Inclusive foster care: How foster parents support cultural and relational connections for Indigenous children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract How do foster parents support the relational and cultural connections of Indigenous children in care? The answer matters; the well‐being of Indigenous children depends on these connections. At one of Canada's largest Indigenous child welfare agencies, we implemented inclusive foster care, an approach requiring foster parents to engage with the family, community, and cultural life of the child for whom they care. Fifteen years later, we present findings from a thematic analysis of interviews with 13 foster parents who participated in a mixed methods study exploring inclusive foster care. We discuss foster parent strategies to support the child's family relationships: setting clear boundaries, rolling with inconsistency, and understanding the family's (hi)stories. Strategies to strengthen cultural connectedness include visiting traditional territory, using personal initiative and Indigenous knowledge, and engaging in school‐based and “multi‐purpose” cultural opportunities. Drawing on foster parent stories of success, we propose ways for social workers, foster parents, and policymakers to address the cultural and relational disruption that characterizes the experience of Indigenous children in care in colonial settler societies.
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 | 0.019 | 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".