Homelessness Prevention Interventions for Single Adults at Risk of or Experiencing MEH: A Systematic Review on their Effectiveness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Homelessness prevention for single adults at risk of or experiencing multiple exclusion homelessness (MEH) has received limited attention in research. This systematic review focused on the effectiveness of primary, secondary, and tertiary homelessness prevention interventions and strategies for this population. We searched four databases (Embasse, PsycInfo, Medline, and Allied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts [ASSIA]) for peer-reviewed empirically completed quantitative and qualitative studies and systematic reviews between 1992 and 2021. We identified ten categories of interventions based on the kind of support they provide: accommodation, financial assistance, case management, outreach, mental health care, joint mental health and substance use care, substance use care, other social support, policies and legal assistance. We found that research has principally focused on tertiary prevention, the prevention of chronic homelessness, and there is a lack of research on the effectiveness of upstream primary prevention strategies that would intervene before someone is at imminent risk of homelessness. However, within the secondary and tertiary prevention space, the best approach was a multifaceted cross-sector collaboration of different services. Many studies concluded that those at risk of or experiencing MEH require high intensity services combining a range of housing and support service options. Housing First, Assertive Community Treatment, Critical Time Intervention were high intensity services that were consistently found to be effective in preventing homelessness. Intensive case management had mixed evidence on effectiveness. Financial assistance was identified as important for preventing first-time, recurrent, and chronic homelessness in many studies and may be essential, but unlikely to be enough on its own. Finally, the prevention of homelessness after discharge from institutional care was found to be critical with several interventions showing to be effective here.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".