MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408490879 · doi:10.5206/ijoh.2023.3.18656

Addressing Risks and Reducing Homelessness of Vulnerable Parenting Youths: An Implementation and Impact Evaluation of HELP USA’s New Beginnings Program

2025· article· en· W4408490879 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Daniel C. Farrell, Patrick J. Fowler, Ashwin Parulkar, Alex DiChristofano, Tina Goodrich, Stephen Charles Mott, Ronnie Silverman, Shambhavi Manglik

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal on Homelessness · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyCriminologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This quasi-experimental study evaluated New Beginnings -- a homelessness prevention program developmentally tailored for parenting youth -- implemented within the Homebase housing program in New York City. Although Homebase demonstrates significant reductions in homelessness, few programs address the unique needs of “at-risk” households with young heads of household. New Beginnings followed the critical time intervention (CTI) three-phase method of clinical and comprehensive service delivery, in which social workers focus on intensive engagement for securely linking youth with community-based support, including employment, educational, and health services. Participants included 314 parenting youth receiving New Beginnings and Homebase between May 2017 and June 2021. Implementation evaluation found adherence to CTI (e.g., smaller caseloads per case manager and frequent client engagement) that facilitated improvements in access to childcare, healthcare, employment opportunities, and household income levels. Propensity score matching with similar parenting youth receiving Homebase only showed New Beginnings significantly slowed shelter entries in the nine months following Homebase completion. Study findings demonstrate promise for preventing homelessness among at-risk parenting youth through time-sensitive and flexible responses.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.548
Threshold uncertainty score0.901

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.229
GPT teacher head0.562
Teacher spread0.333 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal on HomelessnessSame topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207