Power and Child Protection: The Need for a Child Welfare Service Users' Union or Association
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper reports a study in which parents who had received child protection intervention set out to develop a “Service Users' Guide” to help parents newly receiving intervention better understand and cope with the process. The study took place in Ontario, Canada between 2004–2009. Ninety-five parents took part in 13 focus groups and 20 individual interviews. A mix of Participatory Action and grounded theory methods were used to enable parents to develop their service uses guide. As the study progressed it quickly became evident that the biggest issue parents face when receiving intervention is an imbalance in power between themselves and workers. This paper describes the problems this power imbalance causes for parents and presents a potential solution suggested by parents themselves – the development of a child welfare service users' association or union. Parent's ideas about why this association is needed, how it could function, and the benefits it might bring, are discussed. The paper concludes by reviewing the benefits a service users' association might bring not only for those receiving child welfare intervention, but all social work services.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".