Heroin Prevalence: The Development of a Socioeconomic Model

  • Bradford T. Greene
  • Kareem Nakkash


In an earlier study (B. Greene, 1977) seven models—regional, perimeter-geographic diffusional, perimeter-interior geographic dif- fusional, magnitude diffusional, magnitude-distance diffusional, functional, and semi-diffusional—were examined in order to explain heroin incidence, prevalence, and treatment traits in 251 SMSA’s (cities) in the United States. The study was designed to test some of the propositions of the communicable disease theory of the spread of heroin abuse. The author found that the semidiffusional model contributed most to explaining differences in the traits and that functional (i.e., socio-economic) variables were relatively more important predictors of the traits than were diffusional (i.e., geographic or size) variables. It was concluded that the communicable disease theory was inadequate because it ascribes equal importance to host, agent, environment, and vector components. But communicable disease models cannot be replaced with simplistic functional models that focus exclusively on high crime rates, high unemployment rates, population or housing density, or poverty. Rather, heroin abuse appears to be a byproduct of the complex urbanization process.


Health Expenditure Socioeconomic Factor Housing Density High Crime Rate Load Variable 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Brown, G.F. and Silverman, L. 1973. The Retail Price of Heroin: Estimation and Applications. Public Research Institute. PRI 73–1. Arlington, Va.Google Scholar
  2. Greene, B.T. July, 1977. Outbreak and Treatment of Heroin Abuse in Cities: Diffusional vs. Functional Explanations. A paper presented at the Fourth Annual Summer Conference. The Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Institute, University of Washington, Seattle.Google Scholar
  3. Greene, M.H., Kozel, N.J., Hunt, L.G., and Appletree, R.L. October, 1974. An Assessment of the Diffusion of Heroin Abuse to Medium-Sized American Cities. Executive Office for Drug Abuse Prevention, Washinton, D.C.Google Scholar
  4. Hunt, L. August, 1974. Drug Incidence Analysis. Special Action Office Monograph, Series A, Number 3. Executive Office of the President, Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention.Google Scholar
  5. Hunt, L.G. 1973. Heroin Epidemics: A Quantitative Study of Current Empirical Data. A report prepared for Drug Abuse Council, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  6. Hunt, L. 1977. Spread of Drug Use: Application of Incidence of First Use Analysis, In Spread of Heroin Use: Applications of Incidence of First Use Analysis. A report prepared by Richard Katon and Associates for National Institute on Drug Abuse, Division of Scientific and Program Information, Rockville, Maryland.Google Scholar
  7. Hunt, L.G. and Chambers, C.D. 1976. The Heroin Epidemics: A Study of Heroin Use in the United States, 1965–1975. New York: Spectrum Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  8. National Institute on Drug Abuse and Drug Enforcement Administration. 1975. Drug Abuse Warning Network: Phase III Report, April 1974-April 1975. Washington, D.C.:IMS America.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bradford T. Greene
    • 1
  • Kareem Nakkash
    • 2
  1. 1.Government of D.C.USA
  2. 2.Mitre CorporationUSA

Personalised recommendations