Does transitional housing matter? The contributions of a housing program on homeless youth’s outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transitional Living Programs are popular interventions in Canada and the United States, for youth who are homeless or emerging from the foster care system. Some researchers have emphasized that an increased effectiveness of Transitional Living Programs is possible with an underlying philosophy such as Housing First or harm reduction. However, literature on the impact of these types of programs on homeless youth is limited. Given the lack of knowledge in this area, the aim of our longitudinal qualitative study was to understand the impact of a long-term transitional housing program, operating from a Housing First and harm reduction philosophy, on homeless youth. The 20-unit transitional housing program is in a large metropolitan Canadian city and provides support on-site. Homeless youth between the ages of 18-24, admitted into the transitional housing program were eligible for participation in the study. Fifteen youth participated in in-depth semi-structured interviews and assessments at baseline and seven youth were followed-up with 6 months later. The data was analyzed using the six-step process of thematic analysis. Youth reported that living in the transitional housing program over time contributed to decreased substance use and positively influenced their educational and career outcomes, interpersonal relationships, and health and well-being. Perhaps the most significant impact described by youth was the non-judgmental environment that parallels the Housing First and harm reduction philosophy of the program. Further, close relationships with staff were emphasized as a major driver for positive changes in participants' outcomes over time. The current study also found substantial need for further research in areas such as aftercare for youth leaving transitional housing and the need for support for youth who must leave these programs prematurely.
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 | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".