The impact of relational permanency and mentorship on care leavers in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD) has identified the importance of permanency for children and youth in care, defined as “permanent, stable relationships” which “are a major determinant of whether children feel safe and secure and therefore, of well-being overall” (MCFD, n.d.). However, currently only 20% of children and youth transitioning from government care in British Columbia (BC) achieve it, while the remaining 80% are left to navigate a complex adult system and the incumbent challenges that ensue on their own (GBC, 2019). Limited research has been conducted on the impact of relational permanency and mentorship, or the lack thereof, on care leavers in BC; this thesis examines this topic, identifies mentorship programs for youth in or recently out of care, and recommends system improvements based on policy reviews, literature reviews, and interviews with care providers and youth transitioned from care. The literature review highlights the importance of youth mentorship as a support for youth in and/or transitioned from care as well as the root causes of systemic issues within the child welfare system. The policy review uncovers gaps and inconsistencies within MCFD’s policies and practices that enable discretionary decision-making and undermine consistency and clarity. The interviews expose ongoing community-based mentoring (CBM) program, care leaver, and system level challenges, as well as opportunities to improve outcomes for youth in and/or transitioned from care. Ultimately, this research highlights the importance of relational permanency in the lives of children and youth in and transitioned from care, while drawing attention to the reasons that many care leavers do not attain it. Additionally, it demonstrates the effectiveness of CBM programs and identifies the need and opportunity for system change, both at the provincial level and specific to MCFD. The proposed recommendations provide implementable solutions to the identified policy gaps and inconsistencies, as well as a systems level reform to the purpose and role of MCFD.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".