Media Contact:
Kristen Vaughn
(205) 934-8935
E-mail: kristenvaughn@uab.edu

Posted on December 4, 2006 at 9:00 a.m.

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. – Housing programs across the nation will provide shelter for millions of the homeless this winter. But this won’t necessarily be true for the nearly 200,000 homeless attempting to kick drug habits after having undergone treatment. They may find themselves with no place to go, University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) researchers have found.

Results of a study on drug addiction and homelessness indicate that the majority of recovering addicts remain without homes and without jobs even after participating in a six-month drug treatment program. Further research suggests that this may be because government-subsidized housing programs set standards too high for recovering addicts.

“After 15 years of clinical trials, UAB has developed a powerful addiction-treatment model – one that clearly reduces drug use among homeless people,” said Stefan Kertesz, M.D., primary researcher on the project and assistant professor in the UAB Department of Preventive Medicine. “But, with more than 200 communities across the country now working on plans to end chronic homelessness, the key question is, ‘How many of these people wind up with housing or jobs after participating in scientifically-supported addiction treatment programs such as ours?”

UAB investigators found that homeless addicts who received temporary housing during a six-month drug treatment program were more likely to find long-term jobs and housing after treatment than those who did not receive residential support. Still, more than half of the study’s participants failed to obtain stable, post-treatment employment or housing. This led UAB investigators to explore how government-subsidized housing policies affected those who completed their treatment program.

Many housing programs impose strict regulations on tenants, such as requiring them to pass drug tests with 100-percent negative results for four months. The standards are set largely because of a limited number of caseworkers qualified to care for these types of tenants once they are housed.

“Very few treatment clients with long-term addiction and drug abuse were ever able to achieve the four-month standard,” Kertesz said. “Someone has to open the door to let these people back into society. Many housing programs impose standards that are impossible to meet, ultimately excluding from care the very people their programs were designed to serve.”

To solve this issue, communities need to expand their services to provide appropriate support for individuals who have seriously undertaken a program for recovery, but who have not yet reached 100-percent compliance, according to Kertesz.

And, a more effective program may have a beneficial economic impact.

“Data from other parts of the country continue to suggest that the costs of providing appropriate supports to help patients such as ours are often compensated by savings throughout the rest of the service system,” Kertesz said.

The study will appear in the January issue of The Journal of Behavioral Health Services and Research and online at http://www.springerlink.com/content/1556-3308/.