From nowhere to nowhere. Homelessness and incarceration: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aims to review international literature systematically to estimate the prevalence of homelessness among incarcerated persons at the time of imprisonment and the time of discharge. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: A systematic review methodology was used to identify quantitative observational studies that looked at the prevalence of homelessness at the time of imprisonment, or up to 30 days prior to that point (initial homelessness), and at the time of discharge from prisons. Studies reported in English from inception to 11 September 2019 were searched for using eight databases (PsycInfo, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycArticles, Scopus, Web of Science and the Campbell Collaboration), in addition to grey literature. Studies were screened independently by three researchers. Results of studies meeting inclusion criteria were meta-analysed using a random effects model to generate pooled prevalence data. FINDINGS: A total of 18 out of 2,131 studies met the inclusion criteria. All studies originated from the USA, Canada, UK, Ireland or Australia. The estimated prevalence of initial homelessness was 23.41% and at time of discharge was 29.94%. Substantial heterogeneity was observed among studies. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: People in prisons are over twenty times more likely to be homeless than those in the general population. This is likely attributable to a range of health and social factors. Studies in this analysis suggest higher rates of homelessness in minority populations and among those with mental illnesses and neurodevelopmental disorders. While there was significant heterogeneity among studies, the results highlight the global burden of this issue and a clear necessity for targeted interventions to address homelessness in this population.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".