Willingness of Housing First Participants to Consider Supported-Employment Services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: People who had a recent history of homelessness and had mental illness were studied to determine how many wished to be employed and were willing to accept supported-employment services and the factors associated with a decision to decline services. METHODS: People (N=194) with mental illness receiving Housing First were assessed at three-month intervals over 24 months. Analyses determined variables that were associated with accepting or declining randomization to supported-employment services. A regression model was used to determine the odds of obtaining employment. RESULTS: Of the 133 (69%) participants who wanted work, 75 (56%) accepted and 58 (44%) declined randomization to services. Those who declined had lower odds of obtaining employment (OR=.42, p=.022), less education, and fewer arrests and had spent less time homeless. CONCLUSIONS: People with a recent history of homelessness who have a mental illness want work. People who declined randomization to supported-employment services had fewer barriers to employment but had reduced odds of obtaining employment.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".