A Process Evaluation of Toronto’s First Youth Mental Health Court
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Youth mental health courts are a relatively new type of specialty court designed to address the mental health needs of justice-involved youth, usually with the ultimate goal of desistance from future offending. As part of a process evaluation of Toronto’s first youth mental health court, court records and files for 127 youth who participated in the program from its inception in 2011 until August 2013 were reviewed to (1) describe the operation of the court and the clients it serves, (2) explore predictors of successful completion of court requirements, and (3) examine how the court addresses the mental health and criminogenic needs of its clients. Most clients successfully completed the court requirements, with case-processing time comparable to that of “traditional” youth courts; completers were more likely than non-completers to have a mental health diagnosis and higher initial treatment motivation. Half of youth received treatment targeted to their identified mental health needs. Analysis of a subsample of cases indicated that, for most youth, mental health issues were indirectly related to their offences, indicating the need to address criminogenic needs in addition to mental health needs in the court. Findings are discussed with regards to best practice for treating justice-involved youth with mental health needs.
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 | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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".