Content uploaded by Matt Delisi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Matt Delisi on Jan 27, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
http://ijo.sagepub.com
Comparative Criminology
International Journal of Offender Therapy and
DOI: 10.1177/0306624X00441006
2000; 44; 59 Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol
Matt DeLisi
Research Note
Who Is More Dangerous? Comparing the Criminality of Adult Homeless and Domiciled Jail Inmates: A
http://ijo.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/44/1/59
The online version of this article can be found at:
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
can be found at:International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology Additional services and information for
http://ijo.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:
http://ijo.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
© 2000 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at IOWA STATE UNIV on March 26, 2008 http://ijo.sagepub.comDownloaded from
InternationalJournal ofOffender Therapy and ComparativeCriminology
Criminalityof Adult Homeless
Who Is More Dangerous?
Comparing the Criminality
of Adult Homeless and Domiciled
Jail Inmates: A Research Note
Matt DeLisi
Abstract: The criminality of 100 homeless and 100 domiciled jail inmates was compared.
Homelessjailinmatesweresignificantlymorelikelythandomiciledjailinmatestobementally
ill, to be arrested for nuisance offenses,to have moreextensive criminal histories,and to have
prior arrests for use of weapons, drugs, and alcohol. Suggestions for processing homeless
offenders are given.
Homeless people in the United States are a source of frequent and varied socio-
logical inquiry. Researchers are ideologically torn over whether the homeless are
worthyor unworthyof public sympathyandsupport (Wright, 1988b).Aclassical
schoolargument(e.g., CesareBeccaria andJeremyBentham)isthatthehomeless
arerational,free-thinkingactorswhohavenoonebutthemselvestoblameforper-
sonal inadequacies such as alcoholism, drug addiction, unemployment, tran-
siency,and mental illness.The homeless, accordingto a classical perspective, are
a reproachablegroup of derelicts. Conversely, apositivist school argumentis that
the homeless are a disparate group of unfortunate, indigent people whose social
conditionisattributabletomacro-societal forcessuch asa changingeconomy,not
personal inadequacies. The homeless, according to a positivist perspective, are
unfortunate victims of social forces.
Investigations of homeless criminality generally occupy four categories: (a)
whether the homeless involvement in the criminal justice system is legitimate or
the result of police harassment (Aulette & Aulette, 1987; Irwin, 1985), (b)
whether a real relationship exists between mental illness and homeless criminal-
ity(Belcher,1988;Benda,1987;Simons,Whitbeck,& Bales,1989; Snow,Baker,
Anderson, & Martin, 1986; Wright, 1988a), (c) whether a relationship exists
between drug and alcohol abuse and homeless criminality (Snow, Baker, &
Anderson, 1989), and (d) whether homelessness itself is criminogenic (McCarthy &
Hagan, 1991, 1992).
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44(1), 2000 59-69
2000 Sage Publications, Inc.
59
© 2000 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at IOWA STATE UNIV on March 26, 2008 http://ijo.sagepub.comDownloaded from
PRIOR HOMELESS CRIME RESEARCH
Some researchers (Aulette & Aulette, 1987; Irwin, 1985) contend that the
homelessarevictimsof unnecessarypoliceharassment, whichhelpsexplaintheir
disproportionately high arrest rates. Consider this passage from Aulette and
Aulette (1987):
[Accordingto the police]findinga place to sleepand urinateis trespassing.Waiting
to eat and sell blood are looked upon as loitering. Trying to get cigarettes or a free
busrideis panhandling.Andcarrying aroundone’s belongingsis“squatting” orcar-
rying concealed weapons. In short, staying alive is a crime. (p. 253)
According to these authors, homeless criminality is the outcome of the unjust
criminalization of transient life.
The homeless also have disproportionately high incarceration rates. Irwin
(1985) argues that jails function to manage detached and disreputable transient
social misfits called “rabble.” Rabble are social nuisances who commit petty, not
dangerous crimes. Indeed, a majority of arrests for the homeless are for public
intoxication, theft/shoplifting, violation of municipal ordinances, and burglary
(Snowet al.,1989).Thus,some (Aulette& Aulette,1987;Irwin, 1985)determine
that highcriminality among the homelessis an artifactof unnecessary police har-
assment or susceptibility to arrest, not actual criminal offending.
A common lay perception is that the homeless are a population plagued by
severe mentalillness. Researchersdisagree aboutthe prevalenceofmental illness
among thehomeless. Snowet al. (1986) claimthat the notion ofpervasivemental
illness among the homeless is a myth. In a study of 1,000 homeless adults in
Texas, Snow et al. (1986) offered four reasons for the homeless–mental illness
misconception. First, they contend that too much causal emphasis is afforded to
de-institutionalization as the main cause of the growing homeless phenomenon.
Second,theyarguethattheheightenedvisibilityofhomelesspeoplewhoaremen-
tally ill contributes to the belief that all homeless people are mentally ill. Third,
the medicalization of the homeless is premature. Fourth, studies that found high
rates of mental illness among the homeless are methodologically invalid. The
authorsfoundthatonly10%oftheTexashomelessintheirsamplecouldbeclassi-
fied as having legitimate psychiatric problems. However, Wright (1988a) repli-
catedtheSnow etal.(1986) studyand determinedthat33% ofthe Texashomeless
were mentally unhealthy.
Belcher (1988) developed a typology that ranked the extent of mental illness
among the homeless. Category I is people with chronic mental illness and an
extended period of transiency. Category II is people with minor affective disor-
ders who arestill able to retain employmentdespite being homeless. CategoryIII
is people whose homeless condition is due to personality disorders often aggra-
vated by substance abuse. Category IV is intentionally homeless people with
severe substance abuse problems. Implicit in this typology is the idea that some
60 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology
© 2000 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at IOWA STATE UNIV on March 26, 2008 http://ijo.sagepub.comDownloaded from
people are justifiably homeless whereas others are not. Zapf, Roesch, and Hart
(1996)reportedthat10%ofhomelessjail inmatessufferedfromseverementalill-
ness whereas nearly two thirds suffered from some lesser form of mental illness.
However, the only statistically significant difference between homeless and
domiciled jail inmates in their study was that the homeless were more likely to
suffer from negative psychotic symptoms such as emotional withdrawal, motor
retardation, and blunted affect.
Some havefoundhomelessness to be inherently criminogenic.Intests of Gib-
bons’s (1971) situational explanation of crime, McCarthy and Hagan (1991,
1992) found that crime was a recourse for homeless people in that adverse situa-
tional conditions (hunger, lack of shelter, and unemployment) lead to theft of
food, serious theft, burglary, and prostitution. The authors contend that involve-
ment in crime is positively correlated with length of time on the streets. Finally,
Snow et al. (1989) reported several important findings in the epidemiology of
homelesscrime.First,83%ofthehomelessintheirstudyperpetratedPartIIIndex
crimes, which were victimless. Second, 37% of the homeless perpetrated Part I
Indexcrimesinvolvinganonhomelessvictim.Third,lessthan6%ofthehomeless
perpetrated Part I Index crimes involving a homeless victim. Fourth, 56% of the
homeless perpetrated Part I Index property crimes involvingacommercial estab-
lishment as victim. Although a majority of homeless-perpetrated crimes were
relatively benignPartII Indexoffenses,thehomelessposeda dangertononhome-
less people and commercial establishments.
For the current study, homeless jail inmates are defined as offenders without a
physicaldomicilefor morethanayearprior toarrest.Oneyearof homelessnessis
referred to as chronic homelessness or chronic transiency. Of the homeless sam-
ple, 82% (n = 82) reported chronic homelessness for the entirety of their adult
lives, that is, they had never had a domicile. Domiciled jail inmates are arrestees
with a domicileforat leasta yearprior toarrest.Of thedomiciled sample,4% (n=4)
had ever experienced a period of homelessness. None ofthe100domiciled offend-
ers (n = 0) in this study ever reported a period of chronic homelessness. Conse-
quently, interchange—offenders alternating between periods ofchronic transiency
and stable, domiciled residency—did not occur between the two samples.
HYPOTHESES
Several classical school–positivist school debates remain when studying the
homeless(andcomparingthemtodomiciledpeople).Arethehomelessmoredan-
gerous than domiciled people? Are the homeless plagued by mental illness, or is
that a myth? Do homeless people abuse drugs and alcohol more than non-
homeless people? Are the homeless more dangerous, more violent, and more
prone to use weapons than domiciled people? Do homeless people have greater
criminality than domiciled people? This article compares homeless to domiciled
Criminality of Adult Homeless 61
© 2000 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at IOWA STATE UNIV on March 26, 2008 http://ijo.sagepub.comDownloaded from
jail inmates in a large adult county jail facility in Colorado. The current study’s
hypotheses are the following:
Hypothesis 1. Homeless people are morelikely to bearrested for violent offensesthan
domiciled people.
Hypothesis 2. Homeless people are more likely to be arrested for nuisance offenses
than domiciled people.
Hypothesis 3. Mental illness is more prevalent among the homeless than among the
domiciled.
Hypothesis4. Homelesspeoplearemorelikelytobealcoholicsthandomiciledpeople.
Hypothesis 5. Homeless people are more likely to be addicted to illicit drugs than
domiciled people.
Hypothesis6. Homeless people havemore extensivecriminal histories than domiciled
people.
Hypothesis 7. The criminal histories of homeless people will include more arrests for
crimes of violence, crimes involving the use of a weapon, and crimes involving
drugs and alcohol than domiciled people.
DATA AND METHODS
Official andself-reportcriminalhistory datawereusedfrom apretrialservices
unit at a large adult county jail in Colorado. Official data include national, state,
and local records measuring all of the respondents’ recorded criminal history.
Self-reportedcriminalhistoriesweretakenfromofficialbondinterviewsbetween
the pretrial services unit and arrestee-respondents. Interviews were conducted
from January through September of 1998. Due to severe underreporting of prior
arrest histories(see Hindelang, Hirschi, &Weis, 1979), self-reporthistories were
used only to supplement the more valid official arrest records.
SAMPLING
Sinceitsinceptionin1989,thepretrialservicesunitinthisstudyhasconducted
48,883 bond interviews. Due to multiplicity, the sampling frame included about
40,000 different arrestees.Two independentsimple-random samples yielded 100
homelessrespondentsand100domiciled respondents.Thissamplesize(N=200)
was selected because it was sufficiently large, under the Central Limit Theorem,
toaccuratelyportray theparameters of thetotal criminaloffender population (see
Babbie, 1995, pp. 195-203). About 5% to 15% of the 40,000 valid cases were
homeless; the remaining majority were domiciled arrestees. Records were avail-
able forall 200 respondents; thus,none were omittedfromthe study. Datacollec-
tion occurred in September 1998.
62 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology
© 2000 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at IOWA STATE UNIV on March 26, 2008 http://ijo.sagepub.comDownloaded from
MEASUREMENT
Six demographic and six criminal history variables were used. Mental illness,
alcoholism, and drug addiction were determined by official records indicating
mental illness/criminal insanity and whether respondent was a registered drug
offender, as well as respondents’ self-reported treatment for chronic mental ill-
ness, alcoholism, and drug addiction and referrals from local mental health and
substance abuse treatment facilities. Crimes of violence included harassment,
assault, sexual assault,child abuse,brawling,publicfighting,and disorderly con-
duct. Nuisance crimes included all municipal ordinances often associated with
peopleof transientstatus.Examples ofmunicipaloffensesincludedpossession of
alcoholin public,camping withouta permit,aggressivebegging,vagrancy,use of
offensive words in public, indecent exposure, and public intoxication. Property
crimes included forgery, any theft or larceny, burglary, trespassing, and any type
of fraud. Traffic crimes included driving under the influence of alcohol, driving
without a license or insurance, vehicular eluding, habitual traffic offender, and
driving under restraint. Drug crimes included possession or sale of marijuana;
hashish; hallucinogens such as psilocybin mushrooms and LSD; powder and
crack cocaine; heroin; methamphetamine; and inhalants such as paint, glue, and
other noxious chemicals. Weapons offenses included the use of any firearm,
knife,bat,andmartialartsweaponry.Demographicandcriminalhistoryvariables
with coding appear below.
Sex: males (0), females (1)
Race: White (0), Hispanic (1), Black (2), Native American (3)
Age at current arrest: 18 through 79
Mentally ill: No (0), Yes (1)
Alcoholic: No (0), Yes (1)
Drug addict: No (0), Yes (1)
Current arrest type: Violence (0), Nuisance (1), Property (2), Traffic (3), Drug (4)
Number of prior arrests: 0 through 108
Number of prior arrests for violence: 0 through 27
Number of prior arrests for alcohol: 0 through 27
Number of prior arrests for drugs: 0 through 11
Number of prior arrests for weapons: 0 through 9
DATA ANALYSIS
Because ofdichotomous or dummy dependentvariables (likelihoodof violent
arrest, likelihood of nuisance arrest, presence of mental illness, presence of alco-
holism, and presence of drug addiction), logistic regression was used. Ordinary
least squares regression was used for the continuous criminal history dependent
variable.Becauseofpaucityofarrestsandresultantinsufficientsamplesize,com-
Criminality of Adult Homeless 63
© 2000 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at IOWA STATE UNIV on March 26, 2008 http://ijo.sagepub.comDownloaded from
parison ofmeans wasused totesthypotheses comparingprior arrest forcrimes of
violence, crimes employing weapons, and crimes involving drugs and alcohol.
RESULTS
Substantial differences existed between the homeless and domiciled arrestees
in this study. The average homeless jail inmate was a 33-year-old White male.
Most homeless jail inmates were not mentally ill or addicted to drugs; however,
almost half (43%) were alcoholics. The average homeless jail inmate had a sub-
stantial criminal history, including nearly 19 priorarrests. The average domiciled
jail inmatewas a30-year-old male.A majority of the domiciledjail inmates were
White (59%); however, a largepercentage (32%) were Hispanic. Most domiciled
arrestees were neither addicted to drugs or alcohol, nor were they generally
plagued by mental illness. More than half (53%) of domiciled jail inmates were
arrestedfor trafficchargessuch asdrivingunderthe influence.Foranoverviewof
the descriptive statistics of homeless and domiciled jail inmates, see Table 1.
Homeless jail inmates were 2% more likely than domiciled jail inmates to be
arrested for a violent offense (e
0.02
= 1.02). This difference was not significant.
Mentally ill jail inmates were significantly more likely (278%) than non–mentally
ill jail inmates to be arrested for a violent offense (e
1.33
= 3.78). Alcoholics were
significantly less likely (59%) than nonalcoholics to be arrested for a violent
offense (e
–0.89
= 0.41).
Homeless jail inmates were significantly more likely (169%) than domiciled
jail inmates to be arrested for a nuisanceoffense (e
0.99
= 2.69). Mental illness was
more prevalent among homeless jail inmates than among domiciled jail inmates.
Indeed, homeless arrestees were 222% more likely to suffer from mental illness
than domiciled arrestees (e
1.17
= 3.22). Of the homeless sample, 12% suffered
from mental illness. Age demonstrateda significant positiverelationshipto men-
tal illness.
Homeless jail inmates were not more likely than domiciled jail inmates to be
drugaddicts.However,nearlyhalfofthehomelesssample(43%)werealcoholics,
compared to 28% of the domiciled sample. The homeless also had significantly
more prior arrests for alcohol offenses than domiciled people. Relatively few
homeless(8%)ordomiciledpeople(7%)werearrestedfordrugcrimes.Similarly,
only 15% of the homeless sample and 12% of the domiciled people were regis-
tered or self-reported drug addicts. Homeless people averaged about one prior
drug arrest, whereas domiciled people averaged less than half a prior arrest for
drugs. Age demonstrated a significant relationship to being alcoholic. Each year
of aging increased the likelihood of being alcoholic by 7%.
Homeless arrestees were more likely than domiciled arrestees to have an
extensive prior arrest history. Predictably, age was positively related to criminal
history. Olderarrestees had moreextensivecriminal histories thanyounger arres-
tees. Being alcoholic was significantly and positively related to criminal history.
64 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology
© 2000 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at IOWA STATE UNIV on March 26, 2008 http://ijo.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Theaveragecriminalhistory ofthe homelesshad4 timesas manyprior arrestsfor
violence than the average history of domiciled arrestees. Furthermore, homeless
people had significantly more prior arrests for use of weapons than domiciled
people. See Table 2 for difference in means between homeless and domiciled
offenders.
Thecriminal historiesof thehomeless offendersabsolutely dwarfedthecrimi-
nal histories of domiciled jail inmates. The average domiciled person had 4 prior
arrests; the average homeless person had nearly 19 prior arrests. The range of
priorarrestsfor domiciledpeople was0to 26.Therangeofpriorarrests forhome-
less people was 0 to 108.
Regression analyses indicated that the homeless jail inmates were more likely
thandomiciledjailinmates tobearrested fornuisancecrimes, weremorelikelyto
be mentally ill, and had more extensive criminal histories. Regression analysis
yielded no differences between homeless and domiciled jail inmates in terms of
Criminality of Adult Homeless 65
TABLE 1
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS: HOMELESS AND DOMICILED OFFENDERS
Variable Homeless Domiciled
Age (M) 32.9 30.5
Sex (%) 90 male 80 male
10 female 20 female
Race (%) 78 White 59 White
15 Hispanic 32 Hispanic
5 Black 7 Black
3 Native American 2 Native American
Alcoholic (%) 43 28
Drug addicted (%) 15 12
Mentally ill (%) 12 4
Prior arrests (M) 18.6 4.2
Prior arrests (range) 0-108 0-26
Alcohol arrests (M) 3.8 1.2
Alcohol arrests (range) 0-27 0-10
Drug arrests (M) 1.1 0.5
Drug arrests (range) 0-11 0-8
Weapon arrests (M) 0.5 0.2
Weapon arrests (range) 0-9 0-5
Current arrest (%):
Violence 22 21
Nuisance 27 11
Property 25 8
Traffic 18 53
Drug 8 7
NOTE: N = 200 (100 homeless and 100 domiciled).
© 2000 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at IOWA STATE UNIV on March 26, 2008 http://ijo.sagepub.comDownloaded from
66 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology
TABLE 2
DIFFERENCE IN MEANS FOR HOMELESS AND DOMICILED OFFENDERS
T Value Levene’s Test
Age 1.48 1.35
Race 2.15* 5.02*
Sex 1.99* 16.84**
Alcoholic 2.23* 17.10**
Mentally ill 2.10* 19.13**
Drug addicted 0.62 1.54
Prior arrests 5.28** 86.19**
Alcohol arrests 3.77** 47.88**
Violent arrests 4.27** 44.20**
Weapon arrests 2.37** 16.21**
Arrest type 2.81** 1.71
NOTE: N = 200 (100 homeless and 100 domiciled).
*p < .05. **p < .01.
TABLE 3
LOGISTIC REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS FOR VIOLENT
OFFENSES (1), NUISANCE OFFENSES (2), MENTAL ILLNESS (3),
ALCOHOLISM (4), AND DRUG ADDICTION (5)
Independent Variable 1 2 3 4 5
Age 0.02 0.01 0.04* 0.07*** –0.01
(0.02) (0.02) (0.02) (0.02) (0.02)
Race –0.04 0.28 0.24 0.15 0.14
(0.27) (0.27) (0.36) (0.23) (0.31)
Sex –0.82 –1.96 –0.01 –0.85 –7.49
(0.60) (1.05) (0.81) (0.51) (18.15)
Homeless 0.02 0.99** 1.17* 0.48 0.10
(0.37) (0.41) (0.61) (0.33) (0.43)
Mentally ill 1.33* –0.60
(0.59) (0.83)
Alcoholic –0.89* 0.35
(0.44) (0.43)
Drug addicted 0.14 –0.80
(0.53) (0.68)
Chi-square 13.16 17.99 8.48 27.90 9.82
(pseudo) R
2
0.06 0.08 0.04 0.12 0.05
NOTE: N = 200 (100 homeless and 100 domiciled).
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
© 2000 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at IOWA STATE UNIV on March 26, 2008 http://ijo.sagepub.comDownloaded from
being arrested for a violent crime, being alcoholic, or being addicted to illicit
drugs. See Table 3 for regression results.
Comparisonofmeansanalysisindicatedthat,withtheexceptionofdrugaddic-
tion prevalence, all hypotheses were supported by the data: The homeless were
significantly more dangerous, violent, prone to use weapons, alcoholic, mentally
ill, and criminally active than domiciled jail inmates.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
In this study, homeless and domiciled jail inmates were equally likely to be
arrested for a crime ofviolence. This supported prior research (Zapf et al., 1996).
The criminal histories of the homelessincludedsignificantly more crimes of vio-
lence. The homeless in general were more likely to use weapons than domiciled
people. Perhaps, exposureto the streets makes the homeless employ weapons for
survival and self-defense.
Homeless offenders were more likely than domiciled offenders to be arrested
fora nuisancecrime. Indeed,the largestgroupof homelessoffendersin thisstudy
(27%) were arrested for nuisance crimes. However, homeless offenders were
nearly as likely to be arrested for property crimes such as burglary (25%) and
crimes of violence (22%). This contradicts Irwin (1985), who reported that jails
were filled with rabble incarcerated for harmless public order crimes. Mental ill-
ness was more prevalent among homeless jail inmates than among domiciled jail
inmates,althoughonly 12%of thehomelesssample sufferedfrom mental illness.
This seems to indicate that although mental illness is not characteristic of home-
less people in general (Simons et al., 1989; Snow et al., 1986), mental illness is
prevalent among alcoholic homeless with mammoth criminal histories. This
notion affirms Snow et al.’s (1986) idea that the heightened visibility (via a can-
tankerous public arrest) of mentally ill homeless men creates a public perception
that all homeless people are mentally deranged drunkards.
Drug addiction was not prevalent among homeless or domiciled offenders in
this study. This was counter to Zapf et al. (1996), who found that one third of
domiciled offendersandone fifthof homeless offenderswere addicts arrested for
drug crimes. Alcohol seemed to be the drug of choice for all members in this
study: More than half of domiciled people were arrested for traffic offenses such
as driving under the influence of alcohol.
These results should be considered with caution for three reasons. First, the
sample was limited to Colorado and not generalizable to other regions. Second,
the racial composition of this sample was disproportionately White (68%) and
Hispanic (24%). Perhaps, the criminal differences between homeless and domi-
ciledoffendersisdifferent forother racialandethnic groups.Similarly,the subur-
ban homeless and domiciled offenders in this study might be significantly differ-
entincriminal offendingand affective disordersthan urbanor rural homelessand
domiciled offenders. Third,the homeless represented about5%to 8% of thetotal
Criminality of Adult Homeless 67
© 2000 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at IOWA STATE UNIV on March 26, 2008 http://ijo.sagepub.comDownloaded from
jail inmatepopulation (and 5% to15% of the totalarrest population) in thisColo-
rado sample. Perhaps, the criminal activity of the homeless offenders is different
incities wherethehomeless makeup alargerproportionofjailinmates (e.g.,Dal-
las, Denver, Portland, Atlanta, Los Angeles) than in cities where the homeless
composeanexceedinglysmallproportionofjailinmates(e.g.,Cleveland,Detroit,
Birmingham, St. Louis, Philadelphia) (U.S. Department of Justice,1998). Police
enforcement and community tolerance for the homeless probably vary with
criminal-homeless population size.
In this study, the homeless offenders were generally more violent, had more
extensive criminal records, were more prone to use weapons, and were more
likelytobearrestedfor nuisanceoffensesand tobeplaguedby mentalillnessthan
domiciled offenders. Counter to popular belief, a majority of homeless offenders
werenotdangerous,mentallydisturbedalcoholics,althoughtheircriminalitywas
significantlygreater thandomiciledpeople. Asizablecomponent ofthehomeless
population inthis study (all of themabout 40-year-oldWhitemales) were violent
alcoholics with documented histories of mental illness and extraordinarily
lengthycriminal histories. Nocausal predictionsweremade thatcould support or
refuteclassicalorpositivistexplanationsforhomeless criminality. However,13%
of the homeless offenders in this sample were not harmless nuisance offenders
unfairlyharassedby police(Aulette&Aulette,1987;Irwin,1985),butinsteadyet
another disenfranchised group in thissociety with a rather nefarious involvement
in crime. Criminal justice practitioners could benefit from this epidemiological
information by channeling specific elements of the homeless population to the
mostappropriate destination:(a)substance abusecare facilities,(b) mentalhealth
facilities, (c) detoxification centers, (d) homeless shelters, and (e) jails.
REFERENCES
Aulette, J., & Aulette, A. (1987). Police harassment of the homeless. Humanity and Society, 11,
244-256.
Babbie, E. (1995). The practice of social research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Belcher, J. (1988). Are jails replacing the mental health system for the homeless and mentally ill?
Community Mental Health Journal, 24, 185-195.
Benda,B.(1987).Crime,drugabuse,mentalillness,andhomelessness.DeviantBehavior,8,361-375.
Gibbons,D.(1971).Observationsonthestudyof crime causation. AmericanJournalof Sociology,77,
262-278.
Hindelang, M., Hirschi,T., & Weis, J. (1979). Correlates of delinquency: Theillusion of discrepancy
between self-report and official measures. American Sociological Review, 44, 995-1014.
Irwin, J. (1985). The jail. Berkeley: University of California Press.
McCarthy,B.,&Hagan,J.(1991).Homelessness:Acriminogenicsituation?BritishJournalof Crimi-
nology, 31, 393-410.
McCarthy, B., & Hagan, J. (1992). Mean streets: The theoretical significance of situational delin-
quency among homeless youths. American Journal of Sociology, 98, 597-627.
Simons,R.,Whitbeck,L.,&Bales,A.(1989).Lifeonthestreets: Victimizationand psychologicaldis-
tress among the adult homeless. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 4, 482-501.
68 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology
© 2000 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at IOWA STATE UNIV on March 26, 2008 http://ijo.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Snow,D.,Baker,S.,&Anderson,L.(1989).Criminalityand homeless men: Anempiricalassessment.
Social Problems, 36, 532-549.
Snow, D., Baker, S., Anderson, L.,& Martin, M. (1986).The myth of pervasive mental illness among
the homeless. Social Problems, 33, 407-423.
U.S. Department of Justice. (1998). Arrestee drug abuse monitoring program annual report on adult
and juvenile arrestees, 1997. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Wright, J. (1988a). The mentally ill homeless: What is myth and what is fact? Social Problems, 35,
182-191.
Wright, J. (1988b). The worthy and unworthy homeless. Society, 25, 64-69.
Zapf, P., Roesch, R., & Hart, S.(1996). An examinationof therelationship ofhomelessness tomental
disorder, criminal behavior,and health care ina pretrial jail population. Canadian Journalof Psy-
chiatry, 41, 435-440.
Matt DeLisi
Graduate student, Department of Sociology
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309-0327
USA
Criminality of Adult Homeless 69
© 2000 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
at IOWA STATE UNIV on March 26, 2008 http://ijo.sagepub.comDownloaded from