A Grounded Theory of Provider Perspectives Regarding Resident Moves from Permanent Supportive Housing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To address the ongoing supply-demand gap for permanent supportive housing (PSH), Moving On initiatives (MOIs) provide linkage to affordable housing without embedded support services and rental subsidies, as well as short-term transitional case management to support transitions to independent housing. PSH providers mediate outcomes for individuals moving on from PSH by providing appropriate supports and assistance. Yet, little is known about how providers view these moves. This study explores how providers perceive moves from PSH. Individual interviews were completed with PSH providers from seven U.S. agencies. Data was analyzed via a modified grounded theory approach. The data show that organizational support and prior experience with moving on shape providers’ perceptions of resident capacity. These perceptions were associated with gatekeeping and recovery-oriented approaches, which informed providers’ self-perceived role as following or leading residents towards moving on. System-level support and pressure to adopt a moving on mindset may lead more providers to promote independence and autonomy among individuals with histories of homelessness.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".