Stealing and Being Stolen From

Abstract

Homelessness is purportedly a predictor of property offending and property victimization, yet published studies examining this occurrence are scarce. This systematic review collates, summarizes, and appraises published studies reporting the rates of perpetration of property offenses and property victimization, and associations between homelessness and these outcomes. A comprehensive search of psychology, sociology, and health electronic databases, including PsycINFO and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) was conducted. Search terms included “homeless*,” “adol*,” “youth*,” “offend*,” “victimization,” and variations to the terms “offending” and “victimization.” Twenty studies met the inclusion criteria. Effect sizes could be calculated for five reviewed studies. Findings suggested homeless youth engage commonly in either theft or property damage. Burglary and having personal property damaged were the most commonly reported victimization experiences. Several studies reported associations between homelessness and property offenses. Research investigating situational antecedents that contribute to the likelihood of property offenses and property victimization in homeless youth is required.

Keywords

homeless adolescence property offenses victimization literature review

Introduction

Homeless youth are a marginalized population group who commonly report vulnerabilities including barriers to accessing affordable and safe housing, education, employment, and health care and treatment (Barry, Ensign, & Lippek, 2002; Ensign, 1998; Farrow, Deiisher, Brown, & Kipke, 1992; Hodgetts, Radley, Chamberlain, & Hodgetts, 2007; Rosenthal & Rotheram-Borus, 2005). Due to variance in definitions of homelessness and methodological approaches to data collection, definitive prevalence estimates of homeless youth are difficult to locate (Chamberlain & Mackenzie, 2008; Quilgars, Johnsen, & Pleace, 2008; Terry, Bedi, & Patel, 2010). Data from the most recent Australian census estimates that 26,238 youth aged 12 to 24 years were homeless in 2011 (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2012a). In the United States, between 1.6 and 2.8 million adolescents aged 13 to 21 years were considered homeless in 2009 (Terry et al., 2010). Canadian data shows that in 2001, 8,000 to 11,000 young people were homeless on any given night (Rachlis, Wood, Zhang, Montaner, & Kerr, 2009). Over the period of 2006 to 2007, national statistics on youth homelessness from the United Kingdom estimate 75,000 youth aged 16 to 24 years experienced homelessness (Quilgars et al., 2008).

The incidence of homelessness itself and the experience of childhood abuse and family violence prior to entering homelessness may create further vulnerabilities for young people experiencing homelessness. For example, strained relationships with adult family members or trusted significant adults may mean the young person is reluctant to seek assistance for health and personal concerns (Collins & Barker, 2009). It is estimated that of homeless young people 13 to 17 years of age in Australia, accessing assistance through the former Supported Accommodation Assistance Program (an accommodation assistance program for people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness), approximately 45% had experienced domestic or family violence, and 15% had been asked to leave home (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2008). Similar reasons for young people leaving the family home are reported internationally (e.g., Hyde, 2005; Kurtz, Jarvis, & Kurtz, 1991; Martijn & Sharpe, 2006).

Homeless youth commonly engage in behaviors that are not lawful or permissible within the community, with such behaviors more visible to the attention of others given the lack of privacy afforded by a private shelter or dwelling. For example, in an Australian study, Miner (1991) reported that 66% of homeless adolescents had engaged in at least one delinquent behavior or illegal activity. Similarly, Baron (2004) reported an association between homelessness and increased engagement in crime, in a sample of homeless youth from the United States. The Australian Bureau of Statistics estimates that in 2010 to 2011, 7,837 youth aged 10 to 19 years unlawfully entered a property, and 7,754 engaged in damaging property (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2011b). Homeless youth are also more likely to be victims of crime. In Australia, it is estimated 2,191 of population youth aged 15 to 19 years were victims of an unarmed robbery in 2010 to 2011 (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2011c). In a report of Canadian homeless youth, Gaetz (2009) reported 10% of youth had experienced having their personal or household property stolen while homeless.

It has been proposed that homelessness is a predictor of property offenses and victimization due to the situational circumstances youth encounter when homeless (McCarthy & Hagan, 1991). As a result of being homeless, these young people may have difficulty adhering to laws and regulations that prohibits conduct like begging, sleeping in parks, or areas not designed for habitation, public alcohol use, and conducting affairs in a public space (Chen, Thrane, Whitbeck, Johnson, & Hoyt, 2007; Farrow et al., 1992; Schwartz, Sorensen, Ammerman, & Bard, 2008; Stein, Milburn, Zane, & Rotheram-Borus, 2009). In addition homeless youth are in close proximity to, and exposed to, situations in which vulnerability to victimization may be amplified.

Given the apparent high rates of property offending and victimization among homeless youth, further efforts to reduce and prevent such behaviors are necessary. Efforts to contribute to the prevention of property offending and victimization in homeless youth can be advanced through research on the most prevalent types of behaviors that homeless young people perpetrate or are victims of, and the factors that may increase the likelihood of these behaviors. More specifically, a systematic review of current research is needed to comprehensively investigate what is already known about the relationship between homelessness and types of property offenses perpetrated by homeless youth, and youths’ report of having personal property damaged or violated.

Defining Homelessness, Perpetration, and Victimization for Property Offenses

Homelessness

Definitions of homelessness vary. Critical to defining homelessness is the need to recognize that it encompasses not simply the absence of safe and appropriate physical shelter, but also marginalization, financial instability, limited resources, and exposure to crime and victimization. In this review, homelessness is defined according to the social and cultural definition of homelessness described by Chamberlain and Mackenzie (1992, 2008) and the definition of homelessness utilized within the most recent Australian census. These descriptions of homelessness are the most commonly used definitions for Australian policy purposes and, include primary, secondary, and tertiary homelessness. Such definitions of homelessness include the notion that individuals are without the minimum community standard of housing (consisting of a bedroom, living room, kitchen, bathroom, and security provided by tenure), have no occupancy at a residence, or the occupancy is limited and nonrenewable, or the standard of housing does not allow the individual to have control of, or space for, social interactions (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2011a, 2012b; Chamberlain & Mackenzie, 2008). Primary homelessness includes individuals who do not have conventional accommodation (e.g., living on the streets), secondary homelessness includes individuals transient between temporary shelters (e.g., hostels, emergency accommodation), and tertiary homelessness includes those residing in accommodation without the minimum community standard of housing (e.g., single rooms with no bathroom) (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2011a; Chamberlain & Mackenzie, 1992, 2008).

Perpetration of and victimization from property offenses

Definitions for the perpetration of property offenses and report of having personal property damaged or violated utilized in this review are based on the description of offending behavior and victimization among homeless youth provided by the Australian National Crime Prevention Unit (National Crime Prevention, 1999). Property offenses are those performed by an individual against another person’s property, belongings, or possessions, and include property offenses such as theft (including shoplifting), vandalism, fraud, arson, break and enter, and receipt or trading of stolen goods. Property victimization is unfair or illegal treatments experienced by an individual at the hands of another person and include theft or burglary and having ones’ property damaged.

Theoretical Approaches to Studies of Homelessness, Property Offenses, and Property Victimization

A range of theoretical approaches has been drawn upon to understand homeless youths’ engagement in property offenses and property victimization. The most commonly applied perspectives to studies of both property offenses and property victimization are criminology theory (e.g., Baron, 2011; Schwartz et al., 2008), lifestyle/exposure theory (e.g., Hoyt, Ryan, & Cauce, 1999; Tyler, Hoyt, Whitbeck, & Cauce, 2001; Whitbeck & Simons, 1993), routine activities theory (e.g., Hoyt et al., 1999; Kennedy & Baron, 1993; Schreck, Wright, & Miller, 2002), the risk amplification model (e.g., Rice, Stein, & Milburn, 2008; Thrane, Chen, Johnson, & Whitbeck, 2008; Tyler, Johnson, & Brownridge, 2008), and situational theories (e.g., Baron, 2004; Fagan, Piper, & Cheng, 1987; Schreck et al., 2002). Such theoretical perspectives bring attention to various facets of risk encountered by homeless youth, and are used to hypothesize the associations between these risks, property offenses, and property victimization.

Criminology theory suggests that lower levels of self-control, in conjunction with the social circumstances and networks with which a person engages, are associated with crime perpetration and victimization (Baron, 2011; Schwartz et al., 2008). Similarly, associations between individual behavior and low economic, social, and psychological resources have been linked to an increased vulnerability to offending and victimization through lifestyle/exposure theory, which speculates that experience of early abuse within the family unit, resultant behavioral patterns, and exposure to high-risk activities is associated with offending and victimization (Hoyt et al., 1999; McIntyre & Widom, 2011; Schreck et al., 2002; Tyler et al., 2001; Whitbeck & Simons, 1993). In the same way, routine activities theory and the risk amplification model propose that circumstances to which an individual is exposed within their daily activities heightens risk for offending and victimization (Hoyt et al., 1999; Kennedy & Baron, 1993; Schreck et al., 2002; Tyler et al., 2001). Further, the risk amplification model recognizes the influence of both conflictual and abusive family environments in their association with property offenses and property victimization.

Situational theories have not been commonly used in studies of homelessness, property offenses, and property victimization (Baron & Hartnagel, 1998) and there has been limited attention to situational antecedents in analyses examining these associations (McCarthy & Hagan, 1991). Where situational theories have been applied, the findings of these studies have highlighted the importance of considering environmental and social conditions (e.g. deviant peer relationships, substance use, risky lifestyles) that may be conducive to offending behavior or experience of victimization (Baron, 2004; Baron, Forde, & Kennedy, 2007; Fagan et al., 1987; Schreck et al., 2002).

Associations Between Homelessness, Perpetration of Property Offenses and Property Victimization

Prior studies that have examined associations between youth homelessness and property offenses and victimization have reported findings from the use of aggregate measures of constructs such as delinquency (e.g., Tyler et al., 2008), antisocial behavior (e.g., Heinze, Toro, & Urberg, 2004; Tompsett & Toro, 2010), criminal behavior (e.g., Baron, 2004; Martijn & Sharpe, 2006), and victimization (e.g., Baron et al., 2007; Kim, Tajima, Herrenkohl, & Huang, 2009), or examined specific types of victimization using aggregate measures, most commonly physical (e.g., Cochran, Stewart, Ginzler, & Cauce, 2002; Tyler & Beal, 2010) or sexual victimization (e.g., Stewart et al., 2004; Tyler et al., 2001).

While such studies inform understandings of general associations between homelessness, property offenses, and property victimization, few studies have specifically examined associations between youth homelessness and consequent perpetration of specific offenses or experience of victimization. Research is warranted that synthesizes the contribution of youth homelessness to specific types of offenses and victimization, including that focusing on property offenses and property victimization. Developing an understanding of the most prevalent types of property offending, and property victimization among youth, and predictors of such behaviors (e.g., homelessness) will enable the development of targeted programs and policies to prevent young people becoming involved in, or victimized by, these behaviors.

The Current Study

The purpose of this systematic review is to collate, summarize, and appraise published studies reporting associations between homelessness and types of property offenses and property victimization in homeless youth. There have been no previous systematic reviews of this nature. The aims of this review are to: (a) examine the types and rates of property offenses and property victimization among homeless youth; (b) investigate whether homelessness is associated with youths’ perpetration of property offenses, or experience of property victimization; and (c) explore whether situational antecedents have been considered in studies examining homeless youths’ property offenses and property victimization.

Method

Search Strategy

A systematic search of psychology, health, and social science electronic abstraction databases was conducted according to the guidelines for systematic review of the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (2008), and the criteria for systematic reviews described by the PRISMA statement are met for this review (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, Altman, & Group, 2009). Nineteen databases were searched including, Academic Search Complete, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), EBSCOhost, Expanded Academic ASAP, Health Policy Reference Centre, Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition, OVID, ProQuest (Social Science, Psychology, and Nursing and Allied Health Source journals), PubMed, PsycArticles, PsycINFO, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, Psychology Collection, Social Work Abstracts, SocIndex, Scopus, and Web of Knowledge. Key terms including “homeless*,” “adol*,” “youth*,” “offend*,” “victimization,” and variations to the terms offending behavior (e.g., “perpetration,” “crime,” “stealing,” “criminal behavior*”) and victimization (e.g., “crime victim*,” “victim*”) were utilized within the search strategy. A broad range of search terms was required given the diversity in the conceptualization and measurement of property offending and property victimization within the published literature. Further, types of property offending and property victimization were often embedded within the text of published articles, thereby requiring an expansive search.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

To ensure retrieved papers were of the highest relevance to the focus of the review, stringent inclusion, and exclusion criteria were established prior to conducting the systematic search. Specific parameters included the publication: (a) reported on a sample of young people (baseline age 12-24 years), (b) was published in English language journals, (c) abstract was available, (d) included an identifiable population sample of homeless young people, (e) presented rates or quantitative analyses, and (f) reported findings relating to homelessness and either (i) perpetration of property offending or (ii) experience of property victimization. Retrieved papers were discarded when they did not meet the inclusion criteria and when (a) homelessness was not examined in its association with property offending or victimization, and (b) aggregate measures of delinquency, offending, victimization, or criminal behavior were analyzed. Further, to examine only homeless youths’ self-reported property offending, studies reporting contact with law enforcement (e.g., arrest, conviction, or incarceration for property crime) as the sole outcome examined were excluded as these outcomes were considered to be defined by figures of authority (e.g., police) rather than homeless youths’ behaviors themselves.

In excess of 150 articles were identified and retrieved through the initial systematic search. The initial relevance of the article was assessed through examination of each article abstract. Where the abstract did not sufficiently allow determination of the relevance of the article, the content of the article was scanned to determine its relevance for inclusion. Where retrieved papers met the inclusion criteria, these were thoroughly read by at least one author. Further, citations of obtained papers were scrutinized for additional publications that did not arise through the search strategy. Twenty papers were retained for examination in this systematic review.

Calculation of Effect Sizes

Effect size is an important measure in assessing the degree of relationship and overlap, or how much of an association exists, between dependent and independent variables. Recent efforts within the scientific community have encouraged researchers to report effect sizes (Selya, Rose, Dieker, Hedeker, & Mermelstein, 2012) for analyses conducted. Therefore, numerous methods for determining the magnitude of effect sizes were utilized in this review, given the diversity of analytical procedures employed across the reviewed studies. Where statistically significant results were evident for analyses between homelessness and property offending or victimization, the degree of difference between the associations was examined through effect size analysis (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). Effect size calculations were performed with the purpose of converting statistically significant results to either Cohen’s d, Cohen’s f², or a Phi (φ) coefficient, to facilitate comparison of the magnitude of effect sizes.

Results

Table 1 presents a description of studies meeting the inclusion criteria, including the study country of origin, design, data collection method, sample size, and demographics (age and gender). Fifteen studies were conducted in the United States. Other countries of origin included Canada, Scotland, and Nigeria. All but one study (Chen, Thrane, Whitbeck, & Johnson, 2006) presented cross-sectional data analyses. Analyzed samples were recruited from service and/or street-based sites (e.g., shelters and street corners respectively) in the majority of studies. Large variation was evident in the sample size. Gender distribution was relatively even across the reviewed studies. The average age of analyzed samples was between 16 and 20 years.

Table 1.

Description of Studies Meeting Review Criteria.

Author	Country of Origin	Methodology	Study design	Primary sampling unit	Data collection method	Sample size	Gender (% female)	Average Age (years)
Baron (2006)	United States	Quantitative	Cross-sectional	Service and street-based sites	Structured interview	400	34	20
Cauce et al. (2000)	United States	Quantitative	Cross-sectional	Service and street-based sites	Survey/diagnostic interview	364	42	16.4
Chen et al. (2006)	United States	Quantitative	Longitudinal	Service and street-based sites	Survey/Semistructured interview	428	56	17.4
Clatts & Davis (1999)	United States	Quantitative and qualitative	Cross-sectional	Service and street-based sites	Structured interview	260	26	Not stated
Ferguson et al. (2011)	United States	Quantitative	Cross-sectional	Service-based sites	Semistructured interview	238	32	20.4
Gaetz (2004)	Canada	Quantitative and qualitative	Cross-sectional	Service-based sites	Structured Interview	208	41	20.0
Greene, Ennett, & Ringwalt (1999)	United States	Quantitative	Cross-sectional	Service and street-based sites	Structured Interview	207	22	16-18
Gwadz et al. (2009)	United States	Quantitative and qualitative	Cross-sectional	Service-based sites	Structured Interview	80	49	19.0
Hammersley & Pearl (1996)	Scotland	Quantitative	Cross-sectional	Service-based sites	Semistructured interview	100	44	Not stated
Hein (2011)	United States	Quantitative and qualitative	Cross-sections	Service and street-based sites	Semistructured interview	70	0	19.0
Kipke, Unger, Oconnor, Palmer, & LaFrance (1997)	United States	Quantitative	Cross-sectional	Service and street-based sites	Structured interview	752	29	16-21
MacLean, Embry, & Cauce (1999)	United States	Quantitative	Cross-sectional	Drop-in centre	Structured interview	354	42	16.4
McCarthy & Hagan (1991) ^a	Canada	Quantitative	Cross-sectional	Service and street-based sites	Survey	390	33	17.7
McCarthy & Hagan (1992a) ^a	United States	Quantitative	Cross-sectional	Service and street-based sites	Survey	390	33	17.7
McCarthy & Hagan (1992b) ^a	Canada	Quantitative	Cross-sectional	Service and street-based sites	Survey	390	33	17.7
Olley (2006)	Nigeria	Quantitative and qualitative	Cross-sectional	Street-based sites	Survey/Semistructured interview	169	11	18.0
Schwartz et al. (2008)	United States	Quantitative and qualitative	Cross-sectional	Drop-in centre	Brief-interview/vignettes	42	52	19.0
Stein et al. (2009)	United States	Quantitative	Cross-sectional	Service and street-based sites	Structured interview	501	49	17.0
Unger et al. (1998)	United States	Quantitative	Cross-sectional	Service and street-based sites	Structured interview	245	49	12-15
Whitbeck, Hoyt, Yoder, Cauce, & Paradise (2001)	United States	Quantitative	Cross-sectional	Service and street-based sites	Structured interview	602	40	16

Note. Service sites include shelters and drop-in centers. Street-based sites include street corners, populated areas/blocks, parks, alleys, bars, and fast-food restaurants. Government providers refer to examination of child protection records.

Analyzed sample unchanged between studies.

Theoretical Frameworks Utilized in Retrieved Studies

Eight reviewed studies did not describe the theoretical framework for their research. Across the remaining studies, there was diversity in the theoretical approaches applied. The most commonly applied theories were routine activities (Gaetz, 2004; Whitbeck et al., 2001) and social control (Ferguson et al., 2011; Gwadz et al., 2009; McCarthy & Hagan, 1992a; Schwartz et al., 2008) theories to examine associations between environmental, social, familial, and lifestyle factors, and the incidence of homeless youths’ property offending and victimization. Strain theory, positing that offenses may result through discrepancy between an individual’s occupational or educational aspirations and actual achievements in these domains, was the focus in two studies (Baron, 2006; McCarthy & Hagan, 1992a). A criminogenic framework was drawn upon in two studies (McCarthy & Hagan, 1991, 1992a), which put forward that homeless youths’ offenses may arise through situational opportunities for, or attractions to, offending behavior. Furthermore, Whitbeck and colleagues (2001) embedded their study within life-course development theory hypothesizing that early abuse within the family environment may predispose youth to negative outcomes, including victimization.

Types and Rates of Homeless Youths’ Perpetration of Property Offenses, or Experience of Property Victimization

Table 2 presents the rates of homeless youths’ perpetration of property offenses, or experience of property victimization reported in the reviewed studies. Among homeless youth, the most commonly described property offenses were theft and property damage. Homeless youths’ report of burglary, having personal or household property stolen, and having personal possessions damaged were among the most commonly reported property victimization experiences.

Table 2.

Reviewed Studies Reporting Rates of Homeless Youths’ Perpetration of Property Offenses, or Experience of Property Victimization.

Author	Current housing status	Property offense perpetration or victimization	Findings
Cauce et al. (2000)	Various living arrangements	Burglarized	Property victimization (full sample): 26% reported having been burglarized
Chen et al. (2006)	Homeless	Shoplifting or theft Burglary Auto-theft Arson	Property offenses (full sample): 20% arrested for shoplifting or theft 3% arrested for burglary 4% arrested for auto-theft 1% arrested for arson
Clatts & Davis (1999)	Various living arrangements	Stealing	Property offenses (full sample): 19% reported stealing
Ferguson, et al. (2011) ^	Various living arrangements	Theft Vandalism	Property offenses (full sample): 29% reported being arrested for theft 14% reported being arrested for vandalism
Gaetz (2004)	Various living arrangements	Shoplifting Theft	Property offenses (3 or more times in the past year on more than one occurrence, full sample): 39.1% reported shoplifting 28.2% reported theft Property offenses (3 or more times in the past year on more than one occurrence, males): 45.8% reported shoplifting 37.7% reported theft Property offenses (3 or more times in the past year on more than one occurrence, females): 29.4% reported shoplifting 13.0% reported theft Property victimization (full sample): 50.3% reported having had their personal or household property stolen 30.4% reported having had their property damaged Property victimization (male sample): 49.3% reported having had their personal or household property stolen 25.9% reported having had their property damaged Property victimization (female sample): 52.8% reported having had their personal or household property stolen 35.6% reported having had their property damaged
Gwadz, et al. (2009)	Various living arrangements	Stealing/shoplifting from a store Breaking into a house or carTheft	Property offenses (lifetime, full sample): 27.5% reported stealing or shoplifting from a store 20.0% reported breaking into a house or car Property offenses (lifetime, male sample): 53.7% reported stealing or shoplifting from a store 26.3% reported breaking into a house or car Property offenses (lifetime, female sample): 61.5% reported stealing or shoplifting from a store 12.8% reported breaking into a house or car Property offenses (past 3-months): 21.3% reported theft (full sample) 22.0% reported theft (males) 20.5% reported theft (females)
Hammersley & Pearl (1996)	Various living arrangements	Vandalism Stealing Driving or riding in a stolen car	Property offenses (full sample): 78% reported vandalism 50% reported stealing 44% reported driving or riding in a stolen car
Hein (2011)	Homeless	Stealing	Property offenses (full sample): 17% reported stealing
Kipke et al. (1997)	Various living arrangements	Stealing money	Property offenses (full sample): 29% reported stealing money or other items
MacLean et al. (1999) ^^	Various living arrangements	Burglary	Property victimization (runaway sample): 23.8% reported having been burgled Property victimization (kicked out sample): 31.1% reported having been burgled Property victimization (removed from home sample): 22.2% reported having been burgled
McCarthy & Hagan (1991)	Homeless	Stealing Vandalism Receiving stolen goods Fraud Stealing from a car Shoplifting Break and enter Stealing a car Nonspecific property crime	Property offenses (full sample): 5.9% reported stealing their parent’s car 24.9% reported vandalizing another person’s property 47.9% reported stealing goods valued at no more than US$5 49% reported stealing goods valued between US$5 and US$50 31.3% reported receiving stolen goods 13.8% reported fraudulently using a back/credit card 26.7% reported stealing from a car 53.3% reported shoplifting goods valued at no more than US$50 41.5% took goods valued at more than US$50 29.7% reported shoplifting goods valued at more than US$50 26.7% reported breaking and entering, and resultant theft 19.0% reported stealing a car 78.2% reported a nonspecific property crime Property offenses (male sample): 49.6% reported stealing goods valued at no more than US$5 40.8% reported stealing goods valued between US$5 and US$50 28.1% reported receiving stolen goods 10.4% reported fraudulently using aback/credit card 26.5% reported stealing from a car 47.7% reported shoplifting goods valued at no more than US$50 44.6% took goods valued at more than US$50 28.5% reported shoplifting goods valued at more than US$50 30.8% reported breaking and entering, and resultant theft 15.8% reported stealing a car 80.8% reported a nonspecific property crime Property offenses (female sample): 36.2% reported stealing goods valued at no more than US$5 33.1% reported stealing goods valued between US$5 and US$50 12.3% reported receiving stolen goods 7.7% reported fraudulently using a back/credit card 9.2% reported stealing from a car 31.5% reported shoplifting goods valued at no more than US$50 24.6% took goods valued at more than US$50 13.8% reported shoplifting goods valued at more than US$50 10.8% reported breaking and entering, and resultant theft 4.6% reported stealing a car 54.6% reported a nonspecific property crime
McCarthy & Hagan (1992a)	Homeless	Serious theft Theft of food	Property offenses (full sample): 75% reported serious theft 45% reported theft of food
McCarthy & Hagan (1992b)	Homeless	Theft of food Theft under US$5 Theft between US$5 and US$50 Theft over US$50	Property offenses (full sample): 46.9% reported theft of food 47.9% reported theft under US$5 49.0% reported theft between US$5 and US$50 41.5% reported theft over US$50
Olley (2006)	Homeless	Stealing Arson	Property offenses (full sample): 69% reported a history of stealing 38% reported a history of arson Property offenses (11-18 years): 83% reported a history of stealing 24.2% reported a history of arson Property offenses (19-24 years): 40% reported a history of stealing 57.1% reported a history of arson
Schwartz, et al. (2008)	Homeless	Stealing from a store or person	Property offenses (full sample): 73% reported stealing from a store or person
Stein, et al. (2009)	Various living arrangements	Stealing	Property offenses (full sample): 14% reported stealing Property offenses (males): 16% reported stealing Property offenses (females): 11% reported stealing
Unger, et al. (1998)	Various living arrangements	Stealing/selling stolen property	Property offenses (youth 12-15 years): 16% reported stealing/selling stolen property Property offenses (youth 16-23 years): 16% reported stealing/selling stolen property
Whitbeck et al. (2001)	Various living arrangements	Stealing money	Property offenses (full sample): 23.3% stole or shoplifted food 16.3% took money from someone 10.5% broke in and took something Property offenses (males): 28.6% stole or shoplifted food 21.6% took money from someone 16.4% broke in and took something Property offenses (females): 18.9% stole or shoplifted food 11.9% took money from someone 5.5% broke in and took something

Note. Various living arrangements include independent living (apartment, house, sole contributor to housing financial expenses), living in share accommodation, living with parents or relatives, living with previous foster care parents, homeless, client in a treatment facility).

Lifetime history of offenses.

Sample categorized by form of separation from the family. Runaway sample includes youth having made an independent decision to leave the family home. Kicked out sample includes youth whose parents made the decision for them to leave the family home. Removed from home sample includes youth removed from the family home by authorities (e.g., child protection).

Homeless Youths’ Perpetration of Property Offenses

Theft

Of the 20 papers reviewed, 16 studies examined theft. In all but eight studies the type or manner of theft was not defined. Two studies utilized composite measures of theft (e.g., shoplifting or theft). Of the studies that did examine specific types of theft, the most commonly reported types of theft were that of food, goods of a defined, or nondefined value, money, and vehicles, and theft and trade of stolen goods.

Three studies reported rates showing homeless youths’ theft of food. McCarthy and Hagan (1992a, 1992b) reported approximately 45% of youth in their sample described theft of food since leaving home. Lower rates were reported by Whitbeck et al. (2001). Four studies reported on the theft of goods of a nondefined value from a store, home, or person, with variation in rates observed. For example, Chen et al. (2006) found 20% of young people in their sample has been arrested for shoplifting or theft, whereas Schwartz et al. (2008) reported 73% of the sample had stolen from a store or person when homeless. One study found that theft from a store varied as a function of gender (Gwadz et al., 2009) showing rates of theft from a store were higher for females compared to males. Estimates of the rates of theft of goods of a defined value were similar across two reviewed studies. Specifically, McCarthy and Hagan (1991, 1992b) found that 48% and 49% of the sample reported stealing goods valued at no more than US$5, or between US$5 and US$50 after leaving the family home respectively, however a lower rate was reported for theft of goods valued at more than US$50 (30%). Furthermore, McCarthy and Hagan (1991) found males compared with females reported higher rates of stealing goods valued at no more than US$5, between US$5 and US$50 after leaving the family home, and goods valued at more than US$50.

Two reviewed studies described variation in rates of theft of money. Kipke et al. (1997) found 29% of their sample reported stealing money or other items when homeless, whereas Whitbeck and colleagues (2001) reported 16% of their sample had stolen money from someone since leaving the family home. Further, the rate of stealing money from someone for males was almost twice that for females (22% vs. 12% respectively). Two studies reported on theft relating to motor vehicles. McCarthy and Hagan (1991) reported 27% of the sample had stolen from a car, 19% had stolen a car, and 6% had stolen a family car since leaving the family home. Males reported stealing from a car and stealing a car at almost a three times higher rate than that of females. Chen et al. (2006) reported 4% of their sample had been arrested for auto-theft. One study examined the theft and trade of stolen goods, stating 16% of youth aged 12 to 15 years and 16 to 23 years reported stealing and selling stolen property while homeless (Unger et al., 1998).

Property damage

Several studies reported rates for property damage, including vandalism, break and enter, burglary, and arson. Rates of vandalism ranged from 14% (Ferguson et al., 2011) to 78% (Hammersley & Pearl, 1996). Three studies examined breaking and entering, with variation in the reported rates of this behavior. For instance, McCarthy and Hagan (1991) found that 27% of their sample, including 31% of males and 11% of females, reported breaking and entering while homeless, whereas Whitbeck et al. (2001) reported comparatively lower rates (10%). Break and enter was more commonly reported by males in two studies (Gwadz et al., 2009; Whitbeck et al., 2001). Chen et al. (2006) reported 4% of their sample had been arrested for burglary. In two studies, rates for arson varied. Olley (2006) found 38% of their sample reported a history of arson while homeless. Chen et al. (2006) reported substantially lower rates of arson (1%).

Other property-related offenses

Two studies reported various other forms of property-related offenses including driving or riding in a stolen car, receiving stolen goods, and fraud. Specifically, Hammersley and Pearl (1996) found 44% of their sample reported driving or riding in a stolen car while homeless. Occurrence of receiving stolen goods and fraud while homeless were reported as being 31% and 14% respectively, with higher rates reported for males compared to females (McCarthy & Hagan, 1991).

Homeless Youths’ Experience of Property Victimization

Burglary

Of the 20 papers reviewed, three studies investigated homeless youths’ experience of being burgled while living in shelters, staying with friends, or staying on the streets or in abandoned buildings, with wide-ranging rates reported. For instance, MacLean and colleagues (1999) found 7% of their sample, including 19% of males and 11% of females, reported having been burgled while homeless. Cauce and colleagues (2000) reported higher rates (26%). Further, Gaetz (2004) showed 53% of females and 49% of males had been burgled.

Property damage

One study examined property damage. Gaetz (2004) found 30% of their analyzed sample reported having their property damaged, with slightly higher rates reported for females.

Associations Between Homelessness and Youths’ Perpetration of Property Offenses or Experience of Property Victimization

Table 3 presents the results of studies, including effect sizes that presented analyses examining associations between homelessness and youths’ perpetration of property offenses or experience of property victimization.

Table 3.

Reviewed Studies Reporting Associations Between Homelessness and Youths’ Perpetration of Property Offenses, or Experience of Property Victimization.

Author	Current housing status	Housing predictor	Property offense perpetration or victimization	Statistical analysis method	Findings	Effect size
Baron (2006)	Various living arrangements	Homelessness	Property crime	Ordinary least squares regression	Property offenses:Homelessness (full sample): Increased property crime (β .19**)	f² .27
Greene et al. (1999)	Various living arrangements	Homelessness	Theft	Logistic regression	Property offenses: Homelessness & survival sex (shelter sample): Increased theft (AOR 2.0*) Homelessness & survival sex (street sample): Increased theft (AOR 2.3*)	d .17 d .20
MacLean et al. (1999) ^	Various living arrangements	Runaway	Burglary	t-test (by entry to homelessness)	Property victimization: Homelessness: No significant difference in report of being burglarized between homeless youth who had runway, been kicked out of or removed from their home (t not stated, p = .308).	n/a
McCarthy & Hagan (1991)	Homeless	Living at home Homelessness	Stealing Vandalism Receiving stolen goods Fraud Stealing from a car Shoplifting Break and enter Stealing a car Nonspecific property crime	χ² analysis (being at home vs. being on the street)	Property offenses: Following transition to homelessness: More likely to report stealing goods valued between US$5 and US$50 (χ² = 13.78) More likely to report receiving stolen goods (χ² = 7.94) More likely to report fraudulently using a bank or credit card (χ² = 3.71) More likely to report stealing from a car (χ² = 4.44) More likely to report shoplifting goods valued at no more than US$50 (χ² = 15.61) More likely to report shoplifting goods valued at more than US$50 (χ² = 6.78) More likely to report stealing a car (χ² = 7.27*)	φ .20. φ .19 φ .20 φ .15 φ .20 φ .18 φ .25
					No significant difference in: Stealing a parent’s car (χ² = 60.01, NS) Vandalizing another persons’ property (χ² = < .001, NS) Stealing goods valued at no more than US$5 (χ² = .89, NS) Stealing goods valued at more than US$50 (χ² = 1.41, NS) Breaking and entering, and resultant theft (χ² = .62 NS) Nonspecific property crime (χ² = .04, NS).Following transition to homelessness (males): More likely to report stealing goods valued between US$5 and US$50 (χ² = 8.28) More likely to report receiving stolen goods (χ² = 5.09) More likely to report stealing an automobile (χ² = 5.20)No significant difference in: Stealing goods valued at no more than US$5 (χ² = <.00, NS) Fraudulently using a bank or credit card (χ² = 2.22, NS) Stealing from an automobile (χ² = 1.51, NS) Shoplifting goods valued at no more than US$50 (χ²=3.44, NS) Stealing goods valued at more than US$50 (χ² = .23, NS) Shoplifting goods valued at more than US$50 (χ² = 3.43, NS) Break, enter and theft (χ² = .009, NS) Nonspecific property crime (χ² = .01, NS).Following transition to homelessness (females): More likely to report stealing goods valued at between US$5 and US$50 (χ² = 4.97*).	NSNSNSNSNSNSφ .18φ .14φ .14NSNSNSNSNSNSNSNSφ .20
					More likely to report receiving stolen goods (χ² = .11). More likely to report fraudulently using a bank or credit card (χ² = .31) More likely to report shoplifting goods valued at no more than US$50 (χ² = 17.42) More likely to report shoplifting goods valued at more than US$50 (χ² = .08) More likely to report stealing an automobile (χ² = .21) More likely to report nonspecific property crime (χ² = 8.26)No significant difference in Stealing goods valued at no more than US$5 (χ² = 2.13, NS) Stealing from an automobile (χ² = 3.45, NS) Stealing goods valued at more than US$50 (χ² = .03, NS) Break, enter and theft (χ² = .35, NS)	φ .03φ .05φ .37φ .02φ .04φ .25NSNSNSNS
McCarthy & Hagan (1992a)	Homeless	Runaway episodesTime homeless	Serious theft^^Theft of food	Correlation analyses Multivariate regression	Property offenses:Runaway episodes No association with serious theft (r.04, NS) No effect on serious theft (b –.01, NS) Positive association with theft of food (r .09) No effect on theft of food (b .001, NS)Time homeless Positive association with serious theft (r .25) Increased serious theft (b .07) Positive association with theft of food (r .13*) No effect on theft of food (b .01, NS)	NSNSd .18NSd .53f² .66d .26NS
McCarthy & Hagan (1992b)	Homeless	Previous street experienceCurrent homelessnessTime homeless	Theft	Multivariate regression	Property offenses:Previous street experience No effect on theft (β .09, NS)Current homelessness Increased theft (β .14)Time homeless Increased theft (β .22*)	NSn/an/a
Olley (2006)	Homeless	Homelessness	Stealing	Mean test of differences	Property offenses:Homelessness:Stealing Stealing more likely for homeless youth aged 11 to 18 years than 19 to 24 years (t not stated, p < .05).Arson Arson more likely for homeless youth aged 19 to 24 years than 11 to 18 years (t not stated, p < .05).	n/an/a
Unger, et al. (1998)	Various living arrangements	Homelessness	Stealing/selling stolen property	χ² analysis (by age, and homelessness)	Property offenses:Homelessness:No significant difference in stealing/selling stolen property between homeless youth aged 12 to15 years and 16 to 23 years (χ² .00, NS).	NS

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. NS = not statistically significant.

AOR = adjusted odds ratio. OR = odds ratio. r = correlation coefficient, β = standardized beta coefficient, b = unstandardized beta coefficient, χ² = chi-square, φ = Phi coefficient, d = Cohen’s d, f² = Cohen’s f², n/a = insufficient data reported for calculation of effect size

Serious theft: Includes items assessing stealing goods worth over US$50, stealing from a car, stealing goods from a store worth less than US$50, using bank/credit card without the owner’s permission, stealing a car, breaking in and taking something from a house or building.

Calculation of Effect Sizes

Across the eight studies reporting results of analyses investigating associations between homelessness and youths’ perpetration of property offenses, or experience of property victimization, the calculation of effect sizes was achieved for five reviewed studies (Baron, 2006; Greene et al., 1999; McCarthy & Hagan, 1991, 1992a; Unger et al., 1998). Consequently, the degree of difference in associations (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013) between homelessness and youths’ property offending or victimization was examined, as was whether these associations were greater for specific groups of homeless youth (where applicable).

Homeless Youths’ Perpetration of Property Offenses

Theft

Seven reviewed studies investigated associations between homelessness and youths’ perpetration of theft or associated behaviors. Three studies reported findings specific to theft. Greene et al. (1999) showed homelessness was associated with increased odds of theft for homeless youths’ residing in a shelter, and for the street-based sample. However, examination of the effect size for these associations showed little difference between the two subgroups (effect size of .17 for the shelter sample and .20 for the street sample). Similarly, McCarthy and Hagan (1992b) found associations between both youths’ current experience of homelessness, and the length of time youth had been homeless and theft. In a further study (McCarthy & Hagan, 1992a), number of runaway episodes was not correlated with, or predictive of, serious theft in adjusted analyses; however, a positive association was evident between runaway episodes and theft of food, with an effect size of .18. This association did not hold in adjusted analyses. Conversely, length of time homeless was correlated with increased theft of both food and serious theft (including stealing goods, a car, and fraudulent use of bank or credit card details). Minimal differences in the effect of homelessness on theft (effect size of .26 for theft of food and .18 for serious theft were found). Subsequent analyses investigating these associations and adjusting for covariates (including unemployment, hunger, shelter, and street friends being arrested), showed the predictive relationship between length of time homeless and serious theft, but not theft of food, remained (McCarthy & Hagan, 1992a), with a moderate effect size (.66).

Homelessness was associated with increased engagement in theft of goods of defined and nondefined values in several reviewed studies. In an early study, McCarthy and Hagan (1991) found once homeless, youth reported higher rates of stealing goods valued between US$5 and US$50, stealing from a car, shoplifting goods valued at no more than US$50, shoplifting goods valued at more than US$50, and stealing a car, in comparison to youth who had not yet left home. Effect size calculations showed youth once homeless statistically significantly differed from youth who had not yet left home on these outcomes, however the difference between the samples was small (effect size .15 to .25). Both males and females were more likely to report stealing goods valued between US$5 and US$50, and stealing a car, once homeless. The increase in stealing items within this value range was moderate (effect size .04 to .20). Differences in rates of stealing from a car, shoplifting goods valued at no more than US$50, and shoplifting goods valued at more than US$50, for homeless youth in comparison to youth who had not yet left were not evident in gender-segregated analyses. Two studies reported age-segregated analyses. Olley (2006) found in their sample youth aged 11 to 18 years reported higher rates of stealing than youth aged 19 to 24 years. Conversely, Unger et al. (1998) showed no difference in rates of stealing/selling stolen property between youth aged 12 to 15 years and 16 to 23 years.

Property damage

Two studies described associations between homelessness and types of property damage. Homeless youth aged 19 to 24 years reported higher rates of arson than homeless youth aged 11 to 18 years (Olley, 2006). McCarthy and Hagan (1991) found no difference in rates of vandalism or breaking and entering, for homeless youth relative to those who had not yet left home. In the same study, comparable results were found when examined separately for males and females.

Other property-related behaviors

Associations between homelessness and other property-related behaviors were examined in two studies. McCarthy and Hagan (1991) found homeless youth reported higher rates of fraudulently using a bank or credit card, and receiving stolen goods, relative to those who had not yet left home. Male and female youth who had left home statistically significantly differed from those who had not yet left home in their report of receiving stolen goods, however the difference between the subgroups was small (effect size for males .14 and for females .03). No statistically significant differences were evident for males’ fraudulent use of a bank or credit card; however, although female homeless youth were more likely to report engaging in this behavior the effect size was small (.05) showing the difference between female youth who had not yet left home and those who were homeless was minimal. In the same study, no difference in property crime between homeless youth and those who had not yet left home, either for the full sample or separately for males and females, was reported. Baron (2006) found that homelessness was associated with property crime in adjusted analyses. An effect size of .27 indicated a moderate degree of difference for the association between homelessness and property crime in this study.

Homeless Youths’ Experience of Property Victimization

In their study examining victimization among homeless youth, MacLean and colleagues (1999) found no differences in rates of burglary between homeless youth who had run away from, or been removed or kicked out of, their family home.

Adjustment for the Situational Context of Homelessness on Property Offenses and Victimization

Across the reviewed studies, three presented analyses examining associations between homelessness and property offenses (Greene et al., 1999; McCarthy & Hagan, 1992a, 1992b) following adjustment for situational antecedents (covariates). No studies examining property victimization presented analyses adjusting for situational antecedents.

Mixed findings were evident following adjustment for situational antecedents. For example, McCarthy and Hagan (1992a) showed the effect of length of time homeless on serious theft, maintained statistical significance following the inclusion of covariates such as demographics, maternal and paternal relationships, family abuse, and peer relationships. Specifically, serious theft within the home environment, hunger, and shelter maintained their effect in the final model. In another study by the same authors, length of time homeless and current homelessness displayed statistically significant effects on theft, following adjustment for demographic variables and distance from the home environment (McCarthy & Hagan, 1992b). Likewise, Greene et al. (1999), following adjustment for covariates including length of time away from home, and demographics (age, gender, and race), showed homelessness maintained an effect on theft, for both youth residing in shelters and those living on the street.

After adjustment for covariates, homelessness no longer influenced perpetration of property offenses in one study (McCarthy & Hagan, 1992a). The effect of number of runaway episodes on serious theft, and both the number of runaway episodes and length of time on the street on theft of food was no longer statistically significant following the inclusion of covariates. Importantly, covariates including hunger, minor theft within the home environment, and arrest of street friends maintained their effect in the final model.

Discussion

This review is the first to examine associations between homelessness and youths’ engagement in types of property offenses, and experience of property victimization. Published studies reporting associations between homelessness and different types of property offenses and victimization in homeless youth have been collated and appraised. The review examined: (a) the types and rates of property offenses and victimization, (b) whether homelessness was associated with youths’ perpetration of property offenses, or experience of property victimization, and (c) whether situational antecedents had been considered in studies examining homeless youths’ property offenses and victimization. Twenty studies were identified and reviewed. The majority of studies were conducted in the United States and reported findings from cross-sectional analyses. Findings showed that theft and property damage were the most commonly reported property offenses, whereas burglary and having personal property stolen or damaged were the most commonly reported victimization experiences. There was substantial inconsistency in the rates for these property offending and victimization experiences. Homelessness was associated with engaging in higher rates of theft; however, mixed findings were apparent for property damage. One study investigated associations between homelessness and being burgled; no differences were apparent amongst subgroups of homeless youths. Situational factors were generally not examined in the analyses of reviewed studies. A subsidiary finding was that almost half of the reviewed studies were not embedded within a theoretical framework; however, where applied, theory was typically drawn from sociological or criminological theories.

The findings of this review make a valuable contribution to current research efforts examining offending behaviors and victimization, and more specifically, property offenses and victimization, amongst homeless youth. The reviewed literature has predominately focused on reporting the “types” and rates of property offenses and victimization. The current review found that there are variations in the estimates of rates for types of property offenses. For instance, estimates of theft of food ranged from 20% to 45%, theft from a store or person ranged from 20% to 73%, while the rates of property damage were between 14% to 78%. This variation may be due to disparity in measures of the time frame within which offenses or victimization occurred (e.g., lifetime [while homeless] or past 3-months), and the frequency of offenses or victimization (e.g., once or three or more times). Despite this variation, there is some similarity in the types of reported property offenses and victimization experiences for homeless youth and those youth within the general population. However, it is apparent that rates of property offenses and victimization are substantially higher for homeless youth. Specifically, it is estimated that 1.27% of youth aged 10 to 17 years have been arrested for a property crime in the United States, with .27% arrested for arson, and .02% for both burglary and arson (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2009). Further, it is approximated .16% of youth had experienced property victimization, with .15% having been stolen from, and .01% having been robbed or burgled (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2000). Slightly higher rates are reported for Canadian youth aged 12 to 17 years; yet they are below that reported by homeless youth. For example, 7.4% of youth were arrested for break and enter, 4.5% shoplifting, and .05% arson (Taylor-Butts & Bressan, 2006). Importantly approaches to the measurement of property offending and victimization varied across reviewed studies, leading to differences in reported rates. Moreover, although one reviewed study reported differences in rates of property offending for homeless youth before and after leaving the family home, no studies directly compared rates of property offending or victimization amongst homeless youth and those within the general population. Studies of this nature are required to gain insight into potential differences in rates of property offending and victimization among these subgroups.

Homeless youths’ engagement in property offenses and experience of victimization are currently underresearched topics of investigation within both the Australian context and international contexts outside the United States (e.g., the United Kingdom and Europe). One Australian study was retrieved in the literature search (Milburn, Rotheram-Borus, Rice, Mallet, & Rosenthal, 2006), however, did not meet the review inclusion criteria. Hence, no Australian studies were identified for inclusion in this review. In Australia, 21% of all youth offenses related to theft—the most common recorded offense for youth aged 10 to 24 years (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2011d). More specifically, rates of property offenses and victimization appear to be similar to that of youth in the United States. For instance, the most common offense for youth aged 10 to 14 years and 15 to 17 years was theft (.51% and 1.40% respectively), with .15% and .37% of youth of the same age engaging in property damage (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2012c). Further research is required investigating the types and rates of property offenses and victimization among homeless youth in the Australian context. Knowledge of offenses and victimization for this population group is required to ensure health and support policies, and intervention and preventive efforts, are both responsive to and inclusive of, the needs of homeless youth. This will also benefit the development of crime reduction strategies, as well as policies and procedures, which target property offenses and victimization, among homeless youth.

Few of the reviewed studies directly examined associations between homelessness and youths’ property offenses or victimization; only four reviewed studies reported these analyses for property offenses and no study reported such analyses for property victimization. The findings of this review show each of these four studies were cross-sectional in nature, limiting the ability of the authors to infer temporal ordering of homelessness and subsequent property offenses or victimization, hence they have only speculated about their causal association. Thus, the findings of the current review reveal no clear prospective association between homelessness and youths’ property offenses or victimization. Furthermore, the reviewed studies reported varied cross-sectional associations between homelessness and property offenses. In part, this may reflect the way in which homelessness was measured in these studies. For example, findings revealed consistent positive associations for constructs including time homeless and current homelessness (but not number of runaway episodes), and property offenses, but not the construct of prior experience of homelessness. These cross-sectional findings show no association between homelessness and property offending or victimization, such that homelessness and these behaviors may be associated through shared risk factors. For example, the experience of family violence and childhood abuse are recognized precursors to homelessness, are recognized risk factors for aggressive behaviors (Chen et al., 2007), and profoundly impact an individuals’ self-esteem and social relationships, potentially increasing vulnerability to revictimization (Cauce et al., 2000; Coates & McKenzie-Mohr, 2010; Kim et al., 2009), and engagement in antisocial and offending behaviors (Moffit, 1993). Further investigation of these associations is needed.

This study has attempted to more precisely define and examine specific types of property offenses and victimization among homeless youth. Previous research has reported homelessness is linked to more property offenses using broad measures of behavior within domains such as violence (Baron, 2006), delinquency (Gaetz, 2004), antisocial behavior (Tompsett & Toro, 2010), and subsistence strategies (Whitbeck & Simons, 1993). Similarly, property victimization has been embedded within measures of street victimization (Thrane, Hoyt, Whitbeck, & Yoder, 2006), physical victimization (Chen et al., 2007), or criminal victimization (Simons & Whitbeck, 1991). Thus, it may be that these broader constructs of violence, problem behavior, and victimization reflect more general offending or victimization dispositions, rather than focusing on specific offenses or victimization experiences per se. Further research, more precisely defining both homelessness and specific types of offending and victimization and the associations between them is warranted.

Homeless youth are a vulnerable population group who commonly report property offenses and victimization. These behaviors and experiences may be the result of situational antecedents associated with homelessness, and occur as a means of survival (Chen et al., 2007; Farrow et al., 1992; Schwartz et al., 2008). Strong theoretical bases, such as social-situational, social constructivist, behavioral, or humanistic psychological perspectives, are required in considering situational antecedents such as the characteristics of behavioral settings and environments, and person-situation interactions within the environment, which may contribute to homeless youths’ vulnerability to offending and victimization. It has been purported that homelessness does not afford youth the opportunity to adhere to laws and regulations that prohibit illegal offenses (such as stealing) due to the lifestyle in which they are embedded (Baron, 2006; Farrow et al., 1992; Schwartz et al., 2008), and also predisposes youth to increased vulnerability for victimization through exposure to subcultures of violence and proximity to crime (Kennedy & Baron, 1993; Schreck et al., 2002; Tyler et al., 2001). The findings of this review show that of those studies investigating associations between homelessness and property offenses and victimization, several situational antecedents were considered, for example family abuse, unemployment, hunger, living situation, street culture, and deviant peer relationships. Generally, these factors also showed associations with increased property offenses or property victimization.

Social-situational perspectives emphasize the importance of social norms and situational antecedents associated with homelessness on perpetration of offenses and experience of victimization. In sum, offenses and victimization may be associated with “street” factors such as environmental and structural surroundings, relationships with peers, interactions with acquaintances and unfamiliar persons, a young persons’ identity, needs and values, and the incidences a young person encounters while homeless. Situational antecedents associated with homelessness, as well as homelessness itself, may be associated with offenses and victimization. For example, threats to safety arising from sleeping on the streets or in temporary shelter may be associated with the need to carry and (or) use a weapon. Likewise, being entrenched in the culture of homelessness may predispose youth to increased vulnerability to offending and victimization through exposure to subcultures of violence, violent peer relationships, financial instability, and lack of appropriate shelter (Kennedy & Baron, 1993; Schreck et al., 2002). Attempts to preserve personal safety, often through behaviors such as fighting, stealing, and using weapons, often results from perceptions that violence and victimization are normative behaviors within the street environment (Kipke et al., 1997).

Further investigation is required to provide insight into the reasons why homeless youth engage in property offenses, and the situational contexts contributing to property victimization, as well as the extent to which property offenses and victimization demonstrate attempts to survive when homeless. For example, several reviewed studies reported rates for homeless youths’ theft of food (McCarthy & Hagan, 1992a, 1992b; Whitbeck et al., 2001); however, utilized measures of theft comprising multiple theft-related items, as opposed to examining associations between homelessness and specific forms of theft. It is important to understand which situational antecedents associated with homelessness (e.g., lack of food, lack of safety provided by secure accommodation) contribute to associations between homelessness and property offending and victimization among this group of youth. Further, it is important to investigate whether situational antecedents are associated with property offending and victimization, over and above homelessness itself.

Study Limitations

Limitations of reviewed studies

Several limitations to the reviewed studies are noted. Firstly, there is a paucity of published studies investigating predictive relationships between homelessness and youths’ property offenses and victimization. All but one reviewed study was cross-sectional in design, and hence the reviewed studies have only speculated about the temporal associations between homelessness and subsequent offenses or victimization. Similarly, there is variation in the way in which homelessness, property offenses, and victimization have been measured. The majority of studies examined homelessness using constructs such as length of time homeless or current homelessness, whereas other studies analyzed constructs such as prior homeless experience. Likewise, measurement of the frequency of property offenses and victimization differed across studies. There was also variation in the forms of property offenses and victimization investigated. It is also acknowledged that the sample analyzed in some studies were not representative of a unique sample of homeless youth. Further, the calculation of effect sizes was not feasible given insufficient reporting of data within several of the reviewed studies. The estimation of effect sizes is important for reporting and interpreting potential differences in the occurrence of property offenses and victimization for subgroups of homeless youth. Finally, the majority of reviewed studies failed to provide a theoretical grounding within which the study was embedded. A strong theoretical basis, such as that provided through social-situational, psychological perspectives is required to determine how the situational context of homelessness is associated with offending behavior, and how it could be targeted as a modifiable process by which to reduce the incidence of property offending and victimization.

Limitations of the current review

There are several limitations to this literature review and the interpretation of the findings. Firstly, this review has used a conservative method including only those studies examining specific types of property offenses and victimization, rather than other offenses (e.g., physical or sexual) or broader measures of crime, violence or victimization; however, it is likely that at least some participants in these studies were “versatile” offenders, engaging in a range of different offenses. In addition, this review has examined only those studies of youth’s self-reported property offenses; hence, studies reporting police contact and arrest were omitted from this review. Finally, due to the interest in exploring published studies of homelessness and property offenses and victimization the literature review excluded “grey literature” and dissertations examining the topic.

Conclusions

The current article presents a unique synthesis and appraisal of literature reporting the types and rates of property offenses and victimization among homeless youth, and associations between homelessness and property offenses and victimization among this population group. Homeless youth report engaging in property offenses such as theft, and property damage, and commonly describe being burgled, and having their property damaged. There was inconsistency in the reported rates of offenses and victimization across reviewed studies; however, rates appear substantially higher for youth experiencing homelessness, compared to youth within the general population. This was not directly tested in the reviewed studies and requires further investigation. Although links between homelessness and property offenses and victimization were apparent, these associations were cross-sectional, limiting the ability to establish the temporal ordering of homelessness and subsequent property offending or victimization. The influence of the situational context of homelessness should also be examined. Future prospective studies are needed to develop understandings of how homelessness influences types of property offending and victimization for this group of vulnerable youth.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Jessica A. Heerde is a postdoctoral research associate in the School of Psychology at the Australian Catholic University. For the postdoctoral phase of her career, Dr Heerde is conducting research on the predictors and outcomes of adolescent help-seeking behaviour, as well as the mental health, violence and victimisation of homeless young people, and barriers to accessing healthcare for these young people. Dr Heerde is passionate about conducting research that can inform prevention programs and policy for better health and social outcomes for all young people.

Sheryl A. Hemphill is a professor in Psychology at the Australian Catholic University. Professor Hemphill is recognized nationally and internationally for her research on violence prevention including bullying and the impact of school exclusion on student outcomes. Her research interests focus on understanding development across the life span with a particular focus on adolescence, as well as identifying and implementing effective prevention programs to reduce violent, antisocial, and related behaviors.

References

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2011a). 2050.0.55.002 - Position Paper - Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Review of counting the homeless methodology. Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/90DB868E528D3EEBCA2578DF00228CEE?opendocument

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2011b). 4519.0 - Recorded crime - Offenders, 2010-11. Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Products/0657AC51A72EB2E6CA25799E000DDAD0?opendocument

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2011c). 4519.0 - Recorded crime - Victims, 2010-11. Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/4510.02011?OpenDocument

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2011d). 4524.0 - In focus: Crime and justice statistics, September 2011 Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4524.0Chapter200September%202011

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2012a). 2049.0 - Census of population and housing: Estimating homelessness Retrieved from http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/EB59F237159F7102CA257AB100170B61/$File/20490_2011.pdf

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2012b). 2049.5.55.001 Methodology for estimating homelessness from the census of population and housing. Retrieved from http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/61102520832D348ECA257A6F0012AF91/$File/2049055001_2012.pdf

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2012c). 4519.0: Recorded crime - Offenders. Retrieved http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/0D38AEF648B5C1EECA25799E000E3B15/$File/45190_2010-11.pdf

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2008). Making progress: The health, development and wellbeing of Australia’s children and young people (Cat. no PHE 104). Canberra: Author.

Baron

S. W.

(2004). General strain, street youth and crime: A test of Agnew’s revised theory. Criminology, 42, 457-483. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2004.tb00526.x

10.

Baron

S. W.

(2006). Street youth, strain theory, and crime. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 209-223. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2006.01.001

11.

Baron

S. W.

(2011). Street youths’ fear of violent crime. Deviant Behavior, 32, 475-502. doi:10.1080/01639621003800554

12.

Baron

S. W.

Forde

D. R.

Kennedy

L. W.

(2007). Disputatiousness, aggressiveness, and victimization among street youths. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 5, 411-425. doi:10.177/1541204077299582

13.

Baron

S. W.

Hartnagel

T. F.

(1998). Street youth and criminal violence. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35(2), 166-192. doi:10.1177/0022427898035002003

14.

Barry

P. J.

Ensign

Lippek

S. H.

(2002). Embracing street culture: Fitting health care into the lives of street youth. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 13(2), 145-152. doi:10.1177/104365960201300208

15.

Cauce

A. M.

Paradise

Ginzler

J. A.

Embry

Morgan

C. J.

Lohr

Theofelis

(2000). The characteristics and mental health of homeless adolescents: Age and gender differences. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8, 230-230. doi:10.1177/106342660000800403

16.

Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. (2008). Systematic reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. Layerthorpe, UK: University of York.

17.

Chamberlain

Mackenzie

(1992). Understanding contemporary homelessness: Issues of definition and meaning. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 27, 274-297.

18.

Chamberlain

Mackenzie

(2008). Counting the homeless 2006. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.

19.

Chen

Thrane

Whitbeck

L. B.

Johnson

(2006). Mental disorders, comorbidity, and postrunaway arrests among homeless and runaway adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16, 379-402. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2006.00499.x

20.

Chen

Thrane

L. E.

Whitbeck

L. B.

Johnson

K. D.

Hoyt

D. R.

(2007). Onset of conduct disorder, use of delinquent subsistence strategies, and street victimization among homeless and runaway adolescents in the Midwest. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 1156-1183. doi:10.1177/0886260507303731

21.

Coates

McKenzie-Mohr

(2010). Out of the frying pan, into the fire: Trauma in the lives of homeless youth prior to and during homelessness. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 37(4), 65-96.

22.

Cochran

B. N.

Stewart

A. J.

Ginzler

J. A.

Cauce

A. M.

(2002). Challenges faced by homeless sexual minorities: Comparison of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender homeless adolescents with their heterosexual counterparts. American Journal of Public Health, 92, 773-777. doi:10.2105/AJPH.92.5.773

23.

Collins

Barker

(2009). Psychological help-seeking in homeless adolescents. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 55, 372-384. doi:10.1177/0020764008094430

24.

Ensign

(1998). Health issues of homeless youth. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 7(3), 159-174. doi:10.1023/A:1022931628497

25.

Fagan

Piper

E. S.

Cheng

(1987). Contributions of victimisation to delinquency in inner cities. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 78, 586-613.

26.

Farrow

J. A.

Deiisher

R. W.

Brown

R. K. J. W.

Kipke

M. D.

(1992). Health and health needs of homeless and runaway youth: A position paper for the Society for Adolescent Medicine. Journal of Adolescent Health, 13, 717-726.

27.

Ferguson

K. M.

Bender

Thompson

S. J.

Maccio

E. M.

Xie

Pollio

(2011). Social control correlates of arrest behavior among homeless youth in five US cities. Violence and victims, 26, 648-668. doi:10.1891/0886-6708.26.5.648

28.

Gaetz

(2004). Safe streets for whom? Homeless youth, social exclusion, and criminal victimization. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 46, 423-455. doi:10.3138/cjccj.46.4.423

29.

Gaetz

(2009). Whose safety counts? Street youth, social exclusion, and criminal victimization. In Hulchanski

J. D.

Campsie

Chau

Hwabg

Paradis

(Eds.), Finding home: Policy options for addressing homelessness in Canada (pp. 282-305). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto.

30.

Greene

J. M.

Ennett

S. T.

Ringwalt

C. L.

(1999). Prevalence and correlates of survival sex among runaway and homeless youth. American Journal of Public Health, 89, 1406-1409. doi:10.2105/ajph.89.9.1406

31.

Gwadz

M. V.

Gostnell

Smolenski

Willis

Nish

Nolan

T. C.

Ritchie

A. S.

(2009). The initiation of homeless youth into the street economy. Journal of Adolescence, 32, 357-377. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.01.004

32.

Hammersley

Pearl

(1996). Drug use and other problems of residents in projects for the young, single homeless. Health and Social Care in the Community, 4(4), 193-199. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2524.1996.tb00064.x

33.

Heinze

H. J.

Toro

P. A.

Urberg

K. A.

(2004). Antisocial behavior and affiliation with deviant peers. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33, 336-346. doi:https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1207/s15374424jccp3302_15

34.

Hodgetts

Radley

Chamberlain

Hodgetts

(2007). Health inequalities and homelessness: Considering material, spatial and relational dimensions. Journal of Health Psychology, 12, 709-725. doi:10.1177/1359105307080593

35.

Hoyt

D. R.

Ryan

K. D.

Cauce

A. M.

(1999). Personal victimization in a high-risk environment: Homeless and runaway adolescents. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 36, 371-392. doi:10.1177/0022427899036004002

36.

Hyde

(2005). From home to street: Understanding young people’s transitions into homelessness. Journal of Adolescence, 28(2), 171-183. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2005.02.001

37.

Kennedy

L. W.

Baron

S. W.

(1993). Routine activities and a subculture of violence: A study of violence on the street. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30(1), 88-112. doi:10.1177/0022427893030001006

38.

Kim

M. J.

Tajima

E. A.

Herrenkohl

T. I.

Huang

(2009). Early child maltreatment, runaway youths, and risk of delinquency and victimization in adolescence: A mediational model. Social Work Research, 33(1), 19-28.

39.

Kipke

M. D.

Unger

J. B.

Oconnor

Palmer

R. F.

LaFrance

S. R.

(1997). Street youth, their peer group affiliation and differences according to residential status, subsistence patterns, and use of services. Adolescence, 32(127), 655-669.

40.

Kurtz

P. D.

Jarvis

S. V.

Kurtz

G. L.

(1991). Problems of homeless youths: Empirical findings and human services issues. Social Work, 36, 309-314.

41.

MacLean

M. G.

Embry

L. E.

Cauce

A. M.

(1999). Homeless adolescents’ paths to separation from family: Comparison of family characteristics, psychological adjustment, and victimization. Journal of Community Psychology, 27(2), 179-187. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6629(199903)

42.

Martijn

Sharpe

(2006). Pathways to youth homelessness. Social Science & Medicine, 62(1), 1-12. doi:10.1023/a:1022286111098

43.

McCarthy

Hagan

(1991). Homelessness: A criminogenic situation? British Journal of Criminology, 31, 393-410.

44.

McCarthy

Hagan

(1992a). Mean streets: The theoretical significance of situational delinquency among homeless youths. American Journal of Sociology, 98, 597-627. doi:https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1086/230050

45.

McCarthy

Hagan

(1992b). Surviving on the street: The experiences of homeless youth. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7, 412-430. doi:https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1177/074355489274002

46.

McIntyre

J. K.

Widom

C. S.

(2011). Childhood victimization and crime victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 640-663. doi:10.1177/0886260510365868

47.

Milburn

N. G.

Rotheram-Borus

M. J.

Rice

Mallet

Rosenthal

(2006). Cross-national variations in behavioral profiles among homeless youth. American Journal of Community Psychology, 37(1-2), 63-76. doi:https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1007/s10464-005-9005-4

48.

Miner

M. H.

(1991). The self-concept of homeless adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 20, 545-560. doi:https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1007/BF01540637

49.

Moffit

T. E.

(1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674-701.

50.

Moher

Liberati

Tetzlaff

Altman

D. G.

Group

T. P.

(2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed1000097

51.

National Crime Prevention. (1999). Living rough: Preventing crime and victimisation among homeless young people. Canberra, Australia: Author.

52.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2000). Juvenile victims of property crimes. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/184740.pdf

53.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2009). Juvenile arrest rates. Retrieved from http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/jar.asp

54.

Olley

(2006). Social and health behaviors in youth of the streets of Ibadan, Nigeria. Child Abuse & Neglect, 30, 271-282. doi:https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/j.chiabu.2005.10.011

55.

Quilgars

Johnsen

Pleace

(2008). Youth homelessness in the UK: A decade of progress? York, UK: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

56.

Rachlis

B. S.

Wood

Zhang

Montaner

J. S. G.

Kerr

(2009). High rates of homelessness among a cohort of street-involved youth. Health & Place, 15(1), 10-17. doi:https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/j.healthplace.2008.01.008.

57.

Rice

Stein

J. A.

Milburn

(2008). Countervailing social network influences on problem behaviors among homeless youth. Journal of Adolescence, 31, 625-639. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2007.10.008

58.

Rosenthal

Rotheram-Borus

M. J.

(2005). Young people and homelessness. Journal of Adolescence, 28, 167-169. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2005.03.004

59.

Schreck

C. J.

Wright

R. A.

Miller

J. M.

(2002). A study of individual and situational antecedents of violent victimization. Justice Quarterly, 19(1), 159-180. doi:10.1080/07418820200095201

60.

Schwartz

Sorensen

H. K.

Ammerman

Bard

(2008). Exploring the relationship between homelessness and delinquency: A snapshot of a group of homeless youth in San Jose, California. Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal, 25, 255-269. doi:https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1007/s10560-008-0125-1

61.

Selya

A. S.

Rose

J. S.

Dieker

L. C.

Hedeker

Mermelstein

R. J.

(2012). A practical guide to calculating Cohen’s f², a measure of local effect size, from PROC MIXED. Frontiers in Psychology, 3(11), 1-6. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00111

62.

Simons

R. L.

Whitbeck

L. B.

(1991). Running away during adolescence as a precursor to adult homelessness. Social Service Review, 65, 224-247. doi:https://www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/30012143

63.

Stein

J. A.

Milburn

N. G.

Zane

J. I.

Rotheram-Borus

M. J.

(2009). Paternal and maternal influences on problem behaviors among homeless and runaway youth. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 79(1), 39-50. doi:10.1037/a0015411

64.

Stewart

A. J.

Steiman

Cauce

A. M.

Cochran

B. N.

Whitbeck

L. B.

Hoyt

D. R.

(2004). Victimization and posttraumatic stress disorder among homeless adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 43, 325-331. doi:10.1097/00004583-200403000-00015

65.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston, United States of America: Pearson Education.

66.

Taylor-Butts

Bressan

(2006). Youth Crime in Canada, 2006. Statistics Canada (Vol. 28, Catalogue no. 85-002, no. 3). Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics.

67.

Terry

M. J.

Bedi

Patel

N. D.

(2010). Healthcare needs of homeless youth in the United States. Journal of Pediatric Sciences, 2(1), e17-e28.

68.

Thrane

Chen

Johnson

Whitbeck

L. B.

(2008). Predictors of police contact among midwestern homeless and runaway youth. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 6, 227-239. doi:10.1177/1541204007313382

69.

Thrane

L. E.

Hoyt

D. R.

Whitbeck

L. B.

Yoder

K. A.

(2006). Impact of family abuse on running away, deviance, and street victimization among homeless rural and urban youth. Child Abuse & Neglect, 30, 1117-1128. doi:https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/j.chiabu.2006.03.008.

70.

Tompsett

Toro

P. A.

(2010). Predicting overt and covery antisocial behaviors: Parents, peers, and homelessness. Journal of Community Psychology, 38, 469-485. doi:10.1002/jcop.20375

71.

Tyler

K. A.

Beal

M. R.

(2010). The high-risk environment of homeless young adults: Consequences for physical and sexual victimization. Violence and Victims, 25(1), 101-115. doi:10.1891/0886-6708.25.1.101

72.

Tyler

K. A.

Hoyt

D. R.

Whitbeck

L. B.

Cauce

A. M.

(2001). The effects of a high-risk environment on sexual victimization of homeless and runaway youth. Violence and Victims, 16, 441-455.

73.

Tyler

K. A.

Johnson

K. A.

Brownridge

D. A.

(2008). A longitudinal study of the effects of child maltreatment on later outcomes among high-risk adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 506-521. doi:10.1007/s10964-007-9250-y

74.

Unger

J. B.

Simon

T. R.

Newman

T. L.

Montgomery

S. B.

Kipke

M. D.

Albornoz

(1998). Early adolescent street youth: An overlooked population with unique problems and service needs. Journal of Early Adolescence, 18, 325-348. doi:10.1177/0272431698018004001

75.

Whitbeck

L. B.

Hoyt

D. R.

Yoder

K. A.

Cauce

Paradise

(2001). Deviant behavior and victimization among homeless and runaway adolescents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16, 1175-1204. doi:10.1177/088626001016011005

76.

Whitbeck

L. B.

Simons

R. L.

(1993). A comparison of adaptive strategies and patterns of victimization among homeless adolescents and adults. Violence and victims, 8(2), 135-152.