Community Change Programs for Children and Youth At-Risk: A Review of Lessons Learned
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The significant role of the community in the lives of children and youth at-risk has become increasingly clear to social work academics and professionals over the last three decades. Alongside the more traditional individual and family responses, community interventions have been designed to catalyze change in the environment of children and youth at-risk and supply holistic and sustainable responses to their needs. Ten such community intervention programs were identified from the United States, Australia, Canada, and Israel. Most employed the community development model, focused on developing leadership and social capital (improving community networking) and advancing coordination between the organizations and sectors in the field of risk among children and youth. The diverse programs reviewed focused both on at-risk children and youth in general or specifically on child abuse and neglect. The programs originated from different health, education, and welfare disciplines and sponsoring authorities. The majority were funded originally by private foundations; however, government involvement was significant, particularly in the adoption and support of initiatives after their development. The current analysis of the programs refers to core issues that arose from the review: professional orientation, main target unit, main initiator, and research and evaluation. Analysis of program characteristics enables identifying relevant aspects of these programs for use by policy, governmental, and nonprofit sector stakeholders seeking to develop similar programs. Conclusions and recommendations to advance the field are suggested considering the current context of government cuts in welfare funds.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".