An Evaluation of Housing First Programs in Calgary
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Calgary is one of many cities internationally that has implemented a Housing First (HF) model for reducing homelessness. The HF model is based on the philosophy that stable housing, provided without preconditions, is a necessary prerequisite for helping someone deal with the issues that have caused them to become homeless. The original HF model, New York City’s Pathways Housing First (PHF) model, has been closely studied with the use of controlled experiments involving clients whose personal characteristics match those for whom the model is designed. Based on the favourable evidence drawn from these controlled experiments, many jurisdictions have implemented HF programs. These include many programs that have drifted a considerable distance from the design of the Pathways model. Despite this drift in program design, HF programs continue to find support from governments comforted by the favourable results of controlled experiments. In this paper we evaluate HF programs implemented in a real world, non-experimental setting over many years. Evaluating HF programs as they are implemented in large scale non-experimental settings is important for determining their practical usefulness to system operators and policymakers. Using richly detailed administrative datasets, we evaluate the success of HF programs as implemented in Calgary over the period 2012 to 2018. We identify the extent of the drift of these HF programs from the original Pathways model and show how the personal characteristics of people chosen for HF programs influence the rate of program success. We find that HF programs in Calgary have proven very successful in graduating people to permanent housing and reducing the number of people returning to homelessness. Fifty-five per cent of clients enrolled in HF programs, many of whom are dealing with the debilitating effects if mental health challenges, substance abuse, and prolonged periods of homelessness, remained housed in HF programs or graduate to permanent housing without case management support. We argue that this rate of success is comparable to that claimed for PHF programs evaluated under controlled conditions and for much shorter periods. Although the devil is in his usual place when it comes to evaluating the success of any HF program, our results are suggestive that limited deviations from the Pathways model, such as those we observed in Calgary, do not significantly affect the rates of success reported from controlled experiments.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,014 | 0,032 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».