The Implementation of Coordinated Access to End Homelessness in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To receive federal homelessness funding, cities in Canada must adhere to federal policy directives associated with the government of Canada’s Reaching Home program. These directives include the implementation of a homelessness management information system (HMIS) and a Coordinated Access process. In this article, we draw on 90 in-depth interviews and extensive policy and institutional analysis to assess the implementation of Coordinated Access in one Ontario city. Our findings suggest that none of the four pillars of Coordinated Access (access, assessment, prioritization, matching, and referral) work as intended. Structural and systemic challenges (e.g., related to housing stock, staff turnover, inaccessibility of shelters, criminalizing municipal bylaws, and the reliability of the assessment tool) undermine the efficacy of the process as a means of improving transparency, service coordination, and housing outcomes. Despite being an early adopter of the Coordinated Access process, this Ontario municipality continues to struggle with a growing housing affordability crisis and an unhoused 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".