“Getting Everyone on the Same Page” An Integrated Transition Planning Process for Youths with an Intellectual/Developmental Disability with a Social Return on Investment Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transitioning out of high school is a significant step in a young person’s life. The Tri-Sector TAY Planning process in the Niagara Region of Ontario, Canada has developed a single integrated transition plan for youths with an intellectual and/or developmental disability (I/DD). This plan unfolds collaboratively, with education and community professionals meeting at the same planning table with the family and the youth beginning at the age of 14 years. Notably, no new government funding was provided to support this process. The case study reported herein explored both the potential benefits of the Tri-Sector Planning process and the ways in which this multi-sector planning procedure might be improved. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with fourteen participants, including youths, parents, and professionals. A qualitative thematic data analysis was conducted. Collaboration was identified as an important component of the multi-sector integrated planning process, critical to promoting successful outcomes for youths, including gainful employment and entry into post-secondary education. On the question of possible improvements to the procedure, promoting increased youth engagement and agency during the planning process emerged as an important consideration. In addition, a Social Return on Investment (SROI) quantitative and qualitative data analysis was completed on the case study data to examine the identified impacts of the process. Even with the investment into the Niagara Region Tri-Sector TAY Planning process based only on an estimate of funding from participating organizations, the net SROI ratio was 1.00:4.92, illustrating that for every $1.00 of funding contributed by participating organizations, the after-cost impact benefit was $4.92.
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 | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".