Measuring the impact of transition on children aging out of child protective services
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
IntroductionOn their 18th birthday children in custody of provincial Child and Family Services (CFS) age out, and are adults in control of their own care. An additional extended transitional services program was introduced several years ago to address gaps in the provicion of, and access to, adult social services during this change.
 Objectives and ApproachUsing linked population based data from the Manitoba Population Research Data Repository, children in the custody of CFS who turned 18 during a 10 year study period were compared to children not in custody. For those in custody of CFS, we also compared individuals who participated in the extended transitional care services to those who opted out. Outcomes included use of health services and prescription drugs, social assistance, involvment with the justice system, living in social housing, and mental health outcomes. For most outcomes, the two year period prior to the 18th birthday and the two year period after were measured.
 ResultsDuring the study period, 4656 children in care of CFS turned 18 while in custody. There were 2811 permanent wards, of which 1663 participated in the extended transitional services program. An additional 1845 non-permanent wards also turned 18 during the study period. Permanent wards were much more likely to be long term wards (greater than six years, ~65\%) compared non permanent wards (~17\%). Opioid prescription rates more than doubled in the two years after their 18th birthday and were about 6 times greater than prescription rates for those not in care of CFS. Criminal accusation rates did not change after their 18th birthday, were about equal for permanent and non-permanent wards. For the majority of outcomes, the transitional services program appeared to have little impact.
 Conclusion/ImplicationsCompared to children not in care of CFS, rates of most outcomes were considerably higher for wards. Not all outcomes demonstrated a significant change over the transition period. By linking data from so many different government departments, extra attention can be focused on areas likely to have the greatest impact.
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 | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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 ».