Relationship-building, community-building, and security of the building: staff perspectives on tenant retention in permanent supportive housing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives: The objective of this article is to explore how housing practitioners navigate the challenge of tenant retention within Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) programs and the practices they associate with program success. Methods: This article draws on semistructured interviews with 10 housing practitioners from 7 organizations operating 8 PSH programs in Edmonton, a city with roughly one million people in Alberta, Canada. Results: This article focuses on 3 specific challenges that have implications for the retention of residents: (1) interpersonal conflict, (2) property damage, and (3) guest management. It also focuses on 3 “promising practices” that practitioners have utilized to mitigate these challenges: (1) relationship-building, (2) community-building, and (3) security of the buildings. Conclusions: Tenant retention is integral to the realization of positive program outcomes in PSH. There are several factors affecting tenant retention. To address these challenges, the staff interviewed in this research found success in building programmatic elements that fostered positive interpersonal relationships, managed the behavior of guests on the property, and ensured the physical integrity of the buildings.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".