Finding independence: how former Youth-In-Care and the Ministry for Children and Families work together while completing SPY agreements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This exploratory study was completed as part of my practicum requirements for the Master of Social Work degree. Questionnaires and short focused interviews were employed as the major methods of inquiry for the study. The study examined some of the issues that former continuing care youth (FCCY) face when they are finding independence and accessing the Services for Former Permanent Youth in Care (SPY) program. Some children who live in foster care in the province of British Columbia become continuing care wards and remain permanent wards until they reach the age of 19. These youth may, after turning 19 and before their 24 birthday, apply for the SPY program at the Ministry for Children and Families (MCF). The SPY program is also known as the Post Majority Services program. During the period studied, the number of FCCY in the Capital Region and who received the support of the SPY program, was provincially low (5.26 percent). This study examined how the guardianship social worker and the eligible youth negotiate a SPY agreement. This study further explored how the current participants of the SPY program were assisted in their transition from foster care to independence and how they used the SPY program to facilitate this. Some of the identified barriers for youth leaving the care of the MCF, were a lack in drug and alcohol services, education, finances, housing, mental health services, rehabilitation, and supportive relationships. The findings demonstrated that these former continuing care youth required further child welfare support after they leave foster care.
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 | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".