Journal of Urban Health

, Volume 83, Issue 2, pp 150–161 | Cite as

Do Drug Treatment Facilities Increase Clients’ Exposure to Potential Neighborhood-Level Triggers for Relapse? A Small-Area Assessment of a Large, Public Treatment System

  • Jerry O. JacobsonEmail author


Research on drug treatment facility locations has focused narrowly on the issue of geographic proximity to clients. We argue that neighborhood conditions should also enter into the facility location decision and illustrate a formal assessment of neighborhood conditions at facilities in a large, metropolitan area, taking into account conditions clients already face at home. We discuss choice and construction of small-area measures relevant to the drug treatment context, including drug activity, disadvantage, and violence as well as statistical comparisons of clients’ home and treatment locations with respect to these measures. Analysis of 22,707 clients discharged from 494 community-based outpatient and residential treatment facilities that received public funds during 1998–2000 in Los Angeles County revealed no significant mean differences between home and treatment neighborhoods. However, up to 20% of clients are exposed to markedly higher levels of disadvantage, violence, or drug activity where they attend treatment than where they live, suggesting that it is not uncommon for treatment locations to increase clients’ exposure to potential environmental triggers for relapse. Whereas on average both home and treatment locations exhibit higher levels of these measures than the household locations of the general population, substantial variability in public treatment clients’ home neighborhoods calls into question the notion that they hail exclusively from poor, high drug activity areas. Shortcomings of measures available for neighborhood assessment of treatment locations and implications of the findings for other areas of treatment research are also discussed.


Facility location Neighborhoods Spatial analysis Substance abuse treatment 



This analysis was supported by NIAAA grant R21AA013818, NIDA grant T32DA007272, and CH05-DREW-616. The author wishes to thank Ricky N. Bluthenthal, Douglas Longshore, Jonathan P. Caulkins, Martin Y. Iguchi, and two anonymous referees for comments on drafts of the manuscript, and John Bacon and Tom Tran of the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services, Alcohol and Drug Programs Administration for assistance with data preparation. All errors are the author’s own.


  1. 1.
    Boardman JD, Finch BK, Ellison CG, Williams DR, Jackson JS. Neighborhood disadvantage, stress, and drug use among adults. J Health Soc Behav. 2001;42:151–165.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Saxe L, Kadushin C, Beveridge A, et al. The visibility of illicit drugs: implications for community-based drug control strategies. Am J Public Health. 2001;91(12):1987–1994.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lillie-Blanton M, Anthony JC, Schuster CR. Probing the meaning of racial/ethnic group comparisons in crack cocaine smoking. J Am Med Assoc. 1993;269(8):993–997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bronfenbrenner U. The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1996.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Moos RH. Conceptualization of human environments. Am Psychol. 1973;28:652–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kelly JG. Ecological constraints on mental health services. Am Psychol. 1966;21:535–539.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Merton RK. Social structure and anomie. Am Sociol Rev. 1938;3:672–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Agnew R. A revised strain theory of delinquency. Soc Forces. 1985;64:151–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Agnew R. Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology. 1992;30:47–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Storr CL, Chen CY, Anthony JC. Unequal opportunity: neighborhood disadvantage and the chance to buy illegal drugs. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004;58(3):231–237.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Suedfeld P. The medical relevance of the hospital environment. In: Oborne DJ, Gruneberg MM, Eisner JR, eds. Research in Psychology and Medicine. London: Academic Press; 1979.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gifford R, Hine DW. Substance misuse and the physical environment: the early action of a newly completed field. Int J Addict. 1991;25(7A and 8A):827–853.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jacobson JO. Place and attrition from substance abuse treatment. J Drug Issues. 2004;34(Winter):23–50.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sampson RJ, Raudenbush S, Earls F. Neighborhoods and violent crime: a multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science. 1997;277:918–924.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Corman H, Mocan HN. A time-series analysis of crime, deterrence, and drug abuse in New York city. Am Econ Rev. 2000;90(3):584–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dark S, Hall W. Heroin overdose: research and evidence-based intervention. J Urban Health. 2003;80(2):189–200.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Warner BD, Coomer BW. Neighborhood drug arrest rates: are they a meaningful indicator of drug activity? A research note. J Res Crime Delinq. 2003;40(2):123–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Haining R. Spatial Data Analysis in the Social and Environmental Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1990.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Beardsley K, Wish ED, Fitzelle DB, O'Grady K, Arria AM. Distance traveled to outpatient drug treatment and client retention. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2003;25:279–285.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Umbricht-Schneiter A, Ginn DH, Pabst KM, Bigelow GE. Providing medical care to methadone clinic patients: referral vs. on-site care. Am J Public Health. 1994;84(2):207–210.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Friedmann PD, D'Aunno TA, Jin L, Alexander JA. Medical and psychosocial services in drug abuse treatment: do stronger linkages promote client utilization? Health Serv Res. 2000;35(2):443–465.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Friedmann PD, Lemon SC, Stein MD, Etheridge RM, D'Aunno TA. Linkage to medical services in the drug abuse treatment outcome study. Med Care. 2001;39(3):284–295.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Acevedo-Garcia D. Zip code-level risk factors for tuberculosis: neighborhood environment and residential segregation in New Jersey, 1985–1992. Am J Public Health. 2001;91(5):734–741.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bingham RD, Zhang Z. Poverty and economic morphology of Ohio central-city neighborhoods. Urban Aff Rev. 1997;32(6):766–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stein BD, Zhang W. Drug and alcohol treatment among privately insured patients: rate of specialty substance abuse treatment and association with cost-sharing. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2003;71(2):109–218.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The New York Academy of Medicine 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse ProgramsLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Charles R. Drew University of Medicine & ScienceLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations