BACKGROUND: 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. METHOD: 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. RESULTS: 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. DISCUSSION: 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.
BACKGROUND: 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. METHOD: 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. RESULTS: 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. DISCUSSION: 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.
Authors: Stefan G Kertesz; Mary Jo Larson; Nicholas J Horton; Michael Winter; Richard Saitz; Jeffrey H Samet Journal: Med Care Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: E L Bassuk; J C Buckner; L F Weinreb; A Browne; S S Bassuk; R Dawson; J N Perloff Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 1997-02 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Jesse B Milby; Joseph E Schumacher; Rudy E Vuchinich; Dennis Wallace; Mary Ann Plant; Michelle J Freedman; Cecelia McNamara; Catherine L Ward Journal: Psychol Addict Behav Date: 2004-09
Authors: Gillinder Bedi; Laura Shiffrin; Nehal P Vadhan; Edward V Nunes; Richard W Foltin; Adam Bisaga Journal: J Psychopharmacol Date: 2016-02-26 Impact factor: 4.153
Authors: Raminta Daniulaityte; Ramzi W Nahhas; Sydney Silverstein; Silvia Martins; Angela Zaragoza; Avery Moeller; Robert G Carlson Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2019-09-22 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Carol S North; Karin M Eyrich-Garg; David E Pollio; Jagadisha Thirthalli Journal: Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol Date: 2009-10-09 Impact factor: 4.328