{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.011984021304926764, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005326231691078562, 'mean_word_length': 5.482758620689655, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Attempting to operationalize a multi-dimensional definition of permanency in child welfare practice: results from a demonstration project

ABSTRACT Permanency has been a cornerstone concept in child welfare since the 1960s. Despite its endorsement as a best practice principle in promoting the wellbeing of children in child welfare care, debate persists about the key elements of the concept and their effects, particularly in relation to the emphasis on legal permanency when children in care cannot be reunited with their parents. This article describes results from a demonstration project using a Family Finding service model. It aimed to operationalize a multi-dimensional permanency definition where most of the children served were Indigenous.