MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7019179780

Exploring Compassion in the Ontario Child Welfare System.

2021· article· en· W7019179780 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueScholars Commons (Wilfrid Laurier University) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Work Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompassionBurnoutDistressWelfareMindfulnessCompassion fatigueAgency (philosophy)Qualitative research
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Child welfare workers are faced with suffering on a daily basis. Workers report experiencing empathetic distress (also known as compassion fatigue) and many feel discouraged from showing self-compassion or compassion toward others. However, the literature on compassion suggests that self-compassion and compassion for others builds resiliency, improves job satisfaction and increases engagement. Workers who support themselves with self-compassion may be less likely to experience burnout and more willing to create inclusive and compassionate environments. This study was conducted in two phases. The goals of the Phase 1 mixed-method, cross sectional study were to (1) assess the level of self-compassion and compassion for others experienced by child welfare workers and (2) to identify barriers and facilitators to organizational compassion. A quantitative survey was administered to 100 employees in a child welfare agency in Ontario. Twenty employees (20%) completed the online survey. Two leaders were interviewed about compassion in their organization. Data collection was discontinued because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Phase 1 findings show a low-level of organizational trust reported by workers and lower levels of self-compassion and compassion for and from others compared to a sample of US Child Welfare workers. Qualitative findings revealed barriers to compassion including: a culture of toughness, role siloing, layoffs and lack of trust among workers, fear, and a crisis driven organizational environment subject to persistent system changes. Facilitators included: worker interpretation of the reason for the behaviour (trauma informed practice), curiosity, listening to the voices of clients, flexibility, risk-taking, mindfulness and supervisor support.\nPhase 2 of this study involved a comparative content analysis of the 1990 Child and Family Services Act (CFSA) and the 2017 Child and Youth Family Services Act (CYFSA) alongside the 2016 Ontario Child Protection Standards. The goal of this Phase 2 portion was to investigate how compassion is framed discursively and institutionally within this organization. Overall, the results showed an absence of language pertaining to the concept of compassion across all texts. It also showed an increased emphasis on control and surveillance over the work of CASs in the CYFSA and accompanying Standards as compared to the CFSA. Additionally, the CYFSA showed an increased focus on the rights of children, as well as relationships with parents, which are promising indicators of compassion. Overall however, the language of the legislation complicates the possibilities for emphasizing compassion, thereby increasing the potential for more dehumanized forms of intervention. The study concludes with recommendations for increasing compassion inside child welfare systems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.129
Threshold uncertainty score0.373

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholars Commons (Wilfrid Laurier University)Same topicSocial Work Education and PracticeFrench-language works237,207