The importance of permanency planning from the Indigenous child welfare survivors’ perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Child welfare agencies in Manitoba are facing critical challenges with the ongoing adverse outcomes for Indigenous children under their care. Addressing this issue, a comprehensive qualitative study was conducted, incorporating two Indigenous methodologies, the Talking Circle and The Visiting Way, to provide a culturally relevant and insightful perspective. This research aimed to rigorously evaluate the impact of permanent placement options on the well-being of Indigenous children. It sought to determine if these placements significantly improved outcomes and overall well-being, as experienced and reported by those navigating the child welfare system. The study's findings are pivotal in understanding and enhancing the care strategies for Indigenous children in Manitoba. Significantly, the Talking Circle method, a cornerstone of this research, unexpectedly fell short in its effectiveness for data collection. Despite this, the study revealed critical insights. Participants consistently reported profound difficulties stemming from frequent transitions between various living environments within the foster care system. This constant movement severely undermined their sense of stability and predictability. Most notably, these unstable conditions had a profoundly adverse impact on the mental health and overall well-being of the participants, highlighting a crucial area for urgent intervention in the child welfare system. This research unequivocally demonstrates that the lack of a stable, long-term home environment is crucial to participants' hardships. A consistent and secure living situation is not merely beneficial but crucial for fostering a sense of safety, belonging, and overall well-being among these individuals, as evidenced by the study's findings. Therefore, integrating these insights into policy and practice is imperative for transforming Manitoba’s Child Welfare system, particularly to enhance the outcomes for Indigenous children under its care. The paper culminates in a detailed analysis of these findings and proposes strategic directions for future research, underscoring the urgent need for systemic change.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".