Sustaining Housing First After a Successful Research Demonstration Trial: Lessons Learned in a Large Urban Center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to identify challenges and facilitators of sustaining a Housing First intervention at the conclusion of a research demonstration project in Toronto. METHODS: This qualitative study included key informant interviews with organizational leaders (N=13) and focus groups with service team members (N=14) and program participants (N=9) of the At Home/Chez Soi Research Demonstration Project. Thematic analysis was used to identify key themes related to sustainability of Housing First beyond the demonstration phase. RESULTS: Factors that helped secure long-term funding support for Housing First included the positive findings of a rigorous evaluation, early stakeholder engagement, and strong local leadership. Reduced funding, poor intersectoral integration, and lack of central oversight threatened fidelity to the evidence-based model and challenged sustainability. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence-based complex interventions such as Housing First require robust intersectoral collaboration and flexible systems for funding and monitoring to ensure continuing model fidelity and responsiveness to changing contexts.
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 | 0.078 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".