Differentiating Nuisance from Felony Offenses among Homeless Substance Abusers in a V.A. Medical...

This article was downloaded by [University of Western Ontario]On 10 November 2014 At 2328Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number 1072954 Registered office Mortimer House37-41 Mortimer Street London W1T 3JH UK

Journal of Offender RehabilitationPublication details including instructions for authors and subscription informationhttpwwwtandfonlinecomloiwjor20

Differentiating Nuisance from Felony Offenses amongHomeless Substance Abusers in a VA Medical CenterDr Brent B Benda a Daniel E Rodell b amp Luci Rodell ba University of Arkansas Little Rock USAb VA Medical Center North Little Rock AR USAPublished online 23 Aug 2012

To cite this article Dr Brent B Benda Daniel E Rodell amp Luci Rodell (2003) Differentiating Nuisance from Felony Offensesamong Homeless Substance Abusers in a VA Medical Center Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 371 41-65 DOI 101300J076v37n01_04

To link to this article httpdxdoiorg101300J076v37n01_04

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor amp Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the ldquoContentrdquo) containedin the publications on our platform However Taylor amp Francis our agents and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy completeness or suitability for any purpose of theContent Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor amp Francis The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses actions claims proceedings demands costs expenses damages and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content

This article may be used for research teaching and private study purposes Any substantial or systematicreproduction redistribution reselling loan sub-licensing systematic supply or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden Terms amp Conditions of access and use can be found at httpwwwtandfonlinecompageterms-and-conditions

Differentiating Nuisance from Felony OffensesAmong Homeless Substance Abusersin a VA Medical Center

BRENT B BENDA

University of Arkansas at Little Rock

DANIEL E RODELL

VA Medical Center North Little Rock AR

LUCI RODELL


ABSTRACT This study investigated the self-reported criminal histories of188 homeless persons participating in a Veteransrsquo Affairs Medical Centerprogram for substance abusers Forty percent had been hospitalized for apsychiatric illness prior to the study and 45 percent were classified ascomorbid (ie diagnoses of substance abuse and other psychiatric prob-lems) The purpose of the study was to (a) find out what proportion of thesehomeless veterans reported committing felonies (b) investigate what fac-tors discriminated between non-offenders nuisance offenders and felonsand (c) discuss some rehabilitation implications of the findings

Contrary to generalizations in the literature that the majority of home-less persons commit only nuisance offenses this study found that 77 individ-uals or 41 percent of the sample reported felony offenses This was a greaterproportion than the 27 percent who reported being involved in nuisance of-fenses The discriminators considered in this study allow approximately 80

Journal of Offender Rehabilitation Vol 37 (1) 2003 Pp 41-65

httpwwwhaworthpresscomstoreproductaspsku=J076

2003 by The Haworth Press Inc All rights reserved

101300J076v37n01_04

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

percent of the cases to be correctly classified using discriminant analysis Impli-cations of these findings for rehabilitation were discussed [Article copies avail-able for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service 1-800-HAWORTH E-mail ad-dressltdocdeliveryhaworthpresscomgtWebsitelthttpwwwHaworthPresscomgtcopy2003byThe Haworth Press Inc All rights reserved]

KEYWORDS Homeless veterans self-reported nuisance and felony of-fenses VA Medical Center program for substance abuse

There are two contrasting schools of thought on why some people arehomeless in America (DeLisi 2000) The classical school (eg Beccaria1963 Bentham 1948) posits that homeless people are rational free thinkingbeings who largely choose consciously or unconsciously to engage in behav-iors leading to being unsheltered including alcohol and other drug abuseSome individuals are unemployed by choice and others are too dysfunctionalas a result of substance abuse to obtain or sustain employment Even mental ill-ness is thought to be in large measure a product of abusing substances Ac-cording to this school of thought the homeless essentially are a reproachablegroup of derelicts Homelessness is the end result of a series of foolish choicessuch as drug abuse Paradoxically the homeless are viewed as the perpetratorand victim of debilitating afflictions (Rossi 1989) Therefore societal reac-tions range from scorn to pity from denial to public outcries for help and frombenign neglect to episodic efforts to mount a substantive intervention (LurigioFallon amp Dincin 2000)

In contrast a positivist school of thought argues that the homeless are a het-erogeneous group of indigent persons whose circumstances are attributable toecological (Bronfenbrenner 1979 1986) factors and not to personal choicesranging from predispositions and susceptibilities to dysfunctional familial in-teractions from peer associations to traumata and from lack of opportunitiesto world economies According to the positivist perspective the homelesstruly are the victims of a convergence of forces that for the most part lie be-yond their control (see review Martens 2000)

Within these two schools of thought is a debate about the nature and serious-ness of unlawful behavior among homeless persons (DeLisi 2000) Unlawfulbehavior is the focus of the present study on homeless military veterans whohave abused substances For many years more liberal proponents of the positivistschool of thought have maintained that unlawful behavior among the homelessrepresents nuisance behavior (eg vagrancy) that results from being afflicted withsubstance abuse mental illness and dire poverty (eg Aulette amp Aulette 1987)For example finding a place to sleep is trespassing waiting to eat at a soupkitchen is loitering trying to get cigarettes is panhandling and carrying aroundonersquos belongings is ldquosquattingrdquo In short surviving on the streets as a homeless

42 JOURNAL OF OFFENDER REHABILITATION

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

person is a crime (Aulette amp Aulette 1987 p 253) Irwin (1985) argues that in-carceration serves to manage transient social misfits who annoy business ownersand their clientele as well as passersby Homeless people are social nuisanceswho commit petty offenses they are not serious criminals who need judicial at-tention Indeed a majority of arrests of homeless individuals are for public in-toxication theftshoplifting and violation of municipal ordinances (Snow et al1989) From the classical school homeless persons have chosen a lifestyle that in-volves felony offenses to survive This description of unlawful behavior amonghomeless individuals is in accord with current ldquocompassionate conservativismrdquosocial policies grounded in the classical school of thought

To the contrary there is evidence that homeless persons also commit seriouscrime (Benda 1993 DeLisi 2000 Fisher 1992 Gelberg Linn amp Leake 1988)For example they steal items to buy drugs and drug transactions do lead to vio-lence at times They are involved in robberies and burglaries as well as assaultsAn estimated 20 percent to 66 percent of homeless people have been arrested orincarcerated in the past as compared to only 22 percent of men and 6 percent ofwomen in the general population (Fisher 1992) Crime among the homeless oc-curs due to (a) long-term deviant lifestyles (b) human subsistence needs (c) aneed to satisfy an addiction and (d) diminished mental or moral capacity result-ing from substance abuse andor mental illness Despite the significant differen-tial policy implications prevalence rates associated with these four patterns ofunlawful behavior among the homeless have not been determined (RosenheckBassuk amp Salomon 2001) Long-term deviant lifestyles for example mightsuggest the need for increased incarceration whereas the diminished capacityexplanation suggests targeting additional treatment resources to the homeless

Some writers have observed that the rise in homelessness correspondsclosely to the increase in numbers of prison inmates (eg Orsquo Flaherty 1996)Their interpretation has been that by incarcerating a growing proportion ofdrug abusers disproportionately persons of color criminal justice policy hasseverely limited access to viable employment to the most vulnerable membersof society Homelessness among former inmates may reflect an unanticipatedconsequence of a ldquosolutionrdquo to a poorly understood problem Another socialpolicy issue noted in the literature is the possibility that people with seriousmental illness are being referred with increasing frequency to the criminal jus-tice system because of the deficiencies of the mental health system (Torrey etal 1992) As noted by Rosenheck et al (2001) there is a considerable need forfurther research on the how well alcohol consumption other drug abuse andmental illness predict crime among homeless persons

PURPOSE OF THE PRESENT STUDY

The purpose of the present study is threefold (a) to investigate the types ofoffenses committed by homeless veterans who are substance abusers many of

Benda Rodell and Rodell 43

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

whom are comorbid with psychiatric illnesses (b) to assess how well elementsof three different conceptual perspectives discriminate between self-reportednon-offenders nuisance offenders and felons and (c) to discuss the rehabilita-tion implications of the findings Despite a volume of research on homeless peo-ple (eg see reviews Jencks 1994 Wright 1989 Wright Rubin amp Devine1998) there remains a paucity of studies on alcohol consumption other drugabuse mental illness and crime among the homeless (Benda 1990 1993)Moreover a thorough review of the literature on homeless people revealed noresearch that examines what factors discriminate between non-offenders nui-sance offenders and felons among homeless persons There also are a limitednumber of investigations of these factors among homeless veterans (egKasprow amp Rosenheck 1998 Lam amp Rosenheck 1999 Olfson et al 1999Rosenheck amp Koegel 1993 Rosenheck Frisman amp Chung 1994 Rosenhecket al 1996 1997)

The first theoretical perspective investigated in this study is known as theproblem syndrome theory (Benda amp Corwyn 1998 Jessor amp Jessor 1977McCord 1990 White 1992) Substance abuse unlawful behavior psychiatricafflictions depression and suicidal attempts are theorized to be behavioralmanifestations of a problem syndrome which evolves during adolescence(eg Elliott et al 1989 Farrell Danish amp Howard 1992 Huizinga Lorber ampThornberry 1991 Jessor Donovan amp Costa 1991 McGee amp Newcomb1992 Walters 1994) and continues into adulthood (Gillmore et al 1998) Inother words these problems are interrelated expressions of the same underly-ing trait or psychological deficit (McCord 1990) Based on the syndrome the-ory these problems should discriminate between the study groups (self-reported non-offenders nuisance offenders and felons)

The strengths perspective (Stuadt Howard amp Drake 2001) also is exam-ined in relation to these study groups The strengths perspective has emergedin reaction to theories that emphasize deficits people exhibit Instead thestrengths perspective emphasizes assets persons possess to ameliorate or re-solve problems In this study the strengths investigated include self-esteemego identity locus of control self-efficacy and resilience Self-esteem is a be-lief that one has worth and is deserving of respect (Rosenberg 1979)Ego-identity is onersquos sense of integrity of self as a separate being (Erikson1968) and an internal locus of control is the belief that onersquos actions arelargely responsible for consequences in contrast to the belief that life is a mat-ter of fate chance and luck (Lefcourt 1976) Resilience is the ability to re-bound from any setbacks and to overcome adversities and achieve despite thebarriers (Aroian amp Norris 2000) whereas self-efficacy is a sense of being ef-fective in efforts to accomplish tasks (Bandura 1989) Each of these strengthsare theorized to act as insulators against becoming involved in crime amonghomeless veterans

The final conceptual perspective investigated for discriminators of offensesamong homeless veterans is the social resources model (Fox et al 2001) In-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

cluded among social resources that assist people in resisting the temptation tocommit crimes are a social support system marriage employment educationfriends and family Each of these social resources acts as a buffer to commit-ting crime They provide motivation for avoiding unlawful behavior by offer-ing opportunities and alternatives This classification of factors into strengthsand social resources is in many respects arbitrary and is done more for analyti-cal than etiological purposes For example education could be categorized as astrength However the sample size does not permit analyzing all of these fac-tors together and the classification serves a useful conceptual purpose for in-terventions Elements of the strengths perspective are primarily factors treatedthrough verbal counseling or therapy whereas social resource deficiencies re-quire providing external resources

METHOD

Sample

The average length of stay in a program for homeless substance abusers stud-ied at Veteransrsquo Administration Medical Center in the South was 6 months So arandom sample was selected from the population in this program every 6months making sure that no one was interviewed twice Comparisons of thesamples to the general population in this program indicated that they are repre-sentative in terms of several sociodemographics and medical conditions in-cluding substance abuse and psychiatric histories The sample characteristicswere shown in Table 1

A selective review indicated that about half (505 percent) of the 188 veter-ans were white 69 persons (367 percent) were black and 24 (128 percent) in-dividuals were from other racial groups The residence indicated this samplemirrored the state population with 383 percent from urban areas and 612 per-cent from rural settings Only 5 or 27 percent of these substance abusers weremarried and 99 persons or 527 percent were divorced Forty veterans or225 percent lived with an alcoholic and 27 persons or 144 percent livedwith someone who abuses other drugs Forty-four individuals or 237 percenthad attempted suicide and 84 people or 447 percent were diagnosed as clini-cally depressed Forty percent had been hospitalized for a psychiatric illnessprior to the study and 45 percent were reported to be comorbid (i e substanceabuse and other psychiatric problems) by a psychiatrist

Table 2 shows some more sample properties with variables at interval or ra-tio levels of measurement For example the average (mean) age was 445years and the average (or standard) deviation was 47 years Forty-four wasthe most common (mode) age with 293 percent of the sample Forty percenthad been hospitalized for psychiatric problems before this study


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Table 1 Sample Characteristics

Factors Persons PercentGender

Male 178 947Female 10 53

RaceWhite 95 505Black 69 367Other 24 128

Family-of-origin (most of the time)Both biological 101 537Mother and step-father 19 101Father and step-mother 12 64Single mother 42 223Single father 3 16Other 11 59

Residence (during adolescence)Urban 72 383Rural 115 612Missing 1 5

Usual employment in past 3 yearsFull-time 119 633Regular part-time 19 101Irregular part-time 3 16Occasion day labor 43 225Controlled environment 2 11Missing 2 11

Marital statusMarried 5 27Widowed 40 213Separated 42 223Divorced 99 527Missing 2 11

Live with alcoholicYes 40 225No 138 734Missing 10 53

Live with other drug abuserYes 27 144No 151 803Missing 10 53

Suicide attemptsYes 44 237No 141 762Missing 2 11

Suicidal thoughtsYes 79 420No 107 569Missing 2 11

DepressedYes 84 447No 102 543Missing 2 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

The nine types of self-reported offenses were shown in Table 3 with thenumber of persons reporting each offense and the percentages they constitutedof the sample Several individuals reported more than one type of offense sothe cumulative total does not equal the sample size of 188 Because of the pop-ular misconception that homeless persons primarily commit nuisance of-fenses attention should be directed to the relatively large percentages thatreported drug charges and committed forgery and assault


Table 2 Sample Properties

Factor StandardMean Deviation Mode (percent) Range Missing

Age 445 47 44 (293) 24-59 0Education in years 126 13 12 (521) 8-15 0Monthly income 29863 61548 0 (548) 0-5000 2Years used alcohol 2434 1269 24 (112) 0-49 0Years used drugs 2333 1369 23 (111) 0-50 0 Psychiatric

hospitalizations 78 215 0 (713) 0-20 2Times treated for

substance abuse 350 747 1 (293) 0-18 0 Medical hospitalizations 280 443 0 (229) 0-40 0Crime 150 158 1 (319) 0-7 0

Note Crime is a summated score where persons were given a 1 for each type of crimethey committed and not the number of crimes

Table 3 Types of Crimes Reported in Year Prior to Interview

Crime Persons Percent of sampleNuisance 50 270Shopliftingtheft 77 410Drug charges 52 277Forgery 44 234Weapons 28 149Burglary 27 144Robbery 10 53Assault 44 234Homicide 6 32

Note Nuisance offenses include disorderly conduct vagrancy public intoxicationShopliftingtheft also includes theft by receiving

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Procedures

All study participants were interviewed on two separate days within the firstthree weeks arrival in the program for substance abusers which was a programthat followed the 30-day detoxification intervention given to participants afteradmission The program consisted of several components to include but notlimited to individual and group counseling continuation of the 12-step regi-men resume writing job searches learning survival skills and preparationsfor independent living The program lasted from about 6 months to one year(or longer if indicated) depending on the need Veterans were assured of con-fidentiality of information and that it would be used only in aggregate statisti-cal tables Consent forms were signed and participation in the study wasvoluntary Two social workers and 4 social work interns who worked in theprogram did interviews These interviews were conducted as intake interviewsand formed the bases for many of the services received Hence no one refusedto be interviewed and respondents were assured that the data would only beused in service-provision and in aggregate statistics and that these recordswould be destroyed after they were released Respondents were assured thatthe data with any identifiers would only be accessible to clinical personnel di-rectly involved in their treatment All interviewers received extensive trainingmaking certain that information about income drug use and so on pertained tothe period before hospitalization

After the Domiciliary program persons were placed in living situations thatseemed appropriate to the level of functioning assessed by a team of interdisci-plinary professionals When persons left the hospital they had viable employ-ment and shelter and were encouraged by aftercare workers to continue AAandor mental health meetings and they were given assistance in solving prob-lems that arose

Outcome

Items on the ASI (McLellan et al 1992) measuring the number of differentoffenses reported constitute the outcome analyzed in this study Table 3 showsthe items with responses and nuisance offenses were disorderly conduct va-grancy and public intoxication While the questions asked about the numberof times respondents had committed these offenses in the year prior to the in-terview the outcome analyzed was a trichotomy of non-offender nuisance of-fender and criminal The 50 classified nuisance offenders shown in Table 3reported only these offenses whereas many persons reporting felonies alsogave an account of nuisance offenses as well

The use of self-reported data on crime is controversial in the literature onsubstance abuse (Lennings amp Davey 2000) Aside from the fact that research-ers ask respondents about behaviors for which they are prosecutable there isthe possibility of brain impairments and loss of memory with substance abus-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

ers However recent studies suggest such skepticism may be unfounded if therespondents are assured that the information will not be shared with sanction-ing authorities (Ball Rosen Flueck amp Nurco 1982 Kosten RounsavilleKleber 1987) Self-report data have been shown to provide a more accurate in-dication of illicit activity than do official records (Chaiken amp Chaiken 1990Elliott Huizinga amp Ageton 1985) In fact there is evidence that arrests andsentencing represent only a small percentage of crimes committed (EmpeyStafford amp Hay 1999)

At the same time it is clear that self-report data on crime are subject to dis-tortion To decrease the likelihood of inaccurate information on offenses pro-fessionals that treated the respondents in the VA program conducted thestudy interviews to inform actual services provided Respondents were as-sured of total confidentiality and there was no history of using this informationto sanction program participants Moreover extensive probes were used to becertain of information provided It must be kept in perspective that the datawere analyzed as discrete Therefore a simple ldquoyesrdquo or ldquonordquo response to one ofseveral felonies in the past year should be a reasonably creditable response toclassify a person as a felon

Measures

The Addiction Severity Index (ASI) (McLellan et al 1992) was ad-ministered on a separate day from other measures discussed The ASI hasreports of good reliability and validity (see review Rosen et al 2000) Inthis study information obtained from the ASI was highly reliable accord-ing to a check of responses against data contained in electronic records(eg age education number of psychiatric hospitalizations) and all in-terviewers rated the interviews as candid In all instances interviewershad established rapport with respondents as clinicians before the inter-view was done for this study Factors analyzed in this study from the ASIincluded number of psychiatric hospitalizations before the interview ed-ucation in years and usual employment pattern in the past three years (1 =full-time 0 = other)

Other measures came from Hudsonrsquos (1990) Multi-Problem Screening In-ventory (MPSI) which consisted of 27 subscales Twenty-six of thesesubscales had a Cronbachrsquos (1951) alpha of 80 or higher with 16 having an al-pha of 90 or higher (Hudson 1990) All subscales from Hudson used in thepresent analyses had alphas of 80 or above in his samples and in the presentstudy Also all were reported by Hudson to have good validity In the presentstudy subscales from Hudson were (a) self-esteem (b) depression (c) alco-hol abuse (d) drug abuse (e) suicidal thoughts (f) problems with family and(g) problems with friends Each of the subscales had 7-point scales rangingfrom ldquonone of the timerdquo to ldquoall of the timerdquo and a score of 30 or above wasconsidered to indicate a problem or the presence of low self-esteem Low


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

scores on subscales measuring problems with family and problems withfriends were considered positive social resources The subscales of alcoholabuse drug abuse and suicidal thoughts of the MPSI were used in the analysisof the problem syndrome theory

As a check on validity the depression subscale on the MPSI had a point-biserial correlation of 96 with the diagnosis of depression in patientsrsquo medicalcharts and a point biserial correlation of 92 with the single item on the ASIabout whether the respondent felt depressed A point biserial correlation of 90between the subscale of the MPSI that measured problems with family and ques-tions on the ASI also indicated accuracy Finally there was a point biserial cor-relation of 96 between the MPSI subscale measuring suicidal thoughts and anitem on the ASI concerning such thoughts These multiple measures indicatedaccuracy in responses on the questionnaire

The twelve social support items (with 4-point scales ranging from stronglydisagree to strongly agree) from the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived So-cial Support (Zimet et al 1988) were used which measured support from fam-ily friends and significant others (alpha [ ] = 80) and had good validity TheEgo Identity Scale (EIS) was a 12-item scale that measures Eriksonrsquos (1968)concept of ego identity Respondents choose between two responses with onechoice representing ego diffusion Ego identity was defined as acceptance ofself and a sense of direction and it had good validity (Tan et al 1977) TheCronbachrsquos alpha ( ) in this study for the EIS was 74 Seven items (5-pointscale from ldquostrongly disagreerdquo to ldquostrongly agreerdquo) of the Self-Efficacy Scale(Maddox et al 1982) were used this scale had good construct validity and analpha of 86 In the present study these 7 items had an alpha ( ) of 90 and in-cluded the most salient efficacy items like ldquoI make certain my plans work outrdquoand ldquoI am a self-reliant personrdquo

Resilience was measured by 5 items (5-point scales from ldquostrongly dis-agreerdquo to ldquostrongly agreerdquo) (1) I am able to overcome difficulties or traumaticevents quickly and move on with my life (2) I do not allow obstacles to keepme from accomplishing what I want to do (3) I am able to successfully dealwith situations that life hands me (4) I bounce back from failures quickly andcontinue until I am successful (5) I can endure a lot of setbacks and still try tosucceed in life ( = 89) These items were very similar to those found on otherscales that measure resilience (see Aroian amp Norris 2000) However the va-lidity of this measure has not been established The Nowicki-Strickland Locusof Control Scale (40 items with ldquoyesrdquo or ldquonordquo format) was administered(Norwicki amp Strickland 1973) It is reported to have strong concurrent valid-ity and the reliability alpha in this study was 82

Data Analyses of Outcome

A correlational matrix of all study factors using Pearson product-momentcorrelations was examined prior to conducting the analyses The only correla-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

tions above 30 were between resilience and self-efficacy (40) and betweenself-esteem and self-efficacy (37) Since these factors were related conceptu-ally but were not synonymous or expected to be redundant tolerance tests andvariance inflation factors also were examined for multicollinearity (Freund ampWilson 1998) These tests did not indicate that there was a problem withmulticollinearity Moreover a principal components (PC) analysis withvarimax rotation of correlated factors indicated self-esteem resilience andself-efficacy were 3 distinct factors This PC analysis also indicated that theitems loaded on these three factors according to the measures discussed in theMeasures section (Freund amp Wilson 1998) Separate maximum likelihoodfactor analyses with oblimin rotation of each scale in the study indicated thatitems loaded (loadings gt 60) on the scale analyzed (eg all items of depres-sion loaded on the depression scale)

Discriminant Analysis

Discriminant analysis (Klenka 1980) was used to determine what theoreti-cal factors discriminate between the trichotomous outcome or groups (ieself-reported non-offenders nuisance offenders and felons) The proceduremodels a dependent variable as a function of a weighted linear combination ofdiscriminating variables and error By maximizing between-group variancerelative to within-group variance the discriminant function distinguishes be-tween groups with minimization of errors The procedure can be visualized asdividing a geometric space into mutually exclusive and exhaustive regions If aparticular case falls into a region based on a weighted average of its value onvariables in the discriminant function the case is predicted to belong in that re-gion or group (eg non-offender) A classification table then is examined forerrors by comparing predicted and observed group memberships (for exampleself-esteem and resilience might misclassify the person as a non-offender)

FINDINGS

The first discriminate analysis is of elements of the problem syndrome theorythat risky behaviors such as alcohol abuse other drug abuse and psychiatric af-flictions are manifestations of one underlying trait or psychological syndromeThe analysis shown in Table 4 can be interpreted as supporting the problem syn-drome theory Indeed only one function is found to be statistically viable and itindicates that alcohol abuse other drug abuse number of prior psychiatric hos-pitalizations suicidal thoughts and depression discriminate between self-re-ported non-offenders and offenders (ie nuisance offenders and felons) In otherwords these other problems are related to whether or not homeless veterans reporthaving committed offenses This finding offers some support for the problem syn-drome interrelationships between all problems would be necessary to provide fullsupport (Benda amp Corwyn 1998 Corwyn amp Benda 1999)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

On the other hand the discriminant analysis in Table 5 indicates 2 functionsamong the elements of the strengths perspective Self-efficacy ego-identityand resilience discriminate between self-reported non-offenders and offend-ers whereas locus of control and self-esteem discriminate between self-re-ported felons and others (non-offenders and nuisance offenders) A discussionof these different functions follows It is interesting to note that the percentagesof cases correctly classified with the strengths perspective is commensurate withwhat is observed using elements of the problem syndrome (Tables 4 and 5)

Finally the discriminatory power of the social resources model is analyzedin Table 6 An immediate observation is that these factors do classify a greater


Table 4 Discriminant Analysis of Non-Offenders NuisanceOffenders and Felons Problem Syndrome Theory

Canonical Discriminant Function Evaluated at the Group Mean

Group Function 1 Function 2Non-offenders 089899 005354Nuisance offenders 077491 011234Felons 077139 010461

Pooled Within-groups Correlation Between Discriminant Functions

Function 1 Function 2Alcohol abuser 061456 021145Drug abuser 055452 018324 psychiatric

hospitalizations 045632 015476Suicidal thoughts 032149 010296Depression 025731 021122

Classification Based on Analysis

Predicted Group Membership

Observed Group of Cases 1 2 3

Non-recidivists 1 61 55 6 0(902) (98) (0)

Nuisance offenders 2 50 5 36 9(10) (72) (18)

Felons 3 77 2 12 63(26) (156) (818)

Percent of cases correctly classified 819

Note P lt 05 P lt 01

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

percentage of cases albeit a modest improvement correctly than do elements ofthe other two perspectives (Tables 4 5 and 6) In fact eighty-eight percent of thecases are correctly classified using these social resources as discriminatorsThere are two viable functions with the elements of social resources Familyrelations education and employment distinguish between self-reportednon-offenders and offenders whereas social support and number of friendsdiscriminate between self-reported felons and others (non-offenders and nui-sance offenders) All factors are coded so a positive coefficient means it is con-cordant with theory For example family relations are measured with asubscale of the MPSI that has items asking about problems in the family Theseitems are reverse coded so a high score indicates positive family relations and


Table 5 Discriminant Analysis of Non-Offenders NuisanceOffenders and Felons Strengths Perspective




Function 1 Function 2Self-efficacy 072341 024321Ego-identity 055525 022347Resilience 032915 020010Locus of control 021987 060012Self-esteem 019234 040132




Non-recidivists 1 61 53 5 3(867) (82) (51)


Felons 3 77 5 7 65(65) (9) (845)



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

so these factors are positively related to being a non-offenderndashmany items askabout love and caring in the family and so the scale can easily be interpreted asgood family relations

DISCUSSION

This was a study of 188 military veterans who entered a program at a VAin the South for substance abusers The purpose of the study was to (a) find out


Table 6 Discriminant Analysis of Non-Offenders NuisanceOffenders and Felons Social Resources Model




Function 1 Function 2Family relations 079865 018321Education 070424 019632Employment 050487 010832Social support 018419 062154Friends 010239 025124




Non-recidivists 1 61 58 3 0(951) (49) (0)


Felons 3 77 3 5 69(39) (65) (896)



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

what percentage of these veterans reported different types of offenses (b) in-vestigate what factors discriminated between self-reported non-offenders nui-sance offenders and felons and (c) discuss some intervention implications ofthe findings The conceptual framework for the study was based on the prob-lem syndrome theory the strengths perspective and on the social resourcemodel

These three perspectives seem to capture the primary deficits and assets re-flected in the problem of homelessness Indeed despite the extreme emphasison focusing only on personal assets among ardent proponents of the strengthsperspective (see review Stuadt et al 2001) the fact remains that most home-less persons suffer multiple problems For example in this study 24 percentstate they have attempted suicide 42 percent report suicidal thoughts 45 per-cent say they are depressed 41 percent report felonies 27 percent self-reportnuisance offenses and 40 percent have been in a psychiatric hospital prior tobeing interviewed in this project This study shows that alcohol abuse otherdrug abuse number of psychiatric hospitalizations suicidal thoughts and de-pression discriminate between self-reported non-offender and offenders It isto be hoped that these relationships will not be ignored as they have been forseveral years (Benda 1990 1993) In fact there need to be studies that exam-ine the overlap between these problems among homeless persons with proce-dures such as log-linear analysis (Benda amp Corwyn 1998) The descriptiveinformation in this study suggests that the overlap between behavioral prob-lems is considerable (ie several substance abusers also have psychiatric af-flictions and commit offenses)

This study also offers evidence that the prevailing argument that homelesspeople for the most part commit nuisance offenses such as vagrancy is anoverstatement (see review DeLisi 2000) This argument seems to have pre-vailed because of the more liberal perspective that homeless persons are al-most exclusively victims of circumstances and of problems over which theyhave little or no control (see review Rossi 1989) Unequivocally homeless-ness is an affliction that deserves empathy and compassion and much moreextensive and effective intervention than presently exists However compas-sion and the desire for more adequate approaches to rehabilitation should notcause professionals to overlook homeless peoplersquos behavior This study pre-sents self-reported data that a relatively significant percentage of homelesssubstance abusers commit felonies and not just nuisance offenses How theseldquoself-report datardquo are interpreted and used to design interventions depends to asignificant extent on ideological preferences Some professionals argue thatshoplifting theft drug charges (using and selling) and even assault are be-haviors necessitated by or in response to the dire poverty and dangers of home-lessness Theft is often necessary to supplement panhandling drugs are used torender persons oblivious to their abhorrent living conditions and assault fre-quently is self-protection or protection of scarce resources


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

However these more liberal interpretations of data on crime among thehomeless need further investigation with probes that reveal the motivationscircumstances leading up to commission of crimes and situational factors sur-rounding the criminal acts Anecdotal information gathered in this study sug-gests that situational factors are not a satisfactory explanation of most crimeamong homeless veterans who abuse substance Obviously this observation isbased on interpretation and not on ldquohardrdquo evidence However the anecdotalinformation is based on in-depth interviews by social workers and there is aconsistency in reporting that most crimes involve exploitation of circum-stances and of other persons For example the majority of homeless veteransreported that most shoplifting and theft occurred because of opportunitiespresent and because these unlawful acts typically require less effort and areless demeaning than panhandling Also they stated that shoplifting theft andselling drugs are more lucrative than begging for money on the streets As-saults often occur to acquire drugs or money from other homeless persons andldquoeasy targetsrdquo among the general citizenry

This is an opportune juncture at which to note the limitations of the presentstudy This study consists of a relatively small sample of homeless veteranswho abuse substances at one VA in the South Certainly it is possible thatthese homeless veterans are not representative of other homeless veterans whoabuse substances of other homeless veterans or of the general population ofunsheltered persons The data on crimes are self-report and despite efforts toensure truthful and accurate responses there is no objective indicator of the va-lidity of the information provided The use of professionals that are gatheringinformation for treatment in a program for drug abusers with assurances of to-tal confidentiality likely increased the accuracy of information on crime espe-cially with the employment of extensive probes Also the check on consistencyof responses lent credibility to the responses Also despite additional questionsto learn more about criminal activity this information is anecdotal and notbased on a systematic survey designed to gather specific data on motivationscircumstances and situations involved in the commission of crimes This typeof survey is sorely needed to better understand the nature of crime among thehomeless drug abusers who may also be afflicted with psychiatric problemsAlso the cross-sectional design prevents testing developmental sequencesSo for example there is no way to determine if alcohol abuse is antecedent toor the consequence of crime Indeed it is possible that alcohol was used to re-duce inhibitions or relieve the stresses of criminal acts Moreover multiplesources of information would have strengthened the study

With these limitations in mind it should be noted that the present study ap-pears to be the first one that investigates factors that might discriminate be-tween non-offenders nuisance offenders and felons among homeless veteranswho abuse substances These distinctions are useful to understanding home-less substance abusers as well as to intervention The existing literature onhomeless substance abuses does not distinguish these groups and it is replete


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

with descriptions that offenses among these persons are not prevalent and con-sists of misdemeanors arising primarily from the condition of homelessness(eg panhandling) How much latitude one extends to homeless people inclassifying their unlawful behavior as crimes of necessity obviously is basedon ideological preferences However I would take intellectual umbrage withthe characterization that the pattern of offenses shown in this study representstransgressions that are necessary to survive on the streets homeless If most ofthe offenses had been vagrancy panhandling shoplifting and public intoxica-tion then I would agree that homeless peoplersquos offenses are to some extentcircumstantial

Aside from focusing attention on a problem that has received scant attentionin the literature on homeless persons this study also examines severalstrengths useful to intervention that have rarely been investigated The find-ings on strengths appear to be highly plausible For example it is reasonable toassume that persons who believe that they can be relatively effective in accom-plishing tasks are more inclined to pursue lawful courses of survival such asoccasional day work than those who think they are ineffective While self-effi-cacy probably encourages crime in some instances it likely presents alterna-tives to unlawful behavior among persons who have sunk to the depths ofhomelessness and substance abuse Typically homeless persons would not becareer criminals who are honing their skills in crime

Likewise persons who have a healthier sense of identity and are resilient insurmounting their challenges and defeats are more likely to seek and findways of surviving on the street without offenses They may well be personswho feel a sense of pride and accomplishment in living independent of nui-sance offenses or crime They are more resourceful in obtaining enough em-ployment and other assistance to subsist without resorting to unlawfulbehavior It is very probable that these are the higher functioning homeless vet-erans Although this study suggests these relationships further research isneeded to determine precisely how these strengths are related to degree of ad-diction and mental health

Locus of control and self-esteem on the other hand discriminated betweenfelons and others in the sample This finding also seems plausible Homelesspersons who believe life is a matter of fate and chance and who have lowself-esteem are more likely to engage in risky behavior such as assault or drugdeals They are less likely to see the connection between choices and conse-quences or to care what happens to them They may not see that they have al-ternatives or feel worthy of exploring options This exploratory studyintroduces some factors that discriminate between outcomes in regard to crimethat should receive more research attention since the pattern of findings seemsbelievable It seems logical that homeless substance abusers who have little re-spect for themselves and think that life is simply a matter of fate are likely totake the risks inherent in crime


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

The greatest percentage of correctly classified cases albeit there is a modestdifference between analyses came from elements of the social resourcemodel According to these findings family relations education and usual pat-tern of employment in the past three years (1 = full-time 0 = other) discrimi-nate between non-offenders and others in the study It makes sense thateducation typically makes employment more accessible and employment is analternative to committing offenses to survive on the streets Having positivefamily relations would offer encouragement to remain free of crime and possi-bly resources for employment

On the other hand social support and having positive friendships are dis-criminating factors between felons and others in the sample The author willforego any interpretation of these findings because they appear more specula-tive than others that have been offered For example while it might be arguedthat social support should discourage unlawful behavior to survive on thestreets it is not clear why this factor would discriminate between nuisance of-fenders and felons The same difficulty in interpretation is true of friendshipsMoreover whereas peer association is one of the strongest predictors of crime(Akers 2000) the items used to measure friendship in this study likely indi-cated more prosocial interaction among homeless substance abusers

Intervention Implications

Currently the large numbers of chemical abusers who suffer other psychi-atric afflictions present daunting challenges to traditional approaches to the de-livery of psychiatric care or substance abuse treatment (Jerrell Wilson ampHiller 2000 Nuttbrock et al 1998) Psychiatric illness and substance abusehistorically have been treated in separate systems with different treatmentframeworks and strategies Because of this structural division in the deliveryof psychiatric and substance abuse treatment mentally ill chemical abusers areunlikely to find adequate treatment in either system Staff in substance abuseprograms rarely is trained to treat serious psychiatric problems and those whodo mental health treatment typically do not have the experience to provide ade-quate services to substance abusers Frequently mentally ill chemical abusersare shuffled between psychiatric and substance abuse rehabilitation programsusing scarce resources without receiving appropriate treatment (Rosenheck ampCicchetti 1998)

Further complicating the treatment of many individuals studied is theirchronic homelessness and a significant proportion of them are involved incrime These complexities make the treatment of many homeless veterans in-tricate requiring the synchronization of various professionalsrsquo assessmentsand differing approaches to intervention Intervention needs to be morebroadly defined than is typically found in the literature on homeless peopleCertainly there has to be more and greater integration of substance abuse andpsychiatric services in programs designed for homeless persons who suffer


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

these afflictions This will involve cross-fertilization between professionalstrained to treat either chemical abuse or psychiatric problems Graduate curric-ula in professional schools need to offer courses that provide an integrative ap-proach to the treatment of substance abuse and other psychiatric problems

This study suggests that integration of services also must include assess-ment and intervention approaches for persons who commit crimes The vari-ous patterns of interrelated problems likely present in a diverse population ofhomeless persons means that classification schemes need to be developedThese classifications should link patterns of problems or needs to differentialintervention approaches For example a chronic substance abuser that as-saulted others for reasons other than self-protection may need to be referred tothe correctional system for incarceration in a facility that offers drug treatmentIn contrast a chronic substance abuser that suffers other psychiatric problemsand has committed nuisance offenses needs to be in an extended integrativeprogram that offers drug treatment along with mental health care A youngersubstance abuser who is not afflicted with noteworthy psychiatric problemsand who has committed a crime may well benefit from ldquoshock incarcerationrdquosuch as boot camp (Toombs Benda amp Corwyn 1997) These differential in-tervention plans clearly require a coordinated team approach from varioustypes of professionals with diverse backgrounds Professions tend to focus ondifferent aspects of problems and individuals within particular professionstypically concentrate on certain problems in their training and experienceMore integrated curricula in professional schools and cross-fertilizationwithin treatment teams will better prepare individuals to assess and plan inter-vention approaches However different professions are needed to care for thehomeless population For example many older homeless persons have serioushealth problems or need medication from a physician for their psychotic epi-sodes Psychological examination may be needed to verify the extent of psy-chiatric problems

A primary focus of this study is to draw attention to the problem of crimeamong homeless veterans who abuse substances Professionals with trainingand experience in working with persons who commit crimes are needed in pro-grams set up for homeless substance abusers Current ideological perspectiveson crime among the homeless as being nuisance offenses are doing a disser-vice to those who are engaged in unlawful behavior and to victims of theircrimes Instead of providing certified excuses for their criminal activities pro-fessionals need to have more respect for individual choices being made byhomeless people and begin to make the homeless aware of their deci-sion-making Homeless persons who are involved in crime need to understandthat they are freely choosing to engage in unlawful behavior and that there areconsequences for this behavior even though they may suffer substance abuseor other psychiatric problems At times this may require a period of incarcera-tion to get their attention in order to provide an understanding of how theirchoices lead to undesirable consequences In tandem with or in lieu of incar-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

ceration a significant proportion of homeless veterans who are committingcrimes likely need drug treatment and psychiatric services There are somepersons who commit crimes solely to support a substance addiction whereasothers are criminals who are addicted to a drug Only a team of professionalswith diverse training and experience can properly assess these motivationaldifferences

As detailed elsewhere (eg Hipwell Singh amp Clark 2000 McFall et al2000 Nuttbrock et al 1998) these psychosocial rehabilitation efforts must becombined with providing more adequate housing employment and health ser-vices for the homeless population Discussion of this broader range of re-sources lies beyond the scope of the present study of crime among thehomeless Suffice to say that homelessness is a product of many interlockingproblems that need to be considered in any intervention approach This discus-sion has primarily focused on criminal behavior among unsheltered personsbecause this aspect of homelessness has been virtually ignored in the literatureespecially on rehabilitation

Some examples of specific therapeutic interventions for homeless sub-stance abusers that commit crimes aside from entering the Department of Cor-rections will be briefly mentioned in conclusion The interventions mentionedare those with empirical support for their effectiveness (Andrews amp Bonta1998 Harland 1996 Sherman et al 1997) Evidence indicates that familytherapy and bolstering social support networks are useful in combination withother more individual oriented services A major problem that typifies home-lessness is the lack of a social support network and severed ties with familiesIn most cases homeless persons especially those discussed in this study havealienated family members and other people by their undesirable behavior anddemands stemming from substance abuse psychiatric problems and crimeStated succinctly their former support system is no longer accessible This re-quires an incremental process of rebuilding these supports by establishingclear guidelines and expectations that are mutually agreeable to homeless peo-ple and members of their potential support system Considerable rapport andtrust must be created initially before beginning to rebuild relationshipsTraining in open and sensitive communication as well as offering empathicunderstanding and support is often requisite to establishing guidelines and ex-pectations of interactions Traditional family therapy frequently also is neededto resolve existing problems before members can be supportive of homelessindividuals (Moos Moos amp Andrassy 1999)

The twelve-step model developed by Alcoholics Anonymous (AA WorldServices 1953 1976) is still considered an efficacious intervention for sub-stance abuse Albeit not sufficient abstinence for almost all substance abusersis necessary to obtaining and sustaining employment independent living andsupportive relationships In addition substance abusers that commit crimesmust be given cognitive treatment (Harland 1996) Cognitive skills such an-ticipation negotiation problem-solving examining perspectives considering


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

alternative solutions to interpersonal problems consequential thinking andsensitivity to feelings of others are essential to living free of crime (Granvold1994) Persons who commit crimes need to become more cognizant of the ad-verse consequences of crime for themselves victims and those they loveHomeless offenders must become aware that crime has many associated costshowever subtle and delayed they may appear to the criminal For segments ofthe homeless population who commit crime incarceration may be requisite tobecoming amenable to cognitive treatment

In conclusion the primary aim of this study is to refocus attention on thereality that some homeless people do commit crimes that cannot appropri-ately be classified as has been done in the literature as nuisance offensesor imprudent behavior It is unfair to the homeless offender immediate vic-tim and the general citizenry to continue to present an incorrect portrait ofhomeless offenders however well intentioned from a compassionate per-spective

REFERENCES

Akers R L (2000) Criminological theories Introduction and evaluation (3rd ed)Los Angeles CA Roxbury

Andrews D A amp Bonta J (1998) The psychology of criminal conduct (2nd ed)Cincinnati OH Anderson

Aroian K J amp Norris A E (2000) Resilience stress and depression among Russianimmigrants to Israel Western Journal of Nursing Research 22 54-67

Aulette J amp Aulette A (1987) Police harassment of the homeless Humanity and So-ciety 11 244-256

Ball J C Rosen L Flueck J A amp Nurco D N (1982) Lifetime criminality of her-oin addicts in the United States Journal of Drug Users 12 225-239

Bandura A (1997) Self-efficacy The exercise of control New York Freeman amp CoBeccaria C (1963) On crimes and punishments Translated by H Paolucci Indianap-

olis IN Bobb-MerrillBenda B B (1990) Crime drug abuse and mental illness A comparison of homeless

men and women Journal of Social Service Research 13 39-60Benda B B (1993) Predictors of arrests and service use among the homeless Logit

analyses Psychosocial Rehabilitation Journal 17 145-162Benda BB amp Corwyn R F (1998) Adolescent deviant behavior Multiple contin-

gency table analyses of overlap between behaviors Journal of Social Service Re-search 24 29-60

Bentham J (1948) An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation NewYork Hafner

Bronfenbrenner U (1979) The ecology of human development Experiments by na-ture and design Cambridge MA Harvard University Press


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Bronfenbrenner U (1986) Ecology of the family as context for human developmentResearch perspectives Developmental Psychology 22 723-735

Chaiken J M amp Chaiken M R (1990) Drugs and predatory crime In M Tonry ampJ Q Wilson (Eds) Drugs and crime (pp 203-320) Chicago University of Chi-cago Press

Corwyn R F amp Benda BB (1999) Multiple contingency table analyses of the devi-ance syndrome How much overlap is there Journal of Child amp Adolescent Sub-stance Abuse 9 39-56

Cronbach L J (1951) Coefficient alpha and internal structure of tests Psychometrica16 297-334

DeLisi M (2001) Who is more dangerous Comparing the criminality of adult home-less and domiciled jail inmates A research note International Journal of OffenderTherapy and Comparative Criminology 44 59-69

Elliott D S Huizinga D amp Ageton S S (1985) Explaining delinquency and druguse Beverly Hills CA Sage

Elliott DS Huizinga D amp Menard S (1989) Multiple problem youth Delin-quency substance use and mental health problems New York Springer-Verlag

Empey L T Stafford M C amp Hay C H (1999) American delinquency Its mean-ing and construction (4th ed) Belmont CA Wadsworth

Erikson E (1968) Identity Youth and crisis New York NortonFarrow J A Deisher R W Brown R Kulig J W amp Kipke M D (1992) Health

and health needs of homeless and runaway youth Journal of Adolescent Health 13717-726

Fisher P J (1992) The criminalization of homelessness In M J Robertson amp MGreenblatt (Eds) Homelessness A national perspective (pp 23-54) New YorkPlenum Press

Fox J C Blank M Rovnyak V G Barnett R Y (2001) Barriers to help seekingfor mental disorders in a rural impoverished population Community Mental HealthJournal 13 421-436

Freund R J amp Wilson W J (1998) Regression analysis Statistical modeling of aresponse variable New York Academic Press

Gelberg L Linn L S amp Leake B D (1988) Mental health alcohol and drug useand criminal history among homeless adults American Journal of Psychiatry 145191-196

Gillmore M R Spencer M S Larson N C Tran Q D amp Gilchrist L D (1998)Childbearing adolecents and problem behavior theory Journal of Social ServiceResearch 24 85-110

Granvold D K (Ed) (1994) Cognitive and behavioral treatment Methods and appli-cations Pacific Grove CA BrooksCole

Harland A T (Ed) (1996) Choosing correctional options that work Thousand OaksCA Sage

Hipwell A E Singh K amp Clark A (2000) Substance misuse among clients with se-vere and enduring mental illness Service utilisation and implications for clinicalmanagement Journal of Mental Health 9 37-50

Hudson W W (1990) The MPSI technical manual Tempe AZ Walmer PublishingCompany


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Huizinga D Loeber R amp Thornberry T (1991) Urban delinquency and substanceabuse Technical reports Vols 1 amp 2 Washington DC Department of Justice

Irwin J (1985) The jail Berkeley University of California PressJerrell J M Wilson J L amp Hiller D C (2000) Issues and outcomes in integrated

treatment programs for dual disorders The Journal of Behavioral Health Services ampResearch 27 303-313

Jessor R Donovan J E amp Costa F M (1991) Beyond adolescence Problem be-havior and young adult development New York Cambridge University Press

Jessor R amp Jessor S L (1977) Problem behavior and psychosocial development Alongitudinal study of youth New York Academic Press

Kasprow W J amp Rosenheck R A (1998) Substance use and psychiatric problems ofhomeless native American veterans Psychiatric Services 49 345-350

Klenka W A (1980) Discriminant analysis Beverly Hills CA SageKosten T R Rounsaville B amp Kleber H D (1987) A 25-year follow up of cocaine

use among treated opioid addicts Have our treatments helped Archives of GeneralPsychiatry 44 281-284

Lam J A amp Rosenheck R A (1999) Social support and service use among home-less persons with serious mental illness The International Journal of Social Psychi-atry 45 13-28

Lennings C J amp Davey J (2000) Methadone clients crime and substance use In-ternational Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 44667-680

Lurigio A J Fallon J R amp Dincin J (2000) Helping the mentally ill in jails adjustto community life A description of a postrelease ACT program and its clients In-ternational Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 44532-548

Maddox S M Mercandante J E Prentice-Dunn S Jacobs B amp Rogers R W(1982) The self-efficacy scale Construction and validation Psychological Re-ports 51 663-671

Martens W J (2000) Antisocial and psychopathic personality disorders Causescourse and remissionndashA review article International Journal of Offender Therapyand Comparative Criminology 44 406-430

McCord J (1990) Problem behaviors In S S Feldman amp G R Elliott (Eds) At thethreshold The developing adolescent (pp 414-430) Cambridge MA HarvardUniversity Press

McFall M Malte C Fontana A amp Rosenheck R A (2000) Effects of an outreachintervention on use of mental health services by veterans with posttraumatic stressdisorder Psychiatric Services 51 369-374

McGee L amp Newcomb M D (1992) General deviance syndrome Expanded hierar-chical evaluations at four ages from early adolescence to adulthood Journal ofConsulting and Clinical Psychology 60 766-776

McLellan A T Kushner H Merger D Peters R Smith L Grissom G Pett H ampArgeriou M (1992) The fifth edition of the Addiction Severity Index Journal ofSubstance Abuse Treatment 9 199-213

Moos R H Moos B S amp Andrassy J M (1999) Outcomes of four treatment ap-proaches in community residential programs for patients with substance use disor-ders Psychiatric Services 50 1577-1583


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Nowicki S amp Strickland B P (1973) A locus of control scale for children Journalof Consulting and Clinical Psychology 40 148-154

Nuttbrock L A Rahav M Rivera J J Ng-Mak DS amp Link B G (1998) Out-comes of homeless mentally ill chemical abusers in community residences and atherapeutic community Psychiatric Services 49 68-76

OrsquoFlaherty B (1996) Making room The economics of homelessness CambridgeMA Harvard University Press

Olfson M Mechanic D Hansell S Boyer C A amp Walkup J (1999) Predictionof homelessness within three months of discharge among inpatients with schizo-phrenia Psychiatric Services 50 667-673

Rosenheck R A amp Koegel P (1993) Characteristics of veterans and nonveterans inthree samples of homeless men Hospital and Community Psychiatry 44 858-863

Rosenheck R A Frisman L K amp Chung A (1994) The proportion of veteransamong the homeless American Journal of Public Health 84 466-468

Rosenheck R A Leda C Frisman L K Lam J amp Chung A (1996) Homelessveterans In J Baumohl (Ed) Homelessness in America A reference book Phoe-nix AZ Oryx Press

Rosenheck R A Leda C Frisman L K amp Gallup P (1997) Homeless mentally illveterans Race service use and treatment outcome American Journal ofOrthopsychiatry 67 632-639

Rosenheck R A amp Cicchetti D (1998) A mental health program report card Amulitdimensional approach to performance monitoring in public sector programsCommunity Mental Health Journal 34 85-106

Rosenheck R A Bassuk E amp Salomon A (2001) Special populations of homelessAmericans Washington DC US Government Printing Office Office of Vet-eransrsquo Affairs

Rosen C S Henson B R Finney J W amp Moos R M (2000) Consistency ofself-administered and interview-based Addiction Severity Index composite scoresAddiction 95 419-425

Rossi P (1989) Down and out in America The causes of homelessness Chicago Uni-versity of Chicago Press

Sherman L W Gottfredson D C MacKenzie D Eck J Reuter P amp Bushway S(1997) Preventing crime What works what doesnrsquot whatrsquos promising Washing-ton DC US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs

Staudt M Howard M O amp Drake B (2001) The operationalization implementa-tion and effectiveness of the strengths perspective A review of empirical studiesJournal of Social Service Research 27 1-21

Snow D Baker S amp Anderson L (1989) Criminality and homeless men An empir-ical assessment Social Problems 36 532-549

Tan A L Kendis R J Fine J T amp Porac J (1977) A Short Measure of EriksonianEgo Identity Journal of Personality Assessment 41 279-284

Toombs N J Benda B B amp Corwyn R F (1997) Recidivism among Arkansasboot camp graduates after 12 months Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 26139-158

Torrey E F Stieber J Ezekiel J Wolfe S M Sharfstein J Noble J H amp FlynnL M (1992) Criminalizing the seriously mentally ill The abuse of jails as mentalhospitals Washington DC Public Citizenrsquos Health Research Group


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Walters G D (1994) Drugs and crime in lifestyle perspective Thousand Oaks CASage

White H R (1992) Early problem behavior and later drug problems Journal of Re-search in Crime and Delinquency 29 412-429

Wright J D (1989) Address unknown The homeless in America New York Aldinede Gruyter

Wright J D Rubin B A amp Devine J A (1998) Beside the golden door Policy pol-itics and the homeless New York Aldine de Gruyter

Zimet G D Dahlem N W Zimet S G amp Farley G K (1988) The Multidimen-sional Scale of Perceived Social Support Journal of Personality Assessment 5230-41

AUTHORSrsquo NOTES

Brent Benda PhD is a professor in the School of Social Work at the University ofArkansas at Little Rock The article is one of the first on homeless by Dr Benda after a10-year hiatus Most of his work has been devoted to delinquency and adult crime withseveral publications in this journal and others such as Journal of Research in Crimeand Delinquency Journal of Youth and Adolescence Youth amp Society Journal ofCriminal Justice Criminal Justice and Behavior Journal of Social Service Researchand Social Work Research

Daniel Rodell PhD is a researcher and clinician at the VA where this study wasconducted Luci Rodell MSW also is a social worker at the same VA and oversawthe daily interviews and coordinated the study (Social Work Service VA MedicalCenterndashNorth Little Rock Division 2200 Fort Roots Drive North Little Rock Arkan-sas 72114-1706) Both have published articles on the homeless with Dr Benda in Alco-holism Treatment Quarterly and Journal of Family Social Work

Address correspondence to Dr Brent Benda School of Social Work University ofArkansas at Little Rock Little Rock AR 72204 (E-mail BBBENDAUALREDU)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Differentiating Nuisance from Felony OffensesAmong Homeless Substance Abusersin a VA Medical Center

BRENT B BENDA

University of Arkansas at Little Rock

DANIEL E RODELL


LUCI RODELL


ABSTRACT This study investigated the self-reported criminal histories of188 homeless persons participating in a Veteransrsquo Affairs Medical Centerprogram for substance abusers Forty percent had been hospitalized for apsychiatric illness prior to the study and 45 percent were classified ascomorbid (ie diagnoses of substance abuse and other psychiatric prob-lems) The purpose of the study was to (a) find out what proportion of thesehomeless veterans reported committing felonies (b) investigate what fac-tors discriminated between non-offenders nuisance offenders and felonsand (c) discuss some rehabilitation implications of the findings

Contrary to generalizations in the literature that the majority of home-less persons commit only nuisance offenses this study found that 77 individ-uals or 41 percent of the sample reported felony offenses This was a greaterproportion than the 27 percent who reported being involved in nuisance of-fenses The discriminators considered in this study allow approximately 80

Journal of Offender Rehabilitation Vol 37 (1) 2003 Pp 41-65

httpwwwhaworthpresscomstoreproductaspsku=J076

2003 by The Haworth Press Inc All rights reserved

101300J076v37n01_04

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14







Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14







Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14


METHOD

Sample





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14












Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Procedures



Outcome




Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14



Measures




Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14








Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14




FINDINGS



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14













Non-recidivists 1 61 55 6 0(902) (98) (0)


Felons 3 77 2 12 63(26) (156) (818)



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14











Non-recidivists 1 61 53 5 3(867) (82) (51)


Felons 3 77 5 7 65(65) (9) (845)



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14


DISCUSSION











Non-recidivists 1 61 58 3 0(951) (49) (0)


Felons 3 77 3 5 69(39) (65) (896)



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14







Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14



REFERENCES














Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14




















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14




















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






AUTHORSrsquo NOTES





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14







Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14







Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14


METHOD

Sample





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14












Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Procedures



Outcome




Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14



Measures




Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14








Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14




FINDINGS



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14













Non-recidivists 1 61 55 6 0(902) (98) (0)


Felons 3 77 2 12 63(26) (156) (818)



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14











Non-recidivists 1 61 53 5 3(867) (82) (51)


Felons 3 77 5 7 65(65) (9) (845)



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14


DISCUSSION











Non-recidivists 1 61 58 3 0(951) (49) (0)


Felons 3 77 3 5 69(39) (65) (896)



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14







Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14



REFERENCES














Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14




















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14




















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






AUTHORSrsquo NOTES





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14







Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14


METHOD

Sample





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14












Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Procedures



Outcome




Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14



Measures




Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14








Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14




FINDINGS



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14













Non-recidivists 1 61 55 6 0(902) (98) (0)


Felons 3 77 2 12 63(26) (156) (818)



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14











Non-recidivists 1 61 53 5 3(867) (82) (51)


Felons 3 77 5 7 65(65) (9) (845)



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14


DISCUSSION











Non-recidivists 1 61 58 3 0(951) (49) (0)


Felons 3 77 3 5 69(39) (65) (896)



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14







Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14



REFERENCES














Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14




















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14




















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






AUTHORSrsquo NOTES





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14


METHOD

Sample





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14












Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Procedures



Outcome




Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14



Measures




Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14








Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14




FINDINGS



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14













Non-recidivists 1 61 55 6 0(902) (98) (0)


Felons 3 77 2 12 63(26) (156) (818)



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14











Non-recidivists 1 61 53 5 3(867) (82) (51)


Felons 3 77 5 7 65(65) (9) (845)



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14


DISCUSSION











Non-recidivists 1 61 58 3 0(951) (49) (0)


Felons 3 77 3 5 69(39) (65) (896)



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14







Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14



REFERENCES














Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14




















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14




















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






AUTHORSrsquo NOTES





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14


METHOD

Sample





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14












Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Procedures



Outcome




Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14



Measures




Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14








Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14




FINDINGS



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14













Non-recidivists 1 61 55 6 0(902) (98) (0)


Felons 3 77 2 12 63(26) (156) (818)



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14











Non-recidivists 1 61 53 5 3(867) (82) (51)


Felons 3 77 5 7 65(65) (9) (845)



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14


DISCUSSION











Non-recidivists 1 61 58 3 0(951) (49) (0)


Felons 3 77 3 5 69(39) (65) (896)



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14







Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14



REFERENCES














Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14




















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14




















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






AUTHORSrsquo NOTES





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14












Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Procedures



Outcome




Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14



Measures




Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14








Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14




FINDINGS



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14













Non-recidivists 1 61 55 6 0(902) (98) (0)


Felons 3 77 2 12 63(26) (156) (818)



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14











Non-recidivists 1 61 53 5 3(867) (82) (51)


Felons 3 77 5 7 65(65) (9) (845)



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14


DISCUSSION











Non-recidivists 1 61 58 3 0(951) (49) (0)


Felons 3 77 3 5 69(39) (65) (896)



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14







Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14



REFERENCES














Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14




















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14




















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






AUTHORSrsquo NOTES





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14












Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Procedures



Outcome




Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14



Measures




Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14








Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14




FINDINGS



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14













Non-recidivists 1 61 55 6 0(902) (98) (0)


Felons 3 77 2 12 63(26) (156) (818)



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14











Non-recidivists 1 61 53 5 3(867) (82) (51)


Felons 3 77 5 7 65(65) (9) (845)



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14


DISCUSSION











Non-recidivists 1 61 58 3 0(951) (49) (0)


Felons 3 77 3 5 69(39) (65) (896)



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14







Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14



REFERENCES














Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14




















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14




















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






AUTHORSrsquo NOTES





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Procedures



Outcome




Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14



Measures




Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14








Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14




FINDINGS



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14













Non-recidivists 1 61 55 6 0(902) (98) (0)


Felons 3 77 2 12 63(26) (156) (818)



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14











Non-recidivists 1 61 53 5 3(867) (82) (51)


Felons 3 77 5 7 65(65) (9) (845)



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14


DISCUSSION











Non-recidivists 1 61 58 3 0(951) (49) (0)


Felons 3 77 3 5 69(39) (65) (896)



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14







Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14



REFERENCES














Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14




















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14




















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






AUTHORSrsquo NOTES





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14



Measures




Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14








Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14




FINDINGS



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14













Non-recidivists 1 61 55 6 0(902) (98) (0)


Felons 3 77 2 12 63(26) (156) (818)



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14











Non-recidivists 1 61 53 5 3(867) (82) (51)


Felons 3 77 5 7 65(65) (9) (845)



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14


DISCUSSION











Non-recidivists 1 61 58 3 0(951) (49) (0)


Felons 3 77 3 5 69(39) (65) (896)



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14







Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14



REFERENCES














Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14




















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14




















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






AUTHORSrsquo NOTES





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14








Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14




FINDINGS



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14













Non-recidivists 1 61 55 6 0(902) (98) (0)


Felons 3 77 2 12 63(26) (156) (818)



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14











Non-recidivists 1 61 53 5 3(867) (82) (51)


Felons 3 77 5 7 65(65) (9) (845)



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14


DISCUSSION











Non-recidivists 1 61 58 3 0(951) (49) (0)


Felons 3 77 3 5 69(39) (65) (896)



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14







Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14



REFERENCES














Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14




















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14




















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






AUTHORSrsquo NOTES





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14




FINDINGS



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14













Non-recidivists 1 61 55 6 0(902) (98) (0)


Felons 3 77 2 12 63(26) (156) (818)



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14











Non-recidivists 1 61 53 5 3(867) (82) (51)


Felons 3 77 5 7 65(65) (9) (845)



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14


DISCUSSION











Non-recidivists 1 61 58 3 0(951) (49) (0)


Felons 3 77 3 5 69(39) (65) (896)



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14







Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14



REFERENCES














Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14




















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14




















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






AUTHORSrsquo NOTES





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14













Non-recidivists 1 61 55 6 0(902) (98) (0)


Felons 3 77 2 12 63(26) (156) (818)



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14











Non-recidivists 1 61 53 5 3(867) (82) (51)


Felons 3 77 5 7 65(65) (9) (845)



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14


DISCUSSION











Non-recidivists 1 61 58 3 0(951) (49) (0)


Felons 3 77 3 5 69(39) (65) (896)



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14







Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14



REFERENCES














Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14




















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14




















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






AUTHORSrsquo NOTES





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14











Non-recidivists 1 61 53 5 3(867) (82) (51)


Felons 3 77 5 7 65(65) (9) (845)



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14


DISCUSSION











Non-recidivists 1 61 58 3 0(951) (49) (0)


Felons 3 77 3 5 69(39) (65) (896)



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14







Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14



REFERENCES














Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14




















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14




















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






AUTHORSrsquo NOTES





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14


DISCUSSION











Non-recidivists 1 61 58 3 0(951) (49) (0)


Felons 3 77 3 5 69(39) (65) (896)



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14







Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14



REFERENCES














Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14




















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14




















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






AUTHORSrsquo NOTES





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14







Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14



REFERENCES














Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14




















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14




















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






AUTHORSrsquo NOTES





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14







Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14



REFERENCES














Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14




















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14




















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






AUTHORSrsquo NOTES





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14







Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14



REFERENCES














Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14




















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14




















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






AUTHORSrsquo NOTES





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14







Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14



REFERENCES














Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14




















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14




















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






AUTHORSrsquo NOTES





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14



REFERENCES














Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14




















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14




















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






AUTHORSrsquo NOTES





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14



REFERENCES














Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14




















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14




















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






AUTHORSrsquo NOTES





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14



REFERENCES














Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14




















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14




















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






AUTHORSrsquo NOTES





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14





















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14




















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14




















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






AUTHORSrsquo NOTES





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14




















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14




















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






AUTHORSrsquo NOTES





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14




















Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






AUTHORSrsquo NOTES





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14






AUTHORSrsquo NOTES





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 2

328

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Differentiating Nuisance from Felony Offenses among Homeless Substance Abusers in a V.A. Medical...

Documents

Transcript of Differentiating Nuisance from Felony Offenses among Homeless Substance Abusers in a V.A. Medical...