Care Providers of Indigenous Children and Youth in the Child Welfare System: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Indigenous children continue to be significantly over‐represented in child welfare systems in Canada, the United States, Australia and New Zealand. This scoping review represents a subset of a larger review, the objective of which was to consolidate the extant literature on Indigenous child welfare. The results from the broader review were categorized into 10 different subtopics, of which care provider experiences, the topic of this article, is just one. This review summarizes research pertaining to foster parents and kinship caregivers of Indigenous children within the child welfare system. Key findings included caregivers' financial challenges, rewards of fostering, barriers to providing Indigenous cultural and relational connections, barriers to recruiting Indigenous foster parents and mistrust of the child welfare system. Recommendations emphasized Indigenous‐run programmes, education and training for service workers and recruiting foster families willing to maintain youth connections to family and culture. This review further identifies a small but growing collection of Indigenous‐led or co‐authored scholarship that is bringing more balance and knowledge to a topic still dominated by Western research models and biases.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".