prompt and example attached
What you need to turn in for the final assignment
Brief (1-2 paragraphs) introduction to your topic
Citations for all of your sources in correct APA format (consult D2L)
Annotations with both description and critical evaluations of each source
Photocopies as required from each item included in the bibliography
PSU’s Library website
Edit question’s body
The purpose of this assignment is for each student to demonstrate an understanding of the research skills covered by the library instruction component of this class and to use your new research methods skills to critically analyze scientific writing. You must use the Portland State University library resources to locate the majority of your sources.
You are tasked with completing an annotated bibliography of 6 sources, all of which relate to a topic of your choice. Sources may include: books, scholarly articles, government documents, and web produced reports (as long as they are scholarly), and other peer-reviewed or rigorous scientific report. You will need to include at least 3 peer-reviewed journal articles (this includes law reviews). Feel free to use the bibliographies of other articles as jumping off points for locating other scholarly articles.
One of the main points of this assignment is for you to demonstrate a grasp of APA (American Psychological Association) format and that you understand the scope of the material appropriate for scholarly research. Consult the American Psychological Associations Guide to Formatting for correct citation style. There is a quick guide to APA format on the Library website or you can find the full text in the library.
Overview of the Role and Importance of Citing Material
References and citations serve several purposes. Most importantly, they give credit to whom it is warranted. In addition, they acknowledge the value of others’ work, create an important record of the line of scholarly inquiry, and allow readers to evaluate the accuracy of your conclusions and to pursue the subject further by examining the original documents.
All work that is a source of the ideas presented—whether quoted, paraphrased, or summarized—should be cited properly. To summarize is to condense the original into a sentence or two in your own words; to paraphrase is to follow the original statement or passage more closely but still restate it in your own words. In paraphrasing, do not use whole phrases, many of the same words, or sentence structures similar to the original. To quote a source is to extract a word, phrase, sentence, or passage from the original and insert it into the text. Quoted material should be enclosed within double quotation marks or, if lengthy (longer than three typewritten lines), indented as a block quote.
In general, it is better to summarize or paraphrase others’ ideas than to present a stream of quotations. Your paper will be easier to read and will better convey your understanding of what you have read. Use direct quotations when the original words are particularly well chosen—clear, incisive, or powerful. A good research proposal will have zero to just a few (2 or 3) direct quotes, you should endeavor to have a few as possible. Whenever possible the material should be resented in your own words (properly cited of course).
If you use another writer’s words or ideas without citing the source, you have committed an act of plagiarism. Work is plagiarized even if it is in your own words, but is not properly cited; a good rule is that every paragraph in a proposal should have at least one citation. Very few ideas, if any, will be original.
Documentation of sources should be presented in two places: (1) in the text, to identify and credit the source immediately following its use; and (2) following the text, in a list of references with more detailed information about each source. Cite the source whose ideas and/or words you are using. If you are citing work referenced or quoted by another author (and you do not have access to or have not read the primary source), cite the original author “in” the work where you found it; for example, (Rossi in Singleton and Straits1999).
Annotated Bibliography Assignment Instructions
Part I: Introduction
Begin with an introduction explaining the scope of your topic to familiarize the readers with the focus of your annotated bibliography. The introduction should be one to two paragraphs long, but does not need to be elaborate or include references. Within the introductory statement, you should indicate the topic of study, what research question your topic addresses, and why this project interests you.
Part II: Annotations:
The annotations should be listed alphabetically by author, using APA format. Each entry should conform to the following structure by answering each of the three parts below:
1. A complete citation in APA format.
2. An annotation of the source. An annotation briefly describes and evaluates the reference with the purpose of informing the reader of the relevance, accuracy, and quality of the sources cited. The annotation of each source should address the following items in the order presented below:
I. Summarize in a sentence or two the author’s main point.
II. The purpose of the work.
III. What were the author(s) main findings?
IV. The strengths of the research.
V. The weaknesses or biases of the material.
3. Short explanation of how the resource was located – e.g. Academic Search Premier, Portland State University Online Catalog, recommended by professor, etc.
Part III: Photocopies of Material:
You will be required to turn in a photocopy of the first page of the journal article, government document, table of contents of a book, first page of a webpage, or other item needed to clearly identify the source. You do not need to turn in the entire article, just the first page. Attach these to the end of the main document.
Don’t confuse abstracts or summaries with annotations.
Abstracts are the purely descriptive summaries often found at the beginning of scholarly journal articles or in periodical indexes.
Annotations are descriptive and critical; they expose the author’s point of view, clarity and appropriateness of expression, and authority.
Suggestions for Writing Annotations (To help you think about the sources, not a “requirement”)
Content – What is the resource about? Is it relevant to your research?
Purpose – What is it for? Why was the book or article written?
Usefulness – What does it do for your research?
Reliability – Is the information accurate? Do other sources support the
Authority – Is it written by someone who has the expertise to author the
information? What are the author’s credentials?
Currency – Is it new? Is it up-to-date for the topic?
Ease of use – Can a “real person” use this resource? What is the reading level
of the resource?
What you need to turn in for the final assignment
1. Brief (1-2 paragraphs) introduction to your topic
2. Citations for all of your sources in correct APA format (consult D2L)
3. Annotations with both description and critical evaluations of each source
4. Photocopies as required from each item included in the bibliography
OF HOMELESSNESS 1
Factors of Homelessness: An Annotated Bibliography Dedicated to the
Exploration of the Social Problem and Criminal Element
Portland State University
FACTORS OF HOMELESSNESS 2
The intent of this bibliography was to explore the nature of homelessness with specific
attention to the population that has been involved with the criminal justice system. In the
City of Portland this population can be readily seen as they frequent the University
campus, and sleep unsheltered nearby. This topic became of interest to research because
of the visibility here on campus and the desire to change this behavior and lifestyle that
affects a small proportion of society. Wishing to achieve the greatest synthesis of the
criminal problem associated with homelessness, the research chosen for study provided
insight to the causes and factors of recidivism, and quantitative data from interviews and
surveys. This combination of research was chosen because it examined the reasons this
population enters and sometimes reenters the criminal system, as well as establishing
perspective. This scope does not account for crimes committed by the homeless, even
though it was a recurring topic in related research of the studies themselves. The research
question for this synthesis is what is the criminal problem associated with homelessness
and what factors have been found that influences this behavior?
This synthesis of research developed insight into the aggravating factors of homelessness
in states such as Minnesota, Arizona, Nevada, and also overseas in Milan, Italy. The
Recurring trends in the research suggest that though there is a small proportion of the
population that is actively involved with the court and legal systems, homelessness
provides for an overwhelming factor to recidivism. The community or condition that an
offender released to played a significant role on their desistance in criminal activity.
Further mediated through substance use and victimization, homelessness adds a
significant strain on those that experience it. The type of social interactions with other
homeless was also tested for effect on the topic, and it was found that interactions with
previous offenders also show signs of correlation. Because of the survivability aspect of
the lifestyle, and the frequent inability to secure food or shelter, this population
commonly is charged or arrested with crimes such as trespassing or other property crimes
because of their situation. Further analysis to the kind of crimes committed could further
detail the specific homeless problem for the city or places studied, but would probably be
different because this may be impacted by the resources for the population of the
FACTORS OF HOMELESSNESS 3
Clark V.A. (2014). Predicting two types of recidivism among newly released prisoners:
First addresses as “launch pads” for recidivism or reentry success. Crime &
Delinquency, 1-36. doi: 10.1177/0011128714555758
By evaluating the impact of multiple factors of individuals separating from Minnesota
state corrections in 2009, the author, Valerie A. Clark, sought to explain relationships of
post release housing situations that offenders released to and rates of recidivism. Clark
found that individual-level variables such as neighborhood and housing characteristics of
the area the offender was set to release maintained a lasting impact on recidivism.
Through a longitudinal study of offenders released to the state of Minnesota, the author
evaluated the most successful and least successful “launch pads” (Clark, 2014) for
offender reentry. Clark classified each primary address the offender listed when
releasing to categories such as private residences, halfway houses, emergency (homeless)
shelters, treatment facilities, and impoverished communities. These same measures were
recorded 1 year after release as their whereabouts and status was determined through use
of the Correctional Operations Management Systems (COMS).
The research found that a large portion of those releasing to emergency shelters were
rearrested within the year recorded for the study, and offenders releasing to transitional or
halfway houses had the largest proportion of offenders to fail via a supervision
revocation. Of the total sample, 66% of the offenders recidivated, with 34% of total
sample rearrested and 32% revoked from supervision. Offenders released to emergency
shelters (temporary emergency shelters, including homeless shelters and motels with stay
of less than 30 days) posted the highest percentage of rearrests within the sample at 45%.
Relocation to transitional housing (state-funded or private halfway houses with
supervision and monitoring) also recorded the highest percentage of revocation, at 50%.
In all, the report concluded that offenders were 34% more likely of arrest when
transitioning straight to emergency shelters compared to offenders releasing to private
residences. The study also concluded in line with other research that details newly
released offenders are more likely to experience supervision revocation or prison
readmission when returning to poor and non-affluent neighborhoods.
The strengths of the research were the utilization of various and extensive contextual
factors of offenders releasing from Minnesota corrections to accurately display relation to
recidivism. All releasing offenders were given a context by applying their individual
Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) score that measured risk of recidivism.
Individual-level variables categorized the releases situation into five descriptive
definitions, one being emergency shelter. Neighborhood-level variables, including
urbanization and “Neighborhood Disadvantage”, as well as the Index of Concentrated
Extremes (ICE) were determined to accurately portray the living conditions upon release.
These measures increased construct validity because it matched the type of residency
noted by the releasing offender to risk assessment scores and geo-locations matched to an
FACTORS OF HOMELESSNESS 4
Because recidivism is an increasingly difficult outcome to measure due to only recording
failure through police intervention (National Institute of Justice, 2008), this result cannot
be seen as an absolute answer to the overall criminal problems this population has.
Weaknesses of the research fell on selection criteria and inclusiveness to Minnesota
release. This decreased the validity as it excluded a certain amount of offenders. The
follow-up time capped at one-year, not recording cases of recidivism occurring out of the
time frame, as well as only recording recidivism through law enforcement records
deteriorates the validity because other offenses could of happened outside the parameters
of the follow-up and state police records. All offenders releasing to other states were also
eliminated, further distorting the raw data. Another weakness is that though it attempted
to use all offenders releasing in the state, there was very few offenders releasing to work
release and emergency shelters, 12% and 7%, further diluting the findings’ reliability.
What is also common of recidivism studies is that there is no cross-population
generalizability from this sample. Because programs and resources for inmates
undergoing reentry is vastly different intra-state, these results cannot be compared to that
of another state’s newly released population.
This article was found by searching the PSU library website. The article was found under
the criminology & criminal justice database of articles, and located under the
‘criminology full text’ resource provided by SAGE journals.
Corno, L. (2015). Homelessness and crime: Do your friends matter? The Economic
Journal. Doi: 10.1111/ecoj.12316
With an array of research extensively covering recidivism, the further discussion of the
effect of friendship and criminality is researched through the analysis of three releasing
jurisdictions in Milan, Italy. The purpose of this study was to determine if social
interactions of those classified as homeless show a causal relationship with criminal
behavior to the type of friendship (interaction person has criminal record). This was
determined by using instruments of 1) the proportion of rainy days in the last year-spent
homeless 2) inmate release data for the particular city of release and comparing this with
arrest information of the individual case. Corno asserts that the homeless spend extended
periods of time with one another during the rain and develop much of their behaviors
from those interactions. Survey data from the responses of 836 homeless individuals;
collected from service providers, university students, and private citizens, were compared
with outcome criminality. The article sought to add to the current literature examining the
impact of social interaction on behavior and criminality and “provide evidence of the
influence of the size of one’s network on criminal behavior” (Corno, 2015).
The research found a relationship to how many friends a homeless person had with an
arrest in their past. The survey found that, on average, the increase of one additional
friend (not specifically non-criminal) lead to a decrease of 12 percentage points of the
likelihood of incarceration during a spell of homelessness. Respondents were asked ‘who
were their best friends?’ and ‘whether they were homeless?’ among other various
demographic questions to add to the extensive depth that the research captured. More
FACTORS OF HOMELESSNESS 5
individuals in their peer group seem to establish a “safety net” (Corno) of social support,
where they could rely on someone to assist them or return favors when needed –and
possibly avoid criminality. This was found by comparing time in the rain spent and the
characteristics of friends (if had any) by non-imprisoned homeless versus imprisoned
The sheer depth the research established in the report gives instantaneous face validity.
Graphical analysis as far as a ‘friendship network’ (Figure A2, Corno) of all respondents
and their peer groups were presented along with a multitude of characteristic data clearly
detailing the depth of the survey. Superseding the interview phase for each of the three
locations was a count of all homeless to ensure a proper sample was drawn. Another
finding on the type of peers one associates with showed that an increase in the share of
criminal friends a homeless person has ultimately increases the likelihood of
incarceration for a non-criminal, by a rate of 23 percentage points per increase of one
standard deviation of criminal friends. An improved design to the study would be to have
a similar number of individuals that were imprisoned to those that were solely homeless.
Selection factors such as achieving respondents via availability sampling ultimately
hindered the reliability of the sample findings. Though the survey portion was conducted
in 12 hours, it can only be a reflection of the relative population present in the three
municipalities of Milan and is inherent in selection bias. The generalizability of findings
is weak, as this did not use any sort of random sampling.
This resource was found from the PSU library online database, while searching keywords
“homelessness and criminality.”
Fischer, S.N., Shinn, M., Shrout, P., Tsemberis, S. (2008). Homelessness, mental illness,
and criminal activity: Examining patterns over time. American Journal of
Community Psychology. 42(3-4). pp. 251 – 265. doi: 10.1007/s10464-008-9210-
This study sought to determine the relationship between committing crime and varying
levels of mental illness of homeless individuals. Fischer et al. differentiated between
violent and non-violent crime in order to explore if conditions of mental illness lead to a
certain type of crime. The longitudinal study consisted of the recruitment of 218
homeless adults. They had to have spent 15 of the last 30 days homeless, shown a period
of housing instability, and been diagnosed with an “Axis I diagnosis of severe mental
illness, such as psychotic disorder (e.g., schizophrenia) or mood disorder (e.g., major
depressive disorder)” (Fischer et al., 2008). The main hypothesis was that the more
severe the mental disability of the individual, the higher likelihood of aggressiveness, or
violent crime. Data was collected via interviews of recruited subjects that encompassed a
4-year time span, with testing in 9-month intervals. The study found that the likelihood
of committing a criminal act increased along with the time the individual had spent
homeless, and increase in severity of mental illness. The initial hypothesis were
supported but findings suggested a weaker connection between sheltered homeless and
“subsistence-driven crimes (e.g., breaking into buildings to find shelter)” (Fischer et al.).
FACTORS OF HOMELESSNESS 6
The relative factors of violent crime were also different than expected, as it was not
determined to produce a significant relationship.
Because the study recruited individuals that were made available to them through
transitional programs, the generalizability of the findings is in question. The researchers
utilized availability sampling by recruiting individuals recommended by psychiatric care
providers and those that were available in homeless shelter that met requirements. This
weakened the validity of findings.
This study was found through reading the previous research section of the Fox et al.
(2016) study and located via the PSU library database.
Fox, A.M., Mulvey, P., Katz, C.M., Shafer, M.S. (2016) Untangling the relationship
between mental health and homelessness among a sample of arrestees. Crime and
Delinquency. 62(5). pp. 592 – 613. doi: 10.1177/0011128713511571
In analyzing demographical information of arrested individuals, the homeless and
mentally ill populations have been found to provide increasingly consistent results as
factors to involvement in the criminal justice apparatus. The study performed by Fox et
al., seeks to further analyze qualitative data surrounding the characteristics of jailed
individuals and provide structural equation modeling to test the relationship to
homelessness and other factors. Fox based data from interviews of 3,673 recently
arrested in the county of Maricopa, Arizona within three different facilities, seeking to
represent the arrested in this setting. Adding to the extensive research done regarding the
consequences of homelessness in the criminal justice system, few studies have examined
homelessness and mental illness as separate factors in the relation to incarceration. The
current study presented by Fox et al. “proposes a model for understanding the
relationship between mental health, substance abuse problems, victimization and
homelessness for criminally involved individuals.” (2016). The research team
hypothesized that variables such as criminal justice involvement, coupled with a display
of mental illness increases the risk of victimization; as well as substance abuse, and
increases the likelihood of becoming homeless.
Homelessness was not found to be a large contributor to the population of arrested
individuals included in the sample. Only 8% of the sample stated that they were
homeless within the 30 days preceding their arrest. Larger portions of the arrestee
population included those with health problems, drug dependent, alcohol dependent and
involved of some sort of victimization, with 30%, 31.7%, 20.6% and 21.0% respectfully.
The direct effect of mental illness with homelessness was found to be very minute, and
more of the substantiating evidence suggested more of a connection from mental illness
to victimization. The research showed that homelessness was most commonly a result of
the variables measured and most commonly followed by at least one.
This study is not representative of the homeless population. Though the analyses
intended on measuring homelessness as a result of the variables measured, it was not an
overwhelming relation. As the study noted, the data collected is cross-sectional, and
FACTORS OF HOMELESSNESS 7
provides limited insight to the causal effect established. The utilization of structural
equation modeling was intended to offset this limitation, but the researchers still
cautioned the interpretation of the findings. Representativeness to the arrestee population
in Maricopa County was a strong point of the research, as the method of systematic
sampling of arrested individuals was utilized. The findings are likely generalizable to
other like jurisdictions for self-report data. The validity however hinges on the accuracy
of every respondents answers, because the data was compiled from interviews. Only
through urine analysis testing, provided by the researchers, was actual substance abuse
measured for the respondents. All other factors were those made on their own remission.
Because of the environmental restrictions of the incarceration, and the self-reporting
procedures utilized, the validity is overall weak, but can be seen an aggregate perspective
of how the respondents viewed themselves.
This study was found through utilization of the PSU library database, and was found
using keyword of “homelessness and mental illness” in the criminology full text resource.
Hunter, B.A., Lanza, A. S., Lawlor, M., Dyson, W., Gordon, D. M., (2015). A strengths-
based approach to prisoner reentry: The fresh start prisoner reentry program.
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. pp. 1-
17. doi: 10.1177/0306624X15576501
Hunter et al. intended on proving the lasting and positive impact that personalized
rehabilitation and reintegration programs possessed in the lives of those set out to release
in a matter of months in the state of Connecticut to three designated communities. This
research was designed to evaluate repeated support and counseling by trained and
motivated personnel in the lives of those set to release, in an effort to prepare the offender
for troubles outside of the prison walls and in their socioeconomic climate. The authors
sought to demonstrate the effectiveness and far-reaching potential of strength-based
approaches in increasing success of reintegration and rehabilitation. The present study is
a qualitative assessment of the impact of these strength-based approaches during both
pre- and post- release phases of the reentry process to individual communities, and
further seeks to qualitatively analyze through implementation of focus groups, the impact
that these programs possess over newly releasing offenders. To highlight the best
qualities of strength-based approaches, the study shadowed the new implementation of
the Fresh Start Program that was designed to increase success of prisoner reentry through
repeated collaboration and training meetings. The program collaborated with businesses,
the Connecticut Department of Corrections, and community leadership to provide
repeated training on various topics of employment readiness, workplace safety, correction
and supervision success, and one-on-one counseling.
The focus group responses during incarceration were at first cautious of the new program.
Offenders wondered if this program would help them with the overbearing process of
reintegration, because they had never received help through the prison in any way. Many
offenders seemed optimistic of the new program, as the attention to care and
respectfulness of program staff seemed to win them over eventually. During the baseline
FACTORS OF HOMELESSNESS 8
integration to the program, risk assessments were noted and the individuals were matched
with appropriate resources designed for their specific need. This seemed to prove
beneficial, as the offenders in the post-release focus groups identified the increased
accountability of the program staff and support had increased their successes in the
Strengths of this research include the detailed analysis of feedback given by offenders
traversing the reentry process from prison to community. The qualitative feedback
provided valuable insight to the thoughts the offenders had of the Fresh Start Program,
and proved to be effective judging by the feedback. Feedback from the offenders of the
implementation of the program is useful when determining the applicability to other
communities and correctional facilities, as it seemed overwhelmingly positive amongst
those that participated. The absence of measurable variables in the study proves to be the
weakest point of the research. Inherent of qualitative studies and focus groups is the
inability to measure the outcome of the independent variable (Fresh Start Program) and
though the responses of the focus groups seem positive, these were the only responses
recorded in the post-release phase of the study. The validity of the research hinges on
whether the responses that were recorded in post-release phase were accurate of the rest
of the participants, and because this was not discussed; the validity remains in question,
as this is solely an exploratory study on the impact of strength-based approaches. The
reliability of the study is also very weak, as different results are inherent for repeated
studies in different settings.
This article was found from the article on Homelessnes and Reentry by Lutze et al. also
included in this bibliography, and was listed in the prior research to the study.
Lutze, F.E., Rosky, J. W., Hamilton, Z.K. (2013). Homelessness and reentry: A
multisite outcome evaluation of Washington State’s housing program for high risk
offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior. 41. pp. 471 – 491. doi:
Setting out to investigate the impact of different modes of transitional assistance and
wraparound services for inmates releasing to certain counties of Washington State, this
study showcased the Reentry Housing Pilot Program (RHPP). Created by the 2007
Washington State Legislature, and with a goal of reducing overall costs of the state from
prisoner reentry, the pilot program selected eligible participants that were high risk and
need offenders with no viable housing option and agreed to participate voluntarily.
RHPP, unlike other modes of transitional assistance, provided secure housing for up to 1
year post-release, but like other programs demanded that participants attended treatment
and seek active employment. The study consisted of a quasi-experimental research
design that matched participants in the program to similar offenders going through same
process without support of the RHPP (N = 416). The purpose of the study was to
distinguish the different outcomes of successful reintegration of coordinated wraparound
services [like the RHPP] and other more common transitional housing, such as halfway
FACTORS OF HOMELESSNESS 9
houses, measuring outcomes by recidivism (revocations, new conviction, prison
The findings of the study were in line with the hypotheses that participation in the RHPP
would reduce recidivism and increase survival times for the same categories. RHPP
participants were found to significantly outperform their matched co-offenders amongst
outcomes of new convictions and prison readmissions, 21.6% vs. 35.6% and 37.0% vs.
56.3% respectively. The RHPP participants were also found to significantly abstain from
homelessness post-treatment, with 8.7% of participants becoming homeless after
treatment compared to 15.4% of comparison group.
The research utilized previous studies to bolster its effectiveness and shape its methods to
encompass the most needed study. Having a greater sample size increased the statistical
representativeness of the reentry population and individual characteristics, increasing
statistical power and validity. The strain caused by reentry from prison was assessed by
increasing follow-up time to 3 years post-release, encompassing the prolonged difficulty
in successfully reintegrating. Measuring periods of homelessness over time also added to
a better-developed picture of the problems of offenders.
As stated by the author, selection bias could not have been avoided due to ethical
considerations. Though randomization is the most effective way to procure a
representative sample, offenders with the highest need for housing were given access to
the program resources and housing –which impacts the reliability. Because offender
motivation for successful completion amongst those participating in RHPP can be greater
for those participating, it is not a reliable method in measuring true or natural responses
to the program.
This article was found through resources provided by the PSU online library, specifically
searching “homelessness and prison population” from the criminology and criminal
FACTORS OF HOMELESSNESS 10
OTHER WORKS CITED
National Institute of Justice. (2008). Measuring recidivism. Retrieved from:
FACTORS OF HOMELESSNESS 11
FACTORS OF HOMELESSNESS 12
FACTORS OF HOMELESSNESS 13
Fischer et al. (2008)
FACTORS OF HOMELESSNESS 14
Fox et al. (2016)
FACTORS OF HOMELESSNESS 15
Hunter et al. (2015)
FACTORS OF HOMELESSNESS 16
Lutze, Rosky, Hamilton (2013)