Placement Decision-making in Child Welfare: A Provincial Profile of Associated Factors
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTIONOut-of-homeplacement is described as being the most costly and intrusive response to achild protection investigation [2]. Out-of-home care is the largest singleexpenditure for many child welfare organizations in Canada [1]. There islimited understanding on the benefits of this costly intervention, and forwhich children placement is best suited for. Children in care are reported toexperience greater behavioural problems [5], hinder youths’ willingness toengage in relationships [6], and decrease cognitive skills [5]. Alberta has seen an increase in child welfareplacements from 2003 when 7% of all child investigations noted a formal childwelfare placement compared with 9% in 2008 [4]. The Alberta Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect 2008(AIS-2008) is the second cycle of a provincial study that examines reportedincidents of child abuse and neglect [4]. Based on a secondary data analysis of the AIS-2008 dataset, this poster will providea provincial profile of factors associated with child welfare placement cases,and no child welfare placement cases in Alberta in 2008.METHODSThisposter is based on 27,417 child maltreatment investigations from the AIS-2008dataset comparing characteristics of cases where placement was noted (n=2,383),and cases where no placement was noted (n=24,764). Bivariate analysis andPearson’s chi-squared tests were conducted to compare select child, household,and case characteristics of these two types of cases.RESULTSA higherpercentage of placement investigations involved children younger than 1 yearold (14%) compared to no placement investigations (8%). At least one childfunctioning concern was noted in 76% of placement child investigations and in42% of no placement child investigations. Ninety-three percent of placementinvestigations noted at least one caregiver risk factor, and 75% of noplacement investigations. Placement cases noted varied percentages ofcategories of maltreatment investigations, with neglect as the most frequent(54%), followed by physical abuse (15%), emotional maltreatment (14%), exposureto intimate partner violence (7%), and sexual abuse (3%). Of no placementcases, neglect was most noted (29%), followed by exposure to intimate partnerviolence (24%), physical abuse (17%), emotional maltreatment (10%), and sexualabuse (3%). Forty percent of placement cases noted emotional harm requiringtherapeutic treatment, compared to a significantly lower percentage for noplacement cases (12%). Placement cases noted a higher percentage where physicalharm was severe enough to require treatment (7%), compared to no placementcases (1%). Seventy-four percent of placement cases noted the duration of asuspected or substantiated maltreatment event occurring over multipleincidents, compared to 41% for no placement investigations. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONSThisanalysis shows the multi-faceted nature of casework placement decision-making,and the breadth of factors caseworkers consider while attempting to balancecompeting child welfare orientations [3]. Findings are consistent with currentliterature where placement cases were noted as having a higher percentage ofchildren younger than 1 year old, and factors which create a greater level ofrisk to the child such as increased child functioning concerns, increasedcaregiver risk factors, and poorer household conditions. Placement cases notedhigher percentages for physical abuse, neglect, and emotional maltreatment.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».