Overview of out of home care in the USA and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper begins by suggesting that child welfare systems in North America and selected European and Scandinavian countries have converged functionally over the last two decades from a focus on child protection or family service to a more comprehensive child development orientation. The overview of the US in-care system covers the topics of mandatory reporting of child maltreatment, permanency planning, foster care funding, and decentralized service provision. It also portrays the current US foster care population and describes recent research on efforts to reduce the number of children in care, differential response, practice and policy reform, subsidized guardianship, Casey Family Programs, transitions to adulthood, and racial disparities in placements in out-of-home care. The overview of the Canadian in-care system notes the responsibility of the 10 provinces and three northern territories for child welfare and the concomitant lack of national data on child protection or out-of-home care. Estimates of the number of children in care are presented, and a review of research describes the following topics: rates and types of maltreatment, over-representation of Aboriginal children in care, prevention of the recurrence of neglect and physical abuse, effects of placement into care, differential response, resilience, educational achievement, and transitions from care. The paper concludes by noting certain differences and similarities between the US and Canadian in-care systems.
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 | 0.000 | 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".