Using Policy to Manage Recidivism and Persons with Serious Mental Illness: Voices from Human Services and Justice Co-ordinating Committees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The debate regarding the tensions between the lack of an integrated system of community based mental health care, compulsory care, and individual rights and freedoms in the context of serious and persistent mental illness, is not new. lt contains a delicate and changing balance of rights and obligations. Valid arguments can be made on both sides of the protection balance - protection of a common sense of the social good and protection of the rights of individuals needing mental health treatment. The evolution of the Ontario Mental Health Act (R.S.O. 1990) (MHA) is discussed and situated in the Canadian context to illustrate how our current mental health system came to exist and unwell forensic clients reside in communities. Deficiencies are highlighted in applying mental health legislation to situations of persons with persistent psychosis, who are chronically interacting with the criminal justice system, treatment non-collaborative, and lack insight into their own behaviour and its consequences -- a symptom often associated with psychosis. The Government of Ontario has funded initiatives to attempt to monitor the safety/risk of forensic clients. An inter-ministerial initiative - Human Services and Justice Coordinating Committees (HSJCC) is the focus of research. This unique convergence of healthcare, the criminal justice system, community service providers, and stakeholders have been mandated to meet to discuss their common forensic clients with a mission toward prevention, system designs, crisis and community intervention planning, court assessments, and case management. Latent consequences of the diverse convergence of policies guiding individual HSJCC members are discussed. Confusion about the protocols for sharing needed information within meetings and with identified community stakeholders to plan for client management and potential Committee member self-preservation were the primary findings. The potential impacts of the findings and how these might impede HSJCCs from realizing their potential are highlighted. Promotion of simplified education in privacy policies to enhance the important work of the Committees is proposed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.110 | 0.113 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.038 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.038 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.051 | 0.033 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".