Social and Structural Barriers to Housing Among Street-Involved Youth Who Use Illicit Drugs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, approximately 150,000 youth live on the street. Street-involvement and homelessness have been associated with various health risks, including increased substance use, blood-borne infections, and sexually transmitted diseases. We undertook a qualitative study to better understand the social and structural barriers street-involved youth who use illicit drugs encounter when seeking housing. We conducted 38 semi-structured interviews with street-involved youth in Vancouver, Canada from May to October 2008. Interviewees were recruited from the At-risk Youth Study (ARYS) cohort, which follows youth aged 14 to 26 who have experience with illicit drug use. All interviews were thematically analyzed, with particular emphasis on participants' perspectives regarding their housing situation and their experiences seeking housing. Many street involved youth reported feeling unsupported in their efforts to find housing. For the majority of youth, existing abstinence-focused shelters did not constitute a viable option and, as a result, many felt excluded from these facilities. Many youth identified inflexible shelter rules and a lack of privacy as outweighing the benefits of sleeping indoors. Single-room occupancy hotels (SROs) were reported to be the only affordable housing options, since many landlords would not to rent to youth on welfare. Many youth reported resisting moving to SROs as they viewed them as unsafe and as giving up hope for a return to mainstream society. The findings of the present study shed light on the social and structural barriers street-involved youth face in attaining housing and challenge the popular view of youth homelessness constituting a life-style choice. Our findings point to the need for housing strategies that include safe, low threshold, harm reduction focused housing options for youth who engage in illicit substance use.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".