THIS is Housing First for Youth: A Program Model Guide (2017)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, policy-makers and service providers have expressed concerns about whether and how Housing First can be applied to the population of young people who experience homelessness. In response, A Safe and Decent Place to Live was developed to provide a workable framework for Housing First for Youth (HF4Y). It is important to note that the development of this framework was the result of a collaboration between the Canadian Observatory on Homelessness (formerly the Canadian Homelessness Research Network) and two bodies that work with young people who are homeless: The Street Youth Planning Collaborative (Hamilton) and the National Learning Community on Youth Homelessness. Young people with lived experience of homelessness were an important part of this process, and provided necessary and valuable input. \n \nMuch has changed in a very short time. Since the report was released, communities in Canada and elsewhere in the world (including the U.S. and several countries in Europe) have begun to implement HF4Y programs consistent with this framework. A downside of the growth in interest in HF4Y is that in many contexts, people are using the term “HF4Y” but not following the framework, by either simply applying the mainstream Housing First approach without adapting it to the needs of young people, or having unrealistically large caseloads and strict time limits. \n \nThe ongoing development of our understanding of emerging examples of HF4Y, combined with a need to clarify how it actually needs to be implemented on the ground, led to a consideration of the need to build on the framework and develop a more comprehensive HF4Y program model guide. In order to move forward, we engaged in an extensive consultation process in Canada (led by A Way Home Canada in consultation with the National Learning Community on Youth Homelessness), the U.S. (involving the National Network for Youth, the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and a large number of communities) and in Europe (involving FEANTSA and FEANTSA Youth, Focus Ireland, Rock Trust (Scotland) and others). We also consulted experts like Dr. Sam Tsemberis and Wally Czech as well as those applying the HF4Y framework in the field to get their feedback. The considerable insights and expertise of these individuals and organizations has contributed to the enhancement of an effective and achievable model of HF4Y, which is outlined in this new program model guide. \nWhat's New? \n \nThe new program model guide for HF4Y includes: \n \n- Revised and refined core principles \n- Expanded discussion of HF4Y as a program vs. philosophy \n- Deeper discussion of models of accommodation and support \n- New sections on: \n * service delivery - outlining how the program should work on the ground \n * data \n * case studies \n \nA Safe and Decent Place to Live and the forthcoming THIS is Housing First for Youth program model guide are intended to provide guidance for communities, policy-makers and practitioners interested in addressing the needs of developing adolescents and young adults through the application of HF4Y.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.145 | 0.046 |
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".