Housing First as a global fast policy, economic tool, and disciplinary tactic: can Housing First’s progressive promise be salvaged?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While there are an abundance of studies evaluating the effectiveness of Housing First programs, there is a recent surge in critical social science research that situates Housing First within broader debates about contemporary neoliberal homelessness governance. This paper provides clarity to this evolving and somewhat fragmented work by highlighting three main conceptualisations of critical Housing First research. First, it is interpreted as a technocratic global fast policy that, while appealing to policymakers and government officials, ultimately fails to address the structural causes of housing insecurity and homelessness. Second, it is viewed as an economic tool that prioritises housing for a narrow cohort of ‘chronic homeless’ that incur a high cost to scarce public resources. Third, it is seen as a disciplinary tactic that ignores people’s alternative expressions of home and compels them to abide by the norms of ‘independent living’ and the private rental market. We conclude with an assessment of this critical literature. Whilst acknowledging its key insights, we contend that its treatment of Housing First as yet another form of neoliberal homelessness governance and overreliance on Anglophone-country case studies risks reifying HF’s worst aspects and failing to adequately recognise its transformative potential.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it