Matching court-ordered services with youths' clinically-identified treatment needs: predicting treatment success with young offenders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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)
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".