Money in Foster Care: An Exploration of How Foster Care Grants Are Used By Foster Parents in South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Foster care is a form of alternative care arrangement for children in need of care and protection. Upon the placement of a child in foster care, a grant is given to foster parents to provide for the needs of that child. A qualitative approach was adopted to explore how the foster parents in South Africa utilize the foster child grant. Purposive sampling was used to select twenty participants for the study. Data was collected from 10 foster children and 10 foster parents through semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions, and analyzed using thematic analysis. The findings revealed that both foster parents and foster children make decisions about what to use the foster care grant on. However, some foster parents do not spend the grant as expected. The foster care grant is meant to assist in the upbringing of foster children and not as an extra income to the parents. The study concludes that the grant should be increased as the current amount does not meet all the children’s needs and that social workers should intensify monitoring and supervision of foster care placements. It is recommended that future studies should develop a foster care grant supervision and monitoring framework.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".