The Therapeutic Family Care Program: A 10-year community implementation of Treatment Foster Care in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study describes a community implementation of treatment foster care (TFC) for children and youth involved with child welfare in Ontario, Canada. There were two guiding research questions: (1) how are children and adolescents changing over the course of services and (2) how have the placements of children and adolescents changed over time? Clinical outcomes were tracked using the Assessment Checklist for Children (ACC) and Assessment Checklist for Adolescents (ACAs)—clinical tools that were specially designed to assess the functioning of young people in care. There were 1,068 ACCs on 518 children, and 559 ACAs on 222 adolescents. Each additional year of involvement with Therapeutic Family Care Program corresponded to additional improvement for both children, d = −.18; 95% confidence interval (CI) = −.25 to −.12, and adolescents, d = −.11; 95%CI = −.18 to −.03. Moderators and subdomains of clinical improvement were considered, though findings generally revealed significant improvement over time for most youngsters in most clinical areas. At the program level, there has been a significant increase in placement permanence across the last decade (i.e., greater prevalence of birth parent, adoption, and kinship care). In sum, this study illustrates an example of community implementation for TFC in a child welfare setting, which necessarily includes the systematic tracking of outcomes in the context of evidence-supported intervention.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".