Communication with children : an aspect of foster home placement with social work with children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study is concerned with the social workers ways of communicating with children in foster placement and related situations. It examines what, exactly, is communicated to the child by the social worker, operating within Agency policy and structure; and the effect that this communication has on the child's ability to respond to placement as treatment. It is concerned, also, with the various methods by which the child's needs are communicated to the social worker; and the ways in which the worker responds to those needs, with special emphasis on when, how, and why the social worker communicates directly with the child. The study proceeds from a review of some of the recent literature on semantics as well as recent child welfare literature. This is supplemented by material gathered from interviews with twelve professionally-trained social workers, currently employed in child welfare work in and near Vancouver, and illustrated with brief summaries of six cases from their practice. The workers were interviewed with the purpose of ascertaining from them: what they judged to be the more effective ways they had found of communicating with children; their definition of the use they make of direct communication with children, indirect communication through parents or foster parents, and of joint interviewing; what they see as their particular contribution to the child in the placement situation; and some of the difficulties they encounter in performing their work. The results point up the differences between children and adults, and the effects of these differences on methods of communication. They emphasize the treatment aspect of placement, and the importance of structure, plan, and clear definition of treatment goals in order to enable the worker to channel her communications, both to the child and on behalf of the child, toward establishing hope and confidence in the possible achievement of those goals. It indicates a need for further study of communication and casework, with some implications for further refining the definition of the scope and limits of the casework method.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".