Barriers to Service Provision for Justice-Involved Youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite robust evidence for the efficacy of the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) framework, the needs of youth on community supervision, as identified by risk–need assessments, are frequently not reflected in the services they receive. Potential barriers to recommended service were examined in 219 Canadian youths who were court-ordered to receive forensic assessments. Decreased service was associated with certain criminogenic needs (e.g., antisocial attitudes, substance abuse) that were treatment impeding in nature. Lower treatment receipt was also associated with youth whose parents were detached from the probation process. Furthermore, odds of recidivism increased when youth experienced more lifestyle destabilizers, capacity issues, and systemic barriers, even after accounting for the effect of receiving intervention for identified criminogenic needs. Results suggest the importance of addressing both criminogenic and noncriminogenic factors during probation sentences and call for greater adherence to, and expansion of, the responsivity principle to include the assessment and management of destabilizing and systemic factors.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".