Service restrictions from emergency shelters among people experiencing homelessness: Uncovering pathways into unsheltered homelessness and institutional circuitry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Service restrictions refer to temporary or permanent bans of individuals from a program or an organization's services, and are widely used in emergency shelter systems. Limited research exists on how service restrictions unfold and their impacts on people experiencing homelessness. This qualitative study used in-depth interviews with timeline mapping to examine the antecedents and consequences of service restrictions from emergency shelters among people experiencing homelessness in two cities in Ontario, Canada. A total of 49 people experiencing homelessness who had been restricted from an emergency shelter program in the past year were recruited and included in the study analysis. A pragmatic and integrative approach was used for data analysis that involved the development of meta-matrices to identify prominent and divergent perspectives and experiences with regard to service restriction antecedents and consequences. Study findings underscored that service restrictions were often the result of violence and aggression, primarily between service users. There were regional differences in other service restriction reasons, including substance use and possession. Service restrictions affected the shelter status of almost all participants, with many subsequently experiencing unsheltered homelessness, and cycling through institutional health, social, and criminal justice services (i.e., institutional circuitry). Other health and social consequences included substance use relapses and hospitalizations; cold-related injuries due to post-restriction unsheltered homelessness; suicidality; food insecurity; diminished contact with support network and connections; and intense feelings of anger, fear, and hopelessness. Overall, the study findings advance our understanding of the role of homeless services in pathways into unsheltered homelessness and institutional circuitry, which raise critical questions about how to mitigate the harms associated with service restrictions, while concurrently facilitating safety and upholding the rights of people experiencing homelessness and emergency shelter staff.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".