Running head UNIT 6 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY ASSIGNMENT 1 U.docx

Running head: UNIT 6 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
ASSIGNMENT 1
Unit 6 Annotated Bibliography Assignment
Kacey Smith
Purdue University Global
Please note that this is a sample Unit 6 Assignment to help
inspire and guide your own
original writing of the assignment. Be sure to review the
assignment instructions and grading
rubric, complete each task in the instructions, and contact the
instructor with any questions.
Commented [S1]: The title page and document

are properly formatted in APA 6th edition style.
For tips on formatting, see the Writing Center’s
Citation Guides page:
https://library.purdueglobal.edu/writingcenter/cita
tionguides
https://library.purdueglobal.edu/writingcenter/citationguides
https://library.purdueglobal.edu/writingcenter/citationguides
UNIT 6 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY ASSIGNMENT 2
Unit 6 Annotated Bibliography Assignment
Thesis statement: Despite assertions that bullying is just kids
being kids, the behavior actually
comes from not understanding differences, disabilities, and
specialness – a problem parents,
educators, and others who work with children can use fiction to
solve.
Constantinescu, C. & Samuels, C. A. (2016, September 6).
Studies flag potential downside to
inclusion. Education Week. Retrieved from www.edweek.org.
Constantinescu and Samuels review studies that suggest

inclusion of special education
students with typical peers can be problematic, particularly for
younger children. In fact, several
studies indicated that typical children in kindergarten and first
grade who have special needs
peers in their classes are more likely to have behavior issues,
problems with social skills, and
lower scores in reading and math (2016). The article describes
the experience of one education
teacher who expressed concern that inclusion of special needs
students in the classroom
negatively influences the behavior of other students by
precipitating and increasing incidents of
verbal and/or physical conflict between the students
(Constantinescu & Samuels, 2016).
Education Week has been publishing since 1981, and they cover
different angles on an
array of education-related issues. The authors have published
other articles in Education Week
and elsewhere. The topics are all about education, but not all
are focused on inclusion or special
needs students, which helped me conclude that they do not have
a biased agenda. Within the
article, they cite research studies to support their ideas, and this

article was published in 2016,
making it recent.
This article could be seen as a challenge to my argument.
Clearly, the described situation
is unacceptable, but inclusion is not the problem; it is a lack of
strategies and support to teach all
Commented [S2]: Don’t forget to include your
revised thesis statement!
Commented [S3]: Place the citation (using the
hanging indent) before the annotation.
Commented [S4]: The annotations need to
include a summary of the main idea of the source
(be sure to remember an in-text citation!), an
evaluation of that source's credibility using the
criteria covered in units 5 and 6, and a reflection
on the source's value to your project. Does it
support your thesis or offer a challenge or
misconception that you will need to rebut?
Commented [S5]: Note that the annotation
clarifies that this source poses a challenge to the
student’s thesis.

http://www.edweek.org/
students appropriate responses to conflict, which will help them
to develop empathy and
understanding of differences.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2018, April).
Children and youth with
disabilities. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgg.asp
This website has a helpful graphic from the U. S Department of
Education that shows the
percent of students, classified by disability type, who had
accommodations due to disabilities
during the 2015-2016 school year.
Figure 1. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special
Education Programs,
Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) database (2010).
As the graph shows, learning disabilities, which could include
issues like dyslexia, are 34% of
those receiving special education services. Of the 6.7 million
students (14% of the overall

enrollment in public schools) receiving special education
services in this year, 9% had autism
and 6% had an “intellectual disability,” according to the U. S.
Department of Education’s data
Commented [S6]: Be sure to label figures. You
will find a source in the Unit 9 Writing Center
readings to help you with this:
Citing Graphics and Visuals in APA Style
https://kuportal-
a.akamaihd.net/ascmedia/wc/citinggraphicsandvisualsinapa.pdf
(as cited in NCES, 2018). In addition to this graph, the site has
a graphic about the amount of
time that these children spend in general education classes:
Figure 2. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special
Education Programs,
Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) database.

As this graph indicates, a majority of children with special
needs spend 80% of more of their
time in a general education classroom, a clear reason that
typical children in those classrooms
need to better understand disabilities (as cited in NCES, 2018).
I believe the National Center for Education Statistics website is
a credible place to find
statistics; the page was last updated in April 2018, and
according to their home page, this center
is “the primary federal entity for collecting and analyzing data
related to education,” and it is
housed within the U. S. Department of Education (NCES,
“About Us,” n.d.).
I
Stopbullying.gov. (n.d.). Bullying and children and youth with
disabilities and special health
needs. Retrieved from https://www.stopbullying.gov/at-
risk/groups/special-
needs/index.html
This non-profit has developed numerous resources on its

website to address the problem
of bullying and kids. The page titled “Bullying and Youth with
Disabilities and Special Needs”
describes why children with special needs are more apt to be
bullied, details how to create safer
environments for these children in a school setting, notes the
role of federal Civil Rights
disabilities laws in this issue, and offers additional resources
that could be helpful for parents,
such as a tip sheet on special health needs (StopBullying, n.d.)
On their “About Us” page, the organization notes that it draws
information from various
government agencies and that it has an Editorial Board to
review content that draws from people
in government agencies like the Department of Education, the
Centers for Disease Control, and
the Department of Justice; furthermore, the site is maintained
by the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services (Stopbullying.gov, n.d.). This site has a
wealth of resources that will help
me to develop my point that special needs children need special
protection from bullying.
Walsh, M. (2015). Your child with special needs is being
bullied: What can you do? The

Exceptional Parent (Online), 45(9), 42-43.
Walsh examines the particular challenges that special needs
children face when being
bullied and some reasons that they may be more likely to be
targets of bullying. In particular, she
notes that typical children just may not understand behaviors
and cognitive challenges that come
with disabilities like autism (Walsh, 2015). She also notes an
important problem that can arise for
special needs children who are bullying victims—regression.
This is when a child loses skills that
https://www.stopbullying.gov/at-risk/groups/special-
needs/index.html
needs/index.html
he or she had previously developed, and this can be a particular
problem in the classroom since
these children already struggle to achieve academic success.
I found this article in the Purdue Global Library, which gives
me confidence in its
reliability, but I also base my evaluation on the fact that this
was published in 2015 and written

by a lawyer who specializes in advocating for children with
disabilities. This article will help me
to support my claim that education is crucial for addressing
bullying of special needs children as
well as why this is so important in a classroom setting—to
address regression.
References
Cassidy, E. (2018, April 2). Twitter changes reporting form to
include hate against people with

disabilities. The Mighty. Retrieved from
https://themighty.com/2018/04/twitter-changes-
reporting-form-include-hate-against-people-with-disabilities/
Constantinescu, C. & Samuels, C. A. (2016, September 6).
Studies flag potential downside to
inclusion. Education Week. Retrieved from www.edweek.org.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2018, April).
Children and youth with
disabilities. Retrieved from
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (n.d.). About
us. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/about/
Stopbullying.gov. (n.d.). About us. Retrieved from
https://www.stopbullying.gov/about-
us/index.html
Stopbullying.gov. (n.d.). Bullying and children and youth with
disabilities and special health
needs. Retrieved from https://www.stopbullying.gov/at-
risk/groups/special-
needs/index.html
Walsh, M. & Krooks, L. (2015). Your child with special needs
is being bullied: What can you

do? The Exceptional Parent (Online), 45(9), 42-43.
Commented [S8]: Remember key rules about
formatting the references page, such as using the
hanging indent, alphabetizing entries, and
ensuring that any sources listed here are cited in-
text as well. For more details on reference page
formatting and citations, see APA Style Central
and review the APA resources in Units 5 and 6.
Commented [S7]: A separate references page is
not required for the assignment, but it is useful to
practice! Also, this includes additional sources
that were used for the credibility evaluation
component of the annotation.
Commented [S9]: Remember the “sentence
level capitalization” rule for book, article, and
web page titles.

https://themighty.com/2018/04/twitter-changes-reporting-form-
include-hate-against-people-with-disabilities/
https://themighty.com/2018/04/twitter-changes-reporting-form-
include-hate-against-people-with-disabilities/
http://www.edweek.org/
https://nces.ed.gov/about/
https://www.stopbullying.gov/about-us/index.html
https://www.stopbullying.gov/about-us/index.html
needs/index.html
needs/index.html
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
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s12103-017-
9413-7&domain=pdf
mailto:[email protected]
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%2
0al.%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
http://dx.doi.org/10.1176/ps.43.2.150
0al.%20-
%20Homeless%20People%20and%20Justice%20System.pdf
0al.%20-
%20Homeless%20People%20and%20Justice%20System.pdf
http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/00952999809019608
http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.87.2.221
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
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.00521.x
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner.
Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Criminal Justice System Involvement Among Homeless
AdultsAbstractIntroductionMethodsMeasuresIncarceration/Arre
st HistoryHomelessness CharacteristicsDemographicsAnalytic
MethodsResultsHomelessnessIncarceration/ArrestDiscussionLi
mitationsImplications & ConclusionsReferences

Running head UNIT 6 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY ASSIGNMENT 1 U.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Running head UNIT 6 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY ASSIGNMENT 1 U.docx

Similar to Running head UNIT 6 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY ASSIGNMENT 1 U.docx (12)

More from jenkinsmandie

More from jenkinsmandie (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Running head UNIT 6 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY ASSIGNMENT 1 U.docx