Time-out placements in residential care: Towards a better understanding of restrictive measures in response to the behavioral manifestations of vulnerable youths
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Youth in care are significantly more likely to exhibit intense behavioral manifestations (behavior that puts the youth or those around him at risk, or challenges the therapeutic relationship) than are youth in the general population and the majority have a history of multiple traumas. When youth behavior escalate, efforts are made to mitigate these behaviors. In Quebec (Canada), one such strategy is time-out placement (TOP). TOP is a short-term placement whose main objective is to temporarily separate a youth manifesting severe behaviors from the environment in which these behaviors occur. However, literature on trauma-informed practice suggests that TOP may present an increased risk of placement instability. Our study aims to analyze differences between youth who have experienced this measure and those who have not in their placement trajectory, in the restrictive measures employed and in their behavior. The population (N = 3755) consisted of all youth (12–17 years old) having experienced residential care placement one day or longer, between the years 2014 and 2019, in Montreal. To control the potential effect of trajectory in childhood, a propensity score matching method was used to analyze the data extracted and create two groups based on the presence or absence of TOP in adolescence, then compared using hierarchical logistic regression. The results show that youth who have been subjected to at least one TOP in adolescence are more likely to exhibit behaviors of such intensity as to prompt the use of restrictive measures, and that the use of TOPs in the context of runaways may be commonplace. Indeed, TOPs are also associated with greater placement instability. Our study supports recommendations to reform the intervention paradigm of child welfare services and institutions, rethinking current approaches to meeting the needs of youths in care to ensure that care becomes more trauma-sensitive. • The likelihood of experiencing a Time-out placement increased with time spent in care. • Youths with at least one Time-out placement experience more restrictive measures. • Each running away increases youths' risk of experiencing a Time-out placement. • Placement moves are more likely for youths with at least one Time-out placement.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".