Implementation of a Healthy Relationships Program with Youth at the Children’s Aid Society
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Child welfare-involved youth require support to enhance their relationship skills given their susceptibility to engaging in high-risk interpersonal behaviours. This case study explored the feasibility of implementing an evidence-based healthy relationships program, the Healthy Relationships Program - Enhanced (HRP-E), with child welfare-involved youth. Over 9 months, four HRP-E groups were facilitated at an Ontario Children’s Aid Society, involving 28 youth. Interviews were conducted with facilitators (n = 5) and youth (n = 13) to examine their view of the program. Facilitators completed surveys that evaluated the facilitation of each session and overall program implementation. Thematic analysis of the data were conducted and results indicated that the HRP-E is perceived as a valuable program that is relevant and useful for child welfare-involved youth but requires trauma-informed facilitation and commitment of child welfare agency resources. The outcomes of this study contribute to understanding the factors to consider when implementing a healthy relationships program with child welfare-involved youth.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".