The Impact of Housing First on Criminal Justice Outcomes among Homeless People with Mental Illness: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractObjective:Housing First is increasingly put forward as an important component of a pragmatic plan to end homelessness. The literature evaluating the impact of Housing First on criminal justice involvement has not yet been systematically examined. The objective of this systematic review is to examine the impact of Housing First on criminal justice outcomes among homeless people with mental illness.Method:Five electronic databases (PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science) were searched up until July 2018 for randomised and nonrandomised studies of Housing First among homeless people with a serious mental disorder.Results:Five studies were included for a total of 7128 participants. Two studies from a randomised controlled trial found no effect of Housing First on arrests compared to treatment as usual. Other studies compared Housing First to other programs or compared configurations of HF and found reductions in criminal justice involvement among Housing First participants.Conclusions:This systematic review suggests that Housing First, on average, has little impact on criminal justice involvement. Community services such as Housing First are potentially an important setting to put in place strategies to reduce criminal justice involvement. However, forensic mental health approaches such as risk assessment and management strategies and interventions may need to be integrated into existing services to better address potential underlying individual criminogenic risk factors. Further outcome assessment studies would be necessary. RésuméObjectif:Le programme Logement d’abord est de plus en plus mis de l’avant à titre de composante essentielle d’un plan pragmatique en vue de mettre fin à l’itinérance. La littérature qui évalue l’effet de Logement d’abord sur la judiciarisation n’a pas encore été examinée systématiquement. L’objectif de cette revue systématique est d’examiner l’effet de Logement d’abord sur les résultats de justice pénale chez les personnes en situation d’itinérance vivant avec une maladie mentale.Méthode:Cinq bases de données électroniques (PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science) ont fait l’objet, jusqu’en juillet 2018, d’une recherche d’études randomisées et non randomisées de Logement d’abord chez les personnes en situation d’itinérance ayant un trouble mental grave.Résultats:Cinq études ont été incluses, totalisant 7128 participants. Deux études d’un essai randomisé contrôlé n’ont observé aucun effet de Logement d’abord sur les arrestations comparativement au traitement habituel. D’autres études ont comparé Logement d’abord avec d’autres programmes ou ont comparé les configurations de Logement d’abord et constaté des réductions de l’utilisation des services judiciaires chez les participants à Logement d’abord.Conclusions:Cette revue systématique suggère que Logement d’abord, en moyenne, a peu d’effet sur l’utilisation des services judiciaires. Les services communautaires comme Logement d’abord sont potentiellement un contexte important où instaurer des stratégies visant à réduire la judiciarisation. Cependant, les approches psycho-légales comme l’évaluation et la gestion des risques doivent peut-être être intégrées aux services existants afin de mieux cibler les facteurs de risque criminogènes potentiellement sous-jacents. Des études d’évaluation des résultats seraient nécessaires.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".