Individual characteristics of the literally homeless, marginally housed, and impoverished in a US substance abuse treatment-seeking sample
- 434 Downloads
Many researchers and clinicians believe that understanding substance use problems is key to understanding homelessness. This study’s purpose was to test, in a national sample of urban substance abuse treatment seekers, whether (1) income was related to amount of money spent on substances and (2) homeless chronic substance users had more severe psychosocial problems or histories than housed chronic substance users.
Questions assessing homelessness were inserted into the Drug Evaluation Network System—a computer-assisted intake interview (including the Addiction Severity Index) implemented in addiction treatment programs across the U.S. Based on these data, clients were divided into four residential groups: literally homeless (n = 654), marginally housed (n = 1138), housed poor (n = 3119), and housed not poor (n = 718). Income, human capital (education level and acquisition of a trade/skill), substance use, mental health, and social support were examined.
The literally homeless was not the poorest group, although these clients did spend the most money on substances. All four groups’ incomes were positively related to amount of money spent on drugs, but only the marginally housed’s income was related to money spent on alcohol. The literally homeless had the most severe alcohol, mental health, and social support problems. The literally homeless and marginally housed had similar incomes and human capital and the most severe cocaine problems. In general the housed poor and housed not poor fared better than the literally homeless and marginally housed groups.
Practitioners should continue to intervene with the homeless and consider working with the marginally housed’s social support systems. Future research should examine the marginally housed as an at-risk group for homelessness.
Keywordshomeless marginally housed poverty substance use risk factors
- 1.Agresti A (1996) An introduction to categorical data analysis. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 2.Alemagno SA, Cochran D, Feucht TE, Stephens RC, Butts JM, Wolfe SA (1996) Assessing substance abuse treatment needs among the homeless: a telephone-based interactive voice response system. Am J Public Health 86:1626–1628Google Scholar
- 8.Blinder AS (2006) Offshoring: the next industrial revolution? Foreign Aff 85:113–128Google Scholar
- 11.Burt MR, Aron LY, Douglas T, Valente J, Lee E, Iwen B (1999) Homelessness: programs and the people they serve, Technical Report, The Urban Institute, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- 16.Coll CG, Buckner JC, Brooks MG, Weinreb LF, Bassuk EL (1998) The developmental status and adaptive behavior of homeless and low-income housed infants and toddlers. Am J Public Health 88(9):1371–1374Google Scholar
- 20.Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (May 1, 2002) Qualifying urban areas for Census 2000. Federal Register 67(84), National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- 23.Draine J, Salzer MS, Culhane DP, Hadley TR (2002) Role of social disadvantage in crime, joblessness, and homelessness among persons with serious mental illness. Psychiatr Serv 53(5):565–573Google Scholar
- 24.Edin K, Lein L (1997) Making ends meet: how single mothers survive welfare and low-wage work. Russell Sage Foundation, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 25.Everitt BS (1992) The analysis of contingency tables, 2nd edn. Chapman & Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 26.Eyrich KM, Pollio DE, North CS (2001) An exploration of alienation and replacement theories of social support in homelessness. Soc Work Res 27:222–231Google Scholar
- 32.Homelessness Research Institute (2007) Homelessness counts. National Alliance to End Homelessness, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- 44.McLellan AT (2005) Testimony to the national committee on vital and health statistics, February 2, 2005Google Scholar
- 47.Metraux S, Culhane D, Raphael S, White M, Pearson C, Hirsch E, Ferrell P, Rice S, Ritter B, Cleghorn JS (2001) Assessing homeless population size through the use of emergency and transitional shelter services in 1998: results from the analysis of administrative data from nine U.S. jurisdictions. Public Health Rep 116:344–352PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 55.Orwin RG, Scott CK, Arieira C (2005) Transitions through homelessness and factors that predict them: Three-year treatment outcomes. J Subst Abuse Treat:S23–S39Google Scholar
- 56.Petry NM, Bickel WK (1998) A behavioral economic analysis of polydrug abuse in heroin addicts, Working Paper #6415, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
- 67.Sheskin DJ (2004) Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures, 3rd edn. Chapman & Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 76.U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies. Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS), 2000 (Computer file), Prepared by Synectics for Management Decisions, Incorporated. ICPSR ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (producer and distributor), 2003Google Scholar