Advertisement

The Social Networks of Drug Abusers before and after Treatment

  • J. David Hawkins
  • Mark W. Fraser

Abstract

The term “drug abuse treatment” is, in a sense, a misnomer. Drug treatment programs do not seek merely to stop the illicit use of drugs, but rather to assist people who no longer are functioning effectively personally, socially, or economically in legitimate society and to alter their patterns of living (Drug Abuse Council, 1980:14). In this regard, it has been widely recognized that social rehabilitation services are essential to successful treatment (Bloom and Sudderth, 1971:172; Lewis and Sessler, 1980:120). To be effective, social rehabilitation services in drug treatment should address the social factors that are related to the initiation, maintenance, and return to drug abuse. Unfortunately, there is not yet agreement about how social factors interact in the etiology of drug use and abuse, and how they should be addressed in drug treatment. As noted by the Drug Abuse Council 1980:5:

The underlying social dynamics and problems that lead to drug misuse are so exceedingly complex so as yet to elude totally satisfactory solutions.

Keywords

Social Network Social Network Analysis Drug Abuse Treatment Network Member Drug Abuser 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Akers, Ronald L., Marvin D. Krohn, Lonn Lanza-Kaduce, and Marcia Radosevich, “Social learning and deviant behavior: A specific test of a general theory.” American Sociological Review, 44 (August): 636–655, 1979.Google Scholar
  2. Arling, Greg, “The elderly widow and her family, neighbors, and friends.” Journal of Marriage and the Family, November: 757–768, 1976.Google Scholar
  3. Bale, Richard N., “The validity and reliability of self-reported data fromGoogle Scholar
  4. heroin addicts: Mailed questionnaires compared with face-to-face interviews.” The International Journal of the Addictions 14(7): 993-1000, 1979.Google Scholar
  5. Bale, Richard N., W. W. Van Stone, J. M. Kuldau, T. M. J. Engelsing, R. M. Elashoff, V. P. Zancone, “Therapeutic communities vs. methadone maintenance.” Archives of General Psychiatry, 37 (February): 179–193, 1980.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bernard, H. R., and P. D. Killworth, “Informant accurancy in social network data II.” Human Communication Research, 4(1) 3–18, 1977.Google Scholar
  7. Bloom, W. A., and E. W. Sudderth, “Methadone in New Orleans: Patients, problems, and police.” In S. Einstein (Ed.), Methadone Maintenance. New York: Marcel Dekker, 1971.Google Scholar
  8. Brown, B. S., “Introduction.” In B. S. Brown (Ed.), Addicts and Aftercare. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 11–22, 1979.Google Scholar
  9. Callan, D., J. Garrison, and F. Zerger, “Working with the families and social networks of drug abusers.” Journal of Psychedelic Drugs, 7 (1): 19–25, 1975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Caplan, G., and H. Grunebaum, “Perspectives on primary prevention: A review.” Archives of General Psychiatry, 17: 331–345, 1967.Google Scholar
  11. Ch’ien, James M., “Alumni associations of Hong Kong.” In B. S. Brown (Ed.), Addicts and Aftercare. Beverly Hills, CA.: Sage, 155–163, 1979.Google Scholar
  12. Cohen, A. K., Delinquent Boys: The Culture of the Gang. New York: Free Press, 1955.Google Scholar
  13. Curtis, Bill and D. Dwayne Simpson, “Differences in background and drug use history among three types of drug users entering drug therapy programs.” Journal of Drug Education 7(4):369-379, 1977.Google Scholar
  14. Drug Abuse Council, The Facts About “Drug Abuse.” New York: Free Press. 1980.Google Scholar
  15. Fararo, T. J., and M. H. Sunshine, A Study of a Biased Friendship Net. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Youth Development Center, 1964.Google Scholar
  16. Gove, W., and M. Geerken, “The Effect of children and employment on the mental health or married men and women.” Social Forces, 56 (1): 66–76, 1977.Google Scholar
  17. Hammer, Muriel, “Predictability of social connections over time.” Social Networks, 2: 165–180, 1980a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hammer, Muriel, “Reply to Killworth and Bernard.” Connections, 3 (3): 14–15, 1980b.Google Scholar
  19. Hammer, Muriel, “Some comments on the validity of network data.” Connections, 3 (1): 13–15, 1980c.Google Scholar
  20. Hammer, Muriel, “Social supports, social networks, and schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Bulletin 7(1): 45-57, 1981.Google Scholar
  21. Hammer, M., S. K. Polgar, and K. Salzinger, “Speech predictability and social contact patterns in an informal group.” Human Organization, 28: 235–242, 1969.Google Scholar
  22. Hawkins, J. David, “Reintegrating street drug abusers: Community roles in continuing care.” In B. S. Brown (Ed.), Addicts and Aftercare. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 25–79, 1979.Google Scholar
  23. Hawkins, J. David, and Mark W. Fraser, “Social support and the treatment of drug abuse.” In James K. Whittaker and James Garbarino (Eds.), Social Support System in the Human Services. New York: Adline, 355380, 1983.Google Scholar
  24. Hawkins, J. David, and Norman Wacker, “Verbal performances and addict conversion: An interactionist perpective on therapeutic communities.” Journal of Drug Issues, 13 (2): 281–298, 1983.Google Scholar
  25. Hawkins, J. David, and Richard F. Catalano, “Reversing drug abuse: A theory of rehabilitation.” Paper presented at the Pacifie Sociological Association Meeting, San Francisco, 1980.Google Scholar
  26. Hirschi, T., Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley, CA.: University of California Press, 1969.Google Scholar
  27. Ishiyama, Toaru, “Self help models: Implications for drug abuse programming.” In B. S. Brown (Ed.), Addicts and Aftercare. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 117–133, 1979.Google Scholar
  28. Johnson, Bruce D., Marijuana Users and Drug Subcultures. New York; Wiley, 1973.Google Scholar
  29. Johnson, Bruce, D., “Toward a theory of drug subcultures.” In Dan J. Lettieri, M. Sayers, and H. W. Pearson (Eds.), Theories on Drug Abuse: Selected Contemporary Perspectives. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1980.Google Scholar
  30. Kandel, Denise, B. “Adolescent marihuana use: Role of parents and peers.” Science, 181 (September): 1067–1069, 1973.Google Scholar
  31. Kandel, Denise, B., “Interpersonal influence on adolescent illegal drug use.” In Erick Josephson and Eleanor E. Carroll (Eds.), Drug Use: Epidemiological and Sociological Approaches. New York John Wiley and Sons, 1974.Google Scholar
  32. Kandel, Denise B., “Developmental stages in adolescent drug involvement.” In Dan J. Lettieri, Mollie Sayers, and Helen Wallenstein Pearson (Eds.), Theories on Drug Abuse. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 120–127, 1980.Google Scholar
  33. Kandel, Denise, B., Donald Treiman, Richard Faust, and Eric Single, “Adolescent involvement in legal and illegal drug use: A multiple classification analysis.” Social Forces 55(2): 438-458, 1976.Google Scholar
  34. Killworth, P., and H. R. Bernard, “Catiji: A new sociometric and its application to a prison living unit.” Human Organization, 33: 335–350, 1974.Google Scholar
  35. Killworth, P., and H. R. Bernard, “Informant accuracy in social network data.” Human Organization, 35 (3): 269–286, 1976.Google Scholar
  36. Killworth, P., and H. R. Bernard, “Informant accuracy social network data III.” Social Networks 2(1): 19-46, 1979.Google Scholar
  37. King, J., The Probation and After-Care Service, London: Butterworth, 1969. Leinhardt, Samuel, “Social network research: Editor’s introduction.” Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 5: 1–4, 1977.Google Scholar
  38. Lewis, David C., and John Sessler, “Heroin treatment: Development, status, outlook.” In Drug Abuse Council (Eds.), The Facts About Drug Abuse. New York: Free Press, 1980.Google Scholar
  39. Lowinson, Joyce, and John Langrod, “Neighborhood drug treatment centers: Opposition to establishment.” New York State Journal of Medicine (April) 766–769, 1975.Google Scholar
  40. Mitchell, J. Clyde, Social Networks in Urban Situations. Manchester, England: Manchester University Press, 1969.Google Scholar
  41. National Institute on Drug Abuse, “Nonresidential self-help organizations and the drug abuse problem: An exploratory conference.” (DHEW No. (ADM) 78–752,) Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1978.Google Scholar
  42. Pattison, E. Mansell, Robert Llamas, and Gary Hurd, “Social network mediation of anxiety.” Psychiatric Annals, 9 (9): 474–482, 1979.Google Scholar
  43. Phillips, Swan, L., “Network characteristics related to the well-being of normals: A comparative base.” Schizophrenia Bulletin 7 (1): 117–123, 1981.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pink, W. T., and M. F. White (Eds.), Delinquency Prevention: A Conference Perspective on Issues and Directions. Portland, OR: Regional Research Institute, 1973.Google Scholar
  45. Ruiz, Pedro, John Langrod, and Joyce Lowinson, “Resistance to the opening of drug treatment centers: A problem in the community psychiatry.” International Journal of the Addictions 10(1): 149-155, 1975.Google Scholar
  46. Segal, S. P., and U. Aviram, The Mentally Ill in Community - Based Sheltered Care: A Study of Community Care and Social Intergration. New York: Wiley, 1978.Google Scholar
  47. Sokolovsky, Jay, Carl Cohen, Dirk Berger, and Josephine Geiger, “Personal networks of ex-mental patients in a Manhattan SRO hotel.” Human Organization 37 (1): 5–15, 1978.Google Scholar
  48. Stanton, M. Duncan, “Some outcome results and aspects of structural family therapy with drug addicts.” In D. Smith, S. Anderson, M. Buston, T. Chung, N. Gottlieb, and W. Harvery (Eds.), A Multicultural View of Drug Abuse: The Selected Proceedings of the National Drug Abuse Conference. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman, 1977.Google Scholar
  49. Stanton, M. Duncan, “The client as family member: Aspects of continuing treatment.” In B. S. Brown (Ed.), Addicts and Aftercare. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1979.Google Scholar
  50. Stanton, M. Duncan, and T. C. Todd, “Structural family therapy with heroin addicts.” In E. Kaufman and P. Kaufman (Eds.), The Family Therapy of Drug and Alcohol Abusers. New York: Gardner, 1978.Google Scholar
  51. Stanton, M. Duncan, T. C. Todd, David B. Heard, Sam Kirschner, Jerry I.Google Scholar
  52. Kleiman, David T. Mowatt, Paul Riley, Samuel M. Scott, and John M. Van Deusen, “Heroin addiction as a family phenomenon: A new conceptual model.” American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 5 (2): 1–25, 1978.Google Scholar
  53. Stephens, R. C. and R. B. Smith, “Copping and caveat emptor: The street addict and consumer.” Addictive Diseases 2(4): 585-600, 1976.Google Scholar
  54. Waldorf, Dan, “Rock Bottom.” Chapter 9 in Careers in Dope. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1973.Google Scholar
  55. Waldorf, Dan, and Patrick Biernacki, “The natural recovery from opiate addiction: Some preliminary findings. Journal of Drug Issues, 11 (1): 61–74, 1981.Google Scholar
  56. Weinman, B., and R. J. Kleiner, “The impact of community living and community member intervention on the adjustment of the chronic psychotic patient.” In L. I. Stein and M. A. Test (Eds.), Alternatives to Mental Hospital Treatment. New York: Plenum, 139–159, 1978.Google Scholar
  57. Wolf, Kenneth, and Douglas, M. Kerr, “Companionship therapy in the treatment of drug dependency.” In B. S. Brown (Ed.), Addicts and Aftercare, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1979.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. David Hawkins
    • 1
  • Mark W. Fraser
    • 2
  1. 1.Center for Social Welfare Research School of Social WorkUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  2. 2.Social Research Institute School of Social WorkUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA

Personalised recommendations