Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of Urban Health : Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine logoLink to Journal of Urban Health : Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine
. 2004 Jun;81(2):222–231. doi: 10.1093/jurban/jth109

Harlem service providers’ perceptions of the impact of municipal policies on their clients with substance use problems

Juliana van Olphen 1,✉, Nicholas Freudenberg 2
PMCID: PMC3456445  PMID: 15136656

Abstract

Substance abuse is a significant health and social problem in many low-income urban communities. Finding appropriate help for drug users has been identified as a significant barrier to reducing the barm from drug abuse. This report presents findings from a survey of service providers in the Central and East Harlem communities, New York City, conducted in 2000 to identify policy obstacles that impeded clients’ attempts to overcome substance use and related problems. Policies can affect substance users by making access to drug treatment more difficult or by imposing unrealistic expectations on substance users for eligibility for benefit programs. Respondents to the survey were asked to rate 30 specific policies as harmful or helpful to their clients and to assess how the policies acted as barriers or facilitators to getting services and reducing drug use. Eleven policies in the areas of drug treatment, corrections, and Medicaid were rated as harmful to their clients by more than 50% of the respondents. We discuss the implications of these and other findings for drug users’ ability to seek and receive help for their problems.

Keywords: Substance abuse, Drug treatment access, Program eligibility

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (89.6 KB).

References

  • 1.McCord C, Freeman H. Excess mortality in Harlem. N Engl J Med. 1990;322:173–178. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199001183220306. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Fullilove RE, Fullilove MT, Northridge ME, et al. Risk factors for excess mortality in Harlem: findings from the Harlem household survey. Am J Prev Med. 1999;16:22–28. doi: 10.1016/S0749-3797(98)00146-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.How the War on Drugs Influences the Health and Well-Being of Minority Communities. Santa Monica, CA: Rand; 2001. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Freudenberg N. Jails. Prisons and the health of urban populations: a review of the impact of the correctional system on community health. J Urban Health. 2001;78:214–235. doi: 10.1093/jurban/78.2.214. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Currie E. Reckoning. Drugs, the Cities and the American Future. New York: Hill and Wang; 1993. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Massing M. The Fix. New York: Simon and Schuster; 1998. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.US Department of Housing and Urban Development. Screening and eviction for drug abuse and other criminal activity. 66 Federal Register (May 24, 2001). Final Rule 24 CFR 5 et al.
  • 8.Pollack HA, Danziger S, Jayakody R, Seefeld KS. Drug testing welfare recipients—false positives, false negatives, unanticipated opportunities. Women’s Health Issues. 2002;12:23–31. doi: 10.1016/S1049-3867(01)00139-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Quint J, Edin K, Bukc ML, et al. Big cities and welfare reform: early implementation and ethnographic findings from the project on devolution and urban change. Manpower Development Research Corporation Web site. Available at: http://www.mdrc.org/Reports99/UrbanChange/UrbanChange.PDF.Accessed April 7, 2003.
  • 10.Davis WR, Johnson BD. Criminal justice contacts of users and sellers of hard drugs in Harlem. Albany Law Rev. 2000;63:877–922. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Lynch JP, Sabol WJ. Prisoner reentry in perspective. Crime Policy Rep. 2001;3:1–26. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Nelson M, Deess P, Allen C. The First Month Out: Post Incarceration Experiences in New York City. New York: Vera Institute of Justice; 1999. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Drucker E. Population impact of mass incarceration under New York’s Rockefeller drug laws: an analysis of years of life lost. J Urban Health. 2002;79:434–435. doi: 10.1093/jurban/79.3.434. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Quitting Drugs, Quitting Crime: Reducing Probationers’ Recidivism Through Drug Treatment Programs. New York: New York City Comptroller’s Office; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Travis J, Solomon AL, Waul M. From prison to home: the dimensions and consequences of prisoner reentry. Washington, DC; Urban Institute Research Paper; 2001.
  • 16.Hunter College Center on AIDS, Drugs, and Community Health. Report of Discharge Planning Task Force. New York: 1998.
  • 17.Higgins DL, Maciak B, Metzler M. CDC Urban Research Centers: community-based participatory research to improve the health of urban communities. J Women’s Health. 2001;10:9–15. doi: 10.1089/152460901750067070. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Galea S, Factor S, Bonner S, et al. Collaboration among community members, local health service providers, and researchers in an urban research center in Harlem, New York City. Public Health Rep. 2001;116:530–539. doi: 10.1093/phr/116.6.530. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Olphen J, Freudenberg N, Galea S, Palermo A, Ritas C. Advocating policies to promote community reintegration of drug users leaving jail: a case study of first steps in a policy change campaign guided by community based participatory research. In: Minkler M, Wallerstein N, editors. Community-Based Participatory Research for Health. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2003. pp. 371–389. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Factor SH, Galea S, Garcia de Duenas L, et al. Development of a “survival” guide for substance users in Harlem, New York City. Health Educ Behav. 2002;29:312–325. doi: 10.1177/109019810202900304. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Haviland M, Frye V, Rajah V, Thukral J, Trinity M. The Family Protection and Domestic Violence Intervention Act of 1995: examining the effects of mandatory arrest in New York City: A report by the Family Violence Project of the Urban Justice Center. Available at: http://www.urbanjustice.org/publications/pdfs/FamilyViolence/fvpreport.pdf. Accessed January 12, 2003.
  • 22.Johnson B, Goldstein P, Preble E, et al. Taking Care of Business: the Economics of Crime by Heroin Users. Lexington, MA: DC Health; 1985. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.The Sentencing Project Web site. Recidivism of State Prisoners: implications for sentencing and corrections policy. Available at: http://www.thesentencingproject.org/brief/pub1064.pdf. Accessed February 15, 2003.
  • 24.Chavkin W. Drug addiction in pregnancy—policy cross-roads. Am J Public Health. 1990;80:483–487. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.80.4.483. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Moffitt R. From Welfare to Work: What the Evidence Shows. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.O’Neil H, Garcia K, Amerlynck V, Blum B. Policies affecting New York City’s low income families. Research forum on children, families, and the New Federalism. National Center for Children in Poverty, Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University: 2001. Available at: http://cpmcnet.columbia.edu/dept/nccp/policiesNYCsum.pdf. Accessed Feburary 15, 2003.
  • 27.Gais T, Weaver RK. State Policy Choices Under Welfare Reform. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution; 2002. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Urban Health : Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine are provided here courtesy of New York Academy of Medicine

RESOURCES