4 SOURCE ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY(PLEASE READ DIRECTIONS CAREFULLY)

Criminal Justice System Involvement Among Homeless Adults

Jennifer Reingle Gonzalez1 & Katelyn K. Jetelina1 & Madeline Roberts1 & Lorraine R. Reitzel2 & Darla Kendzor3 & Scott Walters4 & Michael S. Businelle3

Received: 28 July 2017 /Accepted: 4 August 2017 / Published online: 18 August 2017 # Southern Criminal Justice Association 2017

Abstract This study characterized the specific offenses for which homeless indi- viduals are arrested and incarcerated. Data were gathered from 581 homeless adults across 6 Oklahoma City shelters. Participants were asked to self-report incarceration history, nights spent in jails and prisons, and the offenses for which they were arrested. Overall, 76% of the sample had ever been arrested. Fifty-seven percent of the sample had been to jail more than 3 times in their lifetime and 13% had ever intentionally been arrested. The most prevalent type of arrest was drug possession (35%), followed by driving under the influence (31%) and disorderly conduct or public drunkenness (28%). Violent arrests, such as assault, robbery, domestic violence, murder, and rape, were the least prevalent type of arrest. In summary, offenses were largely drug and status offenses. These offenses may be prevented through increased substance use treatment accessibility and availability of housing. Policies to increase employment and housing for homeless adults regardless of criminal history should be expanded to reduce the occurrence of justice involvement.

Am J Crim Just (2018) 43:158–166 DOI 10.1007/s12103-017-9413-7

* Jennifer Reingle Gonzalez [email protected]

1 Department of Epidemiology, Human Genetics and Environmental Sciences, University of Texas School of Public Health, Dallas Regional Campus, 6011 Harry Hines Blvd. V.8.112, Dallas, TX 75390, USA

2 Psychological Health and Learning Services, University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA 3 Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, The University of Oklahoma Health Sciences

Center, Oklahoma City, OK, USA 4 Department of Health Behavior and Health Systems, School of Public Health, University of North

Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, TX, USA

Keywords Homeless . Criminal justice . Arrest

Introduction

On any given night, more than half a million adults experience homelessness in the United States (U.S.) (American Psychiatric Association, 2013), and 6.2% of adults in the U.S. have been homeless at some point in their lifetime (Toro et al., 2007). Estimates suggest that 17% of homeless adults are under correctional supervision, and approximately 29% had spent at least one night in jail or prison in the past 12 months (Bandiera, Atem, Ma, Businelle, & Kendzor, 2016). Estimates suggest that each homeless person costs the criminal justice system $6520, excluding mental health ($4157) and substance use treatment ($1318) (Spellman, 2010). The absence of a permanent address increases the likelihood that a person will be denied bail; as a result, homeless adults are more likely to spend longer terms in custody than those with a permanent address (Novac, Hermer, Paradis, & Kellen, 2009). Homeless adults are more likely to return to jail after incarceration than domiciled adults (Metraux & Culhane, 2004; Somers, Rezansoff, Moniruzzaman, Palepu, & Patterson, 2013); a cycle commonly referred to as the ‘revolving door’ of homeless incarceration.

This ‘revolving door’ of incarceration for homeless adults is not surprising because homeless adults suffer disproportionately from mental health and substance use disorders (Michaels, Zoloth, Alcabes, Braslow, & Safyer, 1992; Robertson, Zlotnick, & Westerfelt, 1997). Connections with mental health and substance use treatment services are not often provided upon release from jail (Brown, Hickey, & Buck, 2013). Thus, it is often difficult for homeless adults released from jail to modify behavior that resulted in incarceration.

Previous studies have documented a relationship between homelessness and incar- ceration. Michaels and colleagues found that 20% of New York inmates had been homeless the night prior to arrest (Michaels et al., 1992). Similarly, results from a national study of inmates in United States jails suggested that 15.3% of the population had at least one episode of homelessness in the twelve months prior to incarceration, but only 2.9% were homeless at the time of incarceration (Greenberg & Rosenheck, 2008). Conversely, 23.1% of adults in homeless shelters have histories of incarceration (Metraux & Culhane, 2006), and 11.4% of adults use a homeless shelter within two years after release from incarceration (Metraux & Culhane, 2004). In their study of sheltered homeless adults, Metraux and Culhane (2006) found that jail release was associated with greater repeat shelter stays, indicating chronic homelessness among those released from jails.

If homeless adults are primarily arrested for status offenses (e.g., loitering, violating curfew laws, etc.), arrests for future crimes might be prevented if these individuals were able to obtain housing and employment. Despite recent initiatives to hire former offenders (American Psychiatric Association, 2013; Breslau, 2002); employers are permitted to inquire about an applicant’s criminal history, and criminal history is often a disqualifying factor for housing programs (McCarty, Falk, Aussenberg, & Carpenter, 2012).

Depending upon the types of offenses for which homeless adults are arrested and convicted, policy changes have the potential to reduce the collateral consequences of homelessness. For instance, if a homeless adult is convicted on a drug charge and sentenced to treatment, this offense might be expunged after completion of probation.

Am J Crim Just (2018) 43:158–166 159

Alternatively, re-arrest rates might be reduced if employers and housing programs were unable to inquire about status offenses. It is unclear, however, whether homeless adults’ criminal histories typically include more serious violent offenses.

This study builds upon the existing literature by describing the prevalence of criminal justice system involvement in a sample of racially diverse homeless adults in Oklahoma with a substantial proportion of American Indians. Specifically, we will identify the specific offenses for which homeless adults report a history of arrest.

Methods

Data included 610 adults sampled from six homeless shelters in Oklahoma City. Flyers describing this study were posted at each shelter between July and August of 2016. Participant eligibility criteria included: 1) a score of 4 or greater on the Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine-Short Form indicating a 7th grade or higher English literacy level; 2) an age of 18 years or older; and 3) status as currently receiving services (e.g., food, shelter, counseling) at one of the 6 shelters. Twenty-nine partici- pants were screened as eligible but were later excluded from the current analyses because they reported having that they were not currently homeless. Homeless adults who met the eligibility criteria completed the questionnaire using tablet computers. The Office for Human Research Participant Protection at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center approved the data collection protocol for this study.

Measures

Incarceration/Arrest History

Lifetime arrest was determined if the respondent answered Byes^ to the question BNot counting minor traffic violations, have you ever been arrested or booked for breaking the law? (Booked meant that you were taken into custody and processed by the police or someone connected with the courts, even if you were released).^

Recent incarceration was defined as having been to jail or prison in the past year or in the past 5 years. Respondents were also asked to recall the number of separate times they had been to jail or prison and the total time they spent in jail or prison in their lifetime in years, months, and days. The total time was then converted into months over a lifetime.

Arrest Type Participants were asked if they had ever been arrested and booked for 20 different types of crimes, including drug, violent, property, or status offenses; or, driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

Intentional arrest was determined if a participant answered positively to Bduring your lifetime, how many times have you intentionally gotten arrested in order to obtain shelter and/or food in jail, prison, or detention center?^

Currently under Correctional Supervision Participants were asked if they were currently under correctional supervision and, if so, to specify what type (e.g. probation, parole, pre-trial release, drug treatment court, and other).

160 Am J Crim Just (2018) 43:158–166

Homelessness Characteristics

Respondents were asked to estimate the total amount of time they had been homeless in their lifetime and total amount of time they have been currently homeless in years, months, and days. Further, participants were asked, Bhow many separate times they have been homeless in their lifetime^, which was categorized into 0, 1, 2, 3+ times.

Demographics

Participants’self-reported age, sex, race and ethnicity, birth state, and military veteran status.

Analytic Methods

All analyses accounted for the clustered multisite sampling design and observations were weighted due to the unequal probability of selection of each primary sampling unit. Survey tabulations and other descriptive statistics were used to explore the univariate distribution of each variable. Medians and ranges were used for skewed continuous variables. All analyses were conducted using Stata 14.0 SE software (College Station, TX).

Results

Descriptive information about the sample is provided in Table 1. Briefly, participants’ mean age was 43.6 (SD = .05) years and 64% of the sample was male. Slightly more than half of participants were White (54%), 20% were Black, and 18% were Native American or American Indian. Fifty two percent of the participants were born in Oklahoma and 10% were military veterans.

Homelessness

The median time spent homeless over a lifetime was 28 months, and participants had a median of 3 separate times being homeless over the course of their lifetime. Participants had a median of 12 months spent currently homeless. The majority of participants (70%) spent the previous evening in an overnight shelter.

Incarceration/Arrest

More than three-fourths of homeless adults were arrested at some point during their lifetime, 52% were incarcerated in the previous 5 years, and 37% were incarcerated in the past year. Among those who were ever arrested, more than half had been jailed three or more times. Notably, 13% of homeless adults had been arrested intentionally at least one time. Most homeless adults in this sample reported being arrested for drug possession (35%), followed by driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs (31%) and disorderly conduct or public drunkenness (27%). One percent or less were arrested for prostitution; murder, homicide or manslaughter; or rape. Overall, 36% of adults were arrested for a drug offense, 35% were arrested for a status offense, 34% for a

Am J Crim Just (2018) 43:158–166 161

Table 1 Homelessness, victimi- zation, and incarceration patterns (n = 581)

N (%)

Demographics

Age (mean, SE) 43.6 (0.5)

Gender (male) 370 (64)

Race/Ethnicity

NH White 309 (54)

NH Black 113 (20)

Hispanic 35 (6)

Native American/American Indian 101 (18)

Other 18 (3)

Born in OK 302 (52)

Military veteran 57 (10)

Homelessness characteristics

# months homeless in lifetime (median, range) 28 (0–420)

# separate times homeless in lifetime (median; range) 3 (0–8)

# months current homelessness (median, range) 12 (0–297)

Shelter type

Day shelter 176 (30)

Overnight shelter 405 (70)

Incarceration characteristics

Ever been arrested 441 (76)

Incarcerated in past 5 years 301 (52)

Incarcerated in past year 215 (37)

# times been to jail

0 99 (17)

1 83 (14)

2 70 (12)

3+ 328 (57)

# times intentionally been arrested

0 504 (87)

1 29 (5)

2 11 (2)

3+ 36 (6)

Months spent in jail in lifetime (median, range) 5 (0–505)

Currently under correctional supervision 127 (22)

Probation 92

Parole 12

Pre-trial release 12

Other 11

Arrest reasons (ever)

Drugs

Drug possession 202 (35)

Manufacturing or selling drugs 43 (7)

Violent

162 Am J Crim Just (2018) 43:158–166

property offense, 31% for impaired driving, and 25% for a violent offense, in their lifetime (see Table 1).

Discussion

This study described criminal justice involvement history among a large, diverse sample of homeless adults. Results suggest that the majority of homeless adults have a history of contact with the criminal justice system, have served time in jail or prison for multiple offenses, and spent a considerable amount of time in jails during their lifetime. This is consistent with past literature, with the point prevalence of incarcera- tion among homeless ranges from 21% to 92% in cities (Kushel, Hahn, Evans, Bangsberg, & Moss, 2005; Metraux & Culhane, 2006; Weiser et al., 2009).

This study expanded our knowledge by delineating the types of crimes committed by currently homeless adults. Results suggested that substance use and associated problems (e.g. disorderly conduct and DUI’s) accounted for the greatest proportion of offenses committed by adults who are currently homeless. This is expected given that substance use and misuse particularly affects homeless and incarcerated popula- tions (Peters, Greenbaum, Edens, Carter, & Ortiz, 1998; Robertson et al., 1997), and persons released from jail are rarely provided with the funding needed to access substance use treatment services (Brown et al., 2013). More than one-third of homeless adults in our sample reported being arrested for a status or property offense; crimes that

Table 1 (continued) N (%)

Assault or battery 90 (16)

Domestic violence or child abuse 57 (10)

Robbery 26 (4)

Murder, homicide, or non-negligent manslaughter 7 (1)

Forcible rape 2 (0.3)

Property

Burglary or breaking and entering 71 (12)

Forgery or counterfeiting (writing bad checks) 68 (12)

Larceny or theft 78 (13)

Motor vehicle theft 33 (5)

Fraud, possession of stolen goods, or vandalism 35 (6)

Arson 7 (1)

Status

Disorderly conduct or public drunkenness 160 (28)

Loitering 32 (6)

Weapons violation 37 (6)

DUI

Driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs 180 (31)

Other

Prostitution 7 (1)

Am J Crim Just (2018) 43:158–166 163

may be prevented if homeless adults have stable housing and income (Somers et al., 2013). Violent crimes, like robbery, assaults, and murder, were the least prevalent types of crime committed.

Results from this descriptive study were remarkably similar to those identified conviction records used in previous studies. Specifically, homeless adults released from incarceration were originally arrested for burglary (16.5%), assault (12.8%), theft (11.5%), and drug-related charges (11.3%) (Metraux & Culhane, 2004). In the present study, 13% of the sample reported arrest for theft in the previous twelve months, 12% reported arrest for burglary, and 16% reported arrest for assault. The rate of drug-related arrests in the present study (35%) was nearly double the rate previously identified (Metraux & Culhane, 2004). This variation in drug-related offenses may be driven by the Metraux’s use of conviction data compared to arrest data used in the current study. The similarly in results suggests that the offending patterns of homeless adults are largely stable over time, and offending patterns are stable across large, United States cities.

It is also important to highlight that 13% of the sample self-reported intentional arrest in order to obtain shelter and/or food in a jail, prison, or detention centers. We speculate that these effects may be due to homeless adults having better access to food and healthcare while in jail or prison, or homeless adults may have a heightened perceived safety while incarcerated. Future research should include additional questions to gain a better understanding of why homeless adults seek intentional arrest so that structural interventions can be developed to address the specific needs of these home- less adults. For example, this information could inform how healthcare programs and other government services could be integrated into homeless shelters to divert inten- tional arrest among those receiving services, or shelter bed availability might be expanded if homeless adults are getting intentionally arrested to avoid sleeping on the streets. These steps may slow the revolving door of homeless incarceration seen in the U.S. (Kushel et al., 2005).

Limitations

Results should be considered in light of several limitations. First, the sample came from one city and participants were required to speak English and have a reading level above 6th grade, which limits the generalizability of the results. However, the sample was highly diverse, including 18% American Indians, which is unique to other studies. Second, measures were self-reported, which has the potential for systematic under- or over- reporting of sensitive behaviors. Finally, our data were cross-sectional and the timing of arrests for adults in our sample relative to the timing of their homelessness was unknown. We were also unable to determine whether homeless adults were convicted of the crimes for which they reported an arrest. To address these limitations, future research should include criminal justice records to replicate these findings. Homeless adults should also be asked to self-report whether they were homeless at the time of each arrest.

Implications & Conclusions

These findings have a number of important implications for public health and criminal justice practice. Results from this study suggested that three-fourths of homeless adults

164 Am J Crim Just (2018) 43:158–166

have been arrested in their lifetime. Offenses were largely drug-related or status offenses and may be preventable through substance use treatment and/or increased availability of housing. Based upon these results, criminal justice policymakers might consider decreasing the impact of status offenses for homeless adults and expunging drug offenses (with abstinence) to enhance homeless adults’ ability to gain employment and housing. This may reduce the ‘revolving door’ of homeless incarceration.

In summary, the criminal justice burden of homelessness is substantial and requires innovative, trans-disciplinary solutions. The prevalence of intentional arrest in this sample suggests that homeless adults’ needs are not being met using extant community-based services, and the re-entry process provides a unique opportunity to link homeless adults to treatment, employment assistance services, and housing assis- tance. Future research should consider how the re-entry process might be modified to more efficiently reduce the likelihood of future justice involvement for homeless adults.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) (Vol. 5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Bandiera, F. C., Atem, F., Ma, P., Businelle, M. S., & Kendzor, D. E. (2016). Post-quit stress mediates the relation between social support and smoking cessation among socioeconomically disadvantaged adults. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 163, 71–76.

Breslau, N. (2002). Epidemiologic studies of trauma, posttraumatic stress disorder, and other psychiatric disorders. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 47, 923–929.

Brown, C. A., Hickey, J. S., & Buck, D. S. (2013). Shaping the jail inreach project: Program evaluation as a quality improvement measure to inform programmatic decision making and improve outcomes. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 24(2), 435–443.

Greenberg, G. A., & Rosenheck, R. A. (2008). Jail incarceration, homelessness, and mental health: A national study. Psychiatric Services, 59(2), 170–177.

Kushel, M. B., Hahn, J. A., Evans, J. L., Bangsberg, D. R., & Moss, A. R. (2005). Revolving doors: Imprisonment among the homeless and marginally housed population. American Journal of Public Health, 95(10), 1747–1752.

McCarty, M., Falk, G., Aussenberg, R. A., & Carpenter, D. H. (2012). Drug testing and crime-related restrictions in TANF, SNAP, and housing assistance. Journal of Drug Addiction, Education, and Eradication, 8(2/3), 71.

Metraux, S., & Culhane, D. P. (2004). Homeless shelter use and reincarceration following prison release. Criminology & Public Policy, 3(2), 139–160.

Metraux, S., & Culhane, D. P. (2006). Recent incarceration history among a sheltered homeless population. Crime & Delinquency, 52(3), 504–517.

Michaels, D., Zoloth, S. R., Alcabes, P., Braslow, C. A., & Safyer, S. (1992). Homelessness and indicators of mental illness among inmates in New York City’s correctional system. Psychiatric Services, 43(2), 150– 155. doi:10.1176/ps.43.2.150.

Novac, S., Hermer, J., Paradis, E., & Kellen, A. (2009). A revolving door? Homeless people and the justice system in Toronto. In J.D. Hulchanski, P. Campsie, S. Chau, S. W. Hwang, E. Paradis (Eds.), Finding Home: Policy options for addressing homelessness in Canada. Toronto: Cities Centre. Available at: http://homelesshub.ca/sites/default/files/7.1%20Novac%20et%20al.%20-%20Homeless%20People%20 and%20Justice%20System.pdf. Accessed Aug 16, 2017

Peters, R. H., Greenbaum, P. E., Edens, J. F., Carter, C. R., & Ortiz, M. M. (1998). Prevalence of DSM-IV substance abuse and dependence disorders among prison inmates. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 24(4), 573–587. doi:10.3109/00952999809019608.

Robertson, M. J., Zlotnick, C., & Westerfelt, A. (1997). Drug use disorders and treatment contact among homeless adults in Alameda County, California. American Journal of Public Health, 87(2), 221–228. doi:10.2105/AJPH.87.2.221.

Am J Crim Just (2018) 43:158–166 165

Somers, J. M., Rezansoff, S. N., Moniruzzaman, A., Palepu, A., & Patterson, M. (2013). Housing first reduces re-offending among formerly homeless adults with mental disorders: Results of a randomized controlled trial. PloS One, 8(9), e72946.

Spellman, B., Khadduri, J., Sokol, B., Leopold, J., Abt Associates, Inc. (2010). Costs associated with first-time homelessness for families and individuals. Washington, DC: US Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Toro, P. A., Tompsett, C. J., Lombardo, S., Philippot, P., Nachtergael, H., Galand, B., et al. (2007). Homelessness in Europe and the United States: A comparison of prevalence and public opinion. Journal of Social Issues, 63(3), 505–524. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.00521.x.

Weiser, S. D., Neilands, T. B., Comfort, M. L., Dilworth, S. E., Cohen, J., Tulsky, J. P., & Riley, E. D. (2009). Gender-specific correlates of incarceration among marginally housed individuals in San Francisco. American Journal of Public Health, 99(8), 1459–1463.

Dr. Jennifer Reingle Gonzalez is an associate professor of epidemiology at the UTHealth School ofPublic Health in Dallas.

Katelyn K. Jetelina is an assistant professor in the Department of Epidemiology, Human Genetics and Environmental Sciences at the University of Texas School of Public Health in Dallas, Texas.

Madeline Roberts is a research assistant in the Department of Epidemiology, Human Genetics and Environ- mental Sciences at the University of Texas School of Public Health in Dallas, Texas.

Lorraine R. Reitzel is an associate professor in the Department of Psychological Health and Learning Sciences at the University of Houston.

Darla Kendzor is an associate professor in the Department of Family and Preventive Medicine at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center. She is also the leader of the Tobacco Intervention Research Clinic.

Scott Walters is a professor and Chair of the Department of Health Behavior and Health Systems at the University of North Texas Health Science Center in Fort Worth, Texas.

Michael S. Businelle is an associate professor in the Department of Family and Preventive Medicine at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center. He is also the leader of the OTRC mHealth Core.

166 Am J Crim Just (2018) 43:158–166

Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.