 |
 |
Would anyone like to venture some interpretations for me? I'm just afraid I may be missing something here. I'm looking at behavior problem cases with older kids and teens in two Canadian provinces that end up as child protection cases. "Summarizing this section, we found (1) that problems were judged as having been of longer duration in [Province A] cases at the time of investigation; (2) that [Province B] cases were more likely to have had prior contact with the child protection system, and (3) that the presence of behavior problems increases the likelihood of such prior contact with the child protection system in [Province B], but not in [Province A]. These findings could be interpreted as indicating that [Province B] families are finding their way into the system at an earlier stage where a child's behavior is becoming problematical. " Names of Canadian provinces are of course hidden for reasons of confidentiality. Is my interpretation reasonable? Are there alternatives, assuming the respondents in the two provinces made their judgments in the same way? David Klein