MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The availability and evaluation of education and training programs for child welfare workers serving migrant and newcomer children and families: A scoping review of the empirical literature Spanning 25-years

2025· review· en· W4408284215 on OpenAlexafffund
Barbara Lee, Kristen Lwin, Rose Zhao, Vivian T. Thieu, Jennifer Ma

Bibliographic record

VenueChildren and Youth Services Review · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChild Welfare and Adoption
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of WindsorUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsWelfareParent trainingTraining (meteorology)Migrant workersPsychologyMedical educationMedicinePolitical scienceEconomic growthPsychiatryGeographyEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• Only four primary studies found within the empirical literature over 25-years. • All studies show training improved outcomes with migrant children and families. • Child welfare needs to be better equipped to respond to migrants and newcomers. • Training needs to attend to issues of citizenship, settlement, and acculturation. The number of migrant children or children of migrant parents continues to grow in the contemporary global world. Interlocking social and structural inequalities contribute to these children and families’ vulnerabilities and risk of future maltreatment. The child welfare system has struggled to provide culturally appropriate service and care to racialized and cultural communities. The purpose of this scoping review is to explore the availability and effectiveness of the available education and training programs developed within the past 25-years for child welfare workers working with migrant and newcomer populations involved in the child welfare system. Arksey and O’Malley’s (2005) framework and the PRISMA-ScR reporting guidelines ( Peters et al., 2020 , Tricco et al., 2018 ) were used to guide the process. The scoping review included: 1) electronic databases search, 2) hand-search of relevant journals, research repositories, and dissertation databases, and 3) reference lists of the studies included in the scoping review. The scoping review included original evaluation research in the English language from January 1, 1997 to December 31, 2022. The scoping review yielded a total of four publications. All of the studies were published between 2010 and 2016 and were conducted in the United States. One study used a qualitative approach, while three studies used a mixed-methods approach. All of the studies reported the training programs led to improved outcomes and a greater understanding of working with migrant and newcomer populations. More research is needed to fill this significant knowledge gap. This scoping review offers some insights and recommendations for future research and practice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.793
Threshold uncertainty score0.962

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.321 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChildren and Youth Services ReviewSame topicChild Welfare and AdoptionFrench-language works237,207