Young People Transitioning From Out-Of-Home Care (OOHC) in the State of Victoria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Young people transitioning from forms of out-of-home care (OOHC), such as foster, kinship, and residential group home care (known as care leavers), are globally a vulnerable group. Many experience volatile transitions to adulthood, resulting in limited life chances. A disproportionate number of care leavers in Australia come from First Nations backgrounds, which is also the case for this cohort in Canada and New Zealand. There has been long-standing public awareness in Australia of care leaver disadvantage, and considerable research evidence as to the failures of existing policies, and the urgent need for policy and practice reform. Multiple studies have demonstrated that it is inadequate to cease financial support to these youth once they turn 18 years and to expect them to suddenly transition to self-reliant adulthood without any of the ongoing family and social supports that most of their noncare peers access until at least 25 years of age. Yet it was only in response to the Home Stretch advocacy campaign that all eight Australian States and Territories finally introduced (by the end of 2022) extended care supports to care leavers till 21 years of age. Drawing on my 25 years of engagement in care leaver research, this chapter critically examines the social and economic arguments that were used by governments over three decades to delay reform and details the contrasting evidence presented in favor of policy change. It then analyzes the key strategies used by the Home Stretch campaign and explains why they succeeded when earlier advocacy activities had failed.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".