Measuring the impact of transition on children aging out of child protective services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".