Impact of out-of-home care on children’s outcomes: A longitudinal cohort study using linked administrative data from Manitoba, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ObjectiveTo provide rigorous quantitative evidence about the impact of out-of-home care on children’s outcomes. ApproachGuided by an Advisory Circle of First Nations (FN) Knowledge Keepers and conducted in partnership with FN researchers, we used linked administrative data to identify all Manitoba children served by Child Protection Services (CPS) at FN agencies (FNA) and other agencies (OA) (2007-2018). We compared health, education, and legal system outcomes of those in care (FNA n=10,856; OA n=8,468) to those with protection concerns but not in care (FNA n=12,896; OA n=14,394). Using instrumental variable analysis with CPS agency rate of out-of-home care as the instrument, outcomes between groups were compared using 2-stage multivariate probit regressions adjusted for child and family factors. ResultsOdds of teen pregnancy (FNA OR 3.69, 95% CI 1.40-9.77; OA 5.10 (1.83-14.25)), teen birth (FNA 3.23 (1.10-9.49); OA 5.06 (1.70-15.03)), and positive STI tests (FNA ns; OA 7.21 (3.63-14.32)) were higher and odds of vaccination at age 2 (FNA ns; OA 0.49 (0.29-0.80)) were lower for children in care than children not in care. Odds of being accused (FNA ns; OA 2.71 (1.27-5.75)), victim (FNA ns; OA 1.68 (1.10-2.56)), or charged with a crime (FNA ns; OA 2.68 (1.21-5.96)), and odds of being incarcerated (FNA 3.64 (1.95-6.80); OA 1.19 (1.19-8.04)) were higher for children in care. ConclusionsOut-of-home care negatively affects children’s health, social and legal system outcomes. ImplicationsCPS agencies should work with FN leaders to develop and implement strategies to reduce the number of children taken into 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".