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
. 1999 Dec;76(4):419–434. doi: 10.1007/BF02351500

Project Neighborhoods in Action: An HIV-related intervention project targeting drug abusers in Washington, DC

Jeffrey A Hoffman 1, Hugh Klein 1,✉, Hendi Crosby 1, Dwight C Clark 1
PMCID: PMC3456697  PMID: 10609592

Abstract

Project Neighborhoods in Action was a human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) outreach and intervention program that was conducted with injection drug users and crack users in several inner-city neighborhoods in the District of Columbia. Study participants were placed randomly in either a standard intervention or an enhanced intervention condition, with more than 800 persons being assigned to each group. Drug use frequency dropped from 15.2 days to 12.4 for alcohol (P<.0001), 2.1 days to 1.6 for marijuana (P<.003), 13.0 days to 8.8 days for crack (P<.0001), 2.4 days to 1.5 days for cocaine (P<.0001), 19.7 days to 15.6 for heroin (P<.0001), and 5.2 days to 3.4 for speedball (P<.0001). Drug injecting decreased from an average of 90.8 times to 66.9 (P<.0001), with both direct sharing and indirect sharing rates decreasing significantly as well (from 2.4 to 1.1 times for the former [P<.002] and from 12.0 to 8.1 times for the latter [P<.0004]). The number of sexual partners dropped from a mean of 1.6 to 1.1 (P<.0001). The number of drug-injecting sexual partners went from 0.3 to 0.2 (P<.01). Having sex while high decreased from 11.2 times to 7.9 (P<.0001). Trading sex for drugs and/or money declined from 1.9 times to 1.3 (P<.001). Protected sex increased from 29.5% to 63.7% (P<.0001), and the number of unprotected sexual acts dropped from 9.6 to 7.2 (P<.0001). Only a few differences were observed for standard versus enhanced intervention respondents, with no particular pattern formed. We were left with the impression that the standard intervention and enhanced intervention used in this program were about equally effective at reducing the involvement of drug abusers in HIV-related risky behaviors.

Key Words: AIDS, Crack Use, Drug Abuse, Education, Efficacy Study, HIV, Injection Drug Users, Intervention

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (1,022.3 KB).

References

  • 1.Rhodes F, Malotte CK. HIV risk interventions for active drug users: experience and prospects. In: Oskamp S, Thompson SC, editors. Understanding and Preventing HIV Risk Behavior: Safer Sex and Drug Use. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1996. pp. 207–236. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Stephens RC, Feucht TE, Roman SW. Effects of an intervention program on AIDS-related drug and needle behavior among injection drug users. Am J Pub Health. 1991;81:568–571. doi: 10.2105/ajph.81.5.568. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Stephens RC, Simpson DD, Coyle SL, McCoy CB. Comparative effectiveness of NADR interventions. In: Brown BS, Beschner GM, editors. Handbook on Risk of AIDS: Injection Drug Users and Sexual Partners. New York: Greenwood Press; 1993. pp. 519–556. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Wiebel WW, Biernacki P, Mulia N, Levin L. Outreach to IDUs not in treatment. In: Brown BS, Beschner GM, editors. Handbook on Risk of AIDS: Injection Drug Users and Sexual Partners. New York: Greenwood Press; 1993. pp. 437–444. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Connors MM. The politics of marginalization: the appropriation of AIDS prevention messages among injection drug users. Cult Med Psychiatry. 1995;19(4):425–452. doi: 10.1007/BF01379397. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Deren S, Stephens R, Rees Davis W, Feucht TE, Tortu S. The impact of providing incentives for attendance at AIDS prevention sessions. Public Health Rep. 1994;109:548–554. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Latkin CA, Mandell W, Vlahov D, Oziemkowska M, Celentano DD. The long-term outcome of a personal network-oriented HIV prevention intervention for injection drug users: the SAFE study. Am J Community Psychol. 1996;24:341–364. doi: 10.1007/BF02512026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Beardsley M, Goldstein M, Deren S, Tortu S. Assessing intervention efficacy: an example based on change profiles of unprotected sex among drug users. J Drug Issues. 1996;26(3):635–648. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Deren S, Davis R, Beardsley M, Tortu S, Clatts M. Outcomes of a risk-reduction intervention with high-risk populations: the Harlem AIDS Project. AIDS Educ Prev. 1995;7(5):379–390. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Jarlais DC, Friedman S, Novick D, Sotheran JL, Thomas P. HIV-1 injection among intravenous drug users in Manhattan, New York City, from 1977–1987. JAMA. 1989;261(7):1008–1012. doi: 10.1001/jama.261.7.1008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Mandell W, Vlahov D, Latkin CA, Carran D, Oziemkowska MJ, Reedt L. Changes in HIV risk behaviors among counseled injecting drug users. J Drug Issues. 1994;24(3):555–567. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.McCusker AM, Stoddard JG, Zapka CS. AIDS education for drug abusers: evaluation of short-term effectiveness. Am J Public Health. 1992;82(4):533–541. doi: 10.2105/ajph.82.4.533. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.McCusker J, Stoddard AM, Zapka JG, Zorn M. Use of condoms by heterosexually active drug abusers before and after AIDS education. Sex Transm Dis. 1993;20:81–88. doi: 10.1097/00007435-199303000-00005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Nyamathi AM, Leake B, Flaskerud J, Lewis C, Bennett C. Outcomes of specialized and traditional AIDS counseling programs for impoverished women of color. Res Nurs Health. 1993;76:11–21. doi: 10.1002/nur.4770160104. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Deren S, Beardsley M, Tortu S, Davis R, Clatts M. Behavior change strategies for women at high risk for HIV. Drugs Society. 1993;7(3/4):119–128. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Bartholomew BA, Rowan-Szal GA, Chatham LR, Simpson DD. Effectiveness of a specialized intervention for women in methadone program. J Psychoactive Drugs. 1994;26(3):249–255. doi: 10.1080/02791072.1994.10472438. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Kamb ML, Fishbein M, Douglas JM, Jr, Rhodes F, Rogers J, Bolan G, et al. Efficacy of risk-reduction counseling to prevent human immunodeficiency virus and sexually transmitted diseases. JAMA. 1998;280(13):1161–1167. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.13.1161. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Bassel N, Ivanoff A, Schilling RF, Gilbert L, Borne D, Chen D. Preventing HIV/AIDS in drug-abusing incarcerated women through skills building and social support enhancement: preliminary outcomes. Soc Work Res. 1995;19:131–141. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Franzini LR, Sideman LM, Dexter KE, Elder JP. Promoting AIDS risk reduction via behavioral training. AIDS Educ Prev. 1990;2:313–321. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Levine OH, Britton PJ, James TC, Jackson AP, Hobfoll SE. The empowerment of women: a key to HIV prevention. J Community Psychol. 1993;21:320–334. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Anglin MD, Hser Y, Chou C. Reliability and validity of retrospective behavioral self-report by narcotics addicts. Eval Rev. 1993;17(1):91–107. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Higgins ST, Budney AJ, Bickel WK, Badger GJ, Foerg FE, et al. Outpatient behavioral treatment for cocaine dependence: one-year outcome. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 1995;3(2):205–212. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Miller HG, Turner CF, Moses LE, editors. AIDS: the second decade. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1990. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Nurco DN. A Discussion of Validity. Self-Report Methods of Estimating Drug Use. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1985. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Cottler LB, Compton WM, Ben-Abdallah A, Horne M., Claverie D. Achieving a 96.6% follow-up rate in a longitudinal study of drug abusers. Drug Alcohol Depend. 1996;41:209–217. doi: 10.1016/0376-8716(96)01254-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [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