluated the principles broadly (i.e., at a group level) and has not incorporated youths' self-reported functioning. The current study evaluated the impact of matching youths with services according to their individual risk level, criminogenic needs, and responsivity factors on recidivism and subsequent self-reported functioning. The probation and clinical records of 122 youths who received comprehensive court-ordered assessments in a mental health facility in Ontario were reviewed to determine the percentage match between clinical recommendations, judges' orders, and services received via probation. Youths' criminal records were also reviewed to determine the time to their first re-offense and number of post-assessment conviction events. Difficulties associated with accurately capturing the duration and intensity of youths' services prevented risk matching; thus, youths' risk scores were controlled for in all analyses. Higher risk scores were associated with earlier and more frequent recidivism; however, lower percentage needs matching added to the predictive power of risk, and was associated with significantly earlier recidivism and a significantly greater number of new conviction events. Counter to expectation, responsivity matching did not contribute to re-offense prediction over and above the contribution of risk score and needs matching. A similar pattern of results was obtained during the self-report component of the study, for which 61 of the participants were located and completed a telephone interview regarding their functioning in criminogenic needs areas. Whereas youths' risk scores at the time of their assessments significantly predicted their self-reported functioning approximately three years later, greater percentage needs matching significantly contributed to the predictive power of the model while responsivity matching did not. The present findings have the potential to enhance collaborative efforts between the youth justice system and clinical service providers, and in turn, aid in the development of an effective and comprehensive means of responding to youths' offending behaviours. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved)
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».