Having a beer while watching the game
Image: Flickr
This Sunday, millions of Americans will sit down in front of their television or computer, crack open a few beers, and watch the Super Bowl. But if those viewers live in a housing project for the homeless, that booze could get them booted back out to the street. Many homeless housing projects have strict abstinence policies, and require residents to be completely sober. Permitting alcohol, many community organizers reason, would enable addictions and promote a downward spiral into continued drinking and declining health.
Now, a study suggests that requiring alcohol abstinence from residents of homeless projects might be misguided. In at least one project where residents were allowed to drink, alcohol consumption decreased, as did alcohol-related health problems, researchers reported on January 19 in the American Journal of Public Health.
A total of 95 residents were tracked in the 1811 House—a housing project in Seattle. After two years, the residents' median number of drinks per day decreased from 28 to 17, about a 40 percent drop. And the number of alcohol-related health problems, such as delirium tremens, decreased as well. "We found that these people are human beings, and can moderate their drinking," says Susan Collins, at researcher at the University of Washington, and lead author on the study, "and that starts with getting housing."
The 1811 House is what experts call a "housing first"—it provides housing before asking residents to address their addictions, psychological disorders or other existing problems. The alternative, a "treatment first" model, tries to get homeless people clean and sober before offering them housing. Each day in the United States, there are about 640,000 homeless people, 17 percent of whom are considered “chronically homeless.”
Sam Tsembaris, a psychologist and one of the founders of the housing first movement and CEO of Pathways to Housing, is unsurprised by the results in Seattle. "It's very consistent with what we're finding," in other places such as New York City, Washington, D.C., and Philadelphia, he says. And Daniel Malone, a public health researcher and director of housing at the 1811 House and co-author of the study, says that other housing first projects are starting to see the same thing in Anchorage and Fairbanks, Alaska.
Project residents might drink less under lax alcohol rules for many reasons, says Collins. Street people tend to drink their alcohol faster that the average person for a number of reasons. Practically, they have nowhere to store things they buy. So while you or I might drink one or two beers and keep the rest of the six-pack in the fridge, homeless people might drink them all for lack of storage. And since they are never sure when booze might be stolen or confiscated by friends, enemies or the police, the homeless often finish drinks as quickly as they can.
Homeless people also often use alcohol to help them to fall asleep or to deal with the physical and psychological pain that can accompany homelessness. Housing can provide relief from many of these stresses, says Malone, which could lead to less drinking.
Studies have shown that housing first models also help cities save money, according to the National Alliance to End Homelessness. In New York City, a unit of housing cost about $17,277 a year, and saved nearly all of that—$16,282 in public costs such as jail time and trips to the emergency room. A program in Denver saved $15,773 each year per unit that cost $13,400.
Yet housing first projects can be unpopular among both charities and the public. The Seattle program from the study was dubbed "bunks for drunks" at some town hall meetings. "There is a lot of reluctance to give people who have behavioral problems publicly subsidized housing," says Nan Roman, president and CEO of the National Alliance to End Homelessness. Some of that comes from the belief that housing those with substance abuse problems will encourage them to keep using drugs and alcohol—a hypothesis that the Seattle study obviously calls into question. Others object for moral or religious reasons, Collins says.
See what we're tweeting about
15 Comments
Add CommentToo bad other substances people like to use to self-medicate are illegal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting article. Years ago, my former college room mate organized the annual massive off-campus party. Prior to his efforts, liquor was banned at the function and the place was a goat show. Everyone tried to get as tanked as possible before entering the facility. Fights, rowdiness, and anarchy ruled.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy former room mate managed to get the party licensed, and guess what? Anarchy was replaced by a good time and the general tone and tenure was far more civilized and restrained.
Kind of makes you wonder what would happen if marijuana was licensed.
If MJ was licensed:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this- use would drop
- prison population (and cost) would drop
- companies would start making money on it (and paying taxes).
People that don't pay taxes are cheap.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNothing changes that.
If people who have drug, alcohol and other issues didn't reckless have so many kids, we would have more people that are mentally healthy, work for a living, AND pay taxes.
The solution is less drugs, and less people that are addicted to negative lifestyles.
I don't have the answer but I do have the question. If you do want to look at the effect of prohibition I'd suggest you look at those remote Alaskan (mainly native American) communities that have it. Their very remoteness does rather enforce the law. There I think you will find the answer to the effectiveness of such laws. They (and I) would say it can be a benefit to the community.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"A total of 95 residents were tracked in the 1811 House—a housing project in Seattle. After two years, the residents' median number of drinks per day decreased from 28 to 17, about a 40 percent drop"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAfter
"After TWO YEARS the MEDIAN number of drinks decreased from 28 to 17, and this is a GOOD thing? No one who drinks 17 drinks a day can be considered functional. These folks are chronically homeless because they are chronic alcoholics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt least they are or they're not. If they're not, they can quit want they want to. Presumably they would rather live a life other than what they are presented with now, yes? Then why don't they quit? If they're not alcoholic, then why are we subsidizing their behavior?
The answer is that at seventeen drinks a day or more for two years and God only knows how many per day prior to that for God only knows how many years, it is inarguable that they are alcoholics. If you ask any of them if they would like to live a more prosperous life free of alcohol and any other mind altering substance they would say, Yes! absolutely! But I haven't been able to quit! I stopped trying years ago!
The very first step towards that goal is abstinence. period. If you want to house them you also have to treat them, and you have to agree on a treatment plan and you have to have counselors who are experts in delivering the kind of treatment that has proven to work over time.
To merely house them and demand abstinence is ridiculous, I agree. But to take public funds and actively participate in their alcoholism demonstrates a measure of co-dependence that is laughable were it not so tragic.
Leave these people alone or get real help for them.
This outcome speaks to the unethical nature of drug prohibition.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo you are in favor of getting of some of Big Pharma's most "successful" drugs?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, we have so many drugs and pollution in our drinking water now that's really hard to filter out. Only 1% of our water is drinkable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlcohol and MJ doesn't seem to improve behavior.
Whatever... drugs should be the last option, not the first.
My neighbor...thinks Prosaic in the public water system is the answer to everything. She feels it saved her life. I don't know.
We have so many problems to work on that getting wasted legally or socially on government money...Not ok.
When anyone makes a comment like that...it says I may have a drug problem.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBops - you need a lot, but even Prozac would not help much. My advice to you is to start drinking heavily... ;)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAbstinence first or no help? Sounds like 'tough love', 'my way or the highway', and a complete lack of human compassion, as well as a total rejection of practicality in favor of ideological purity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFacts are simple - let them drink, give them housing, and the real dollar cost to society goes down.
Insist on abstinence, 'my way or the highway', or 'tough love', and you make the attempt to 'help' a struggle of wills, a fight, and the homeless are as willing to fight to defend their human dignity as anyone else.
In the US, Prohibition increased alcoholism, social cost of alcoholism, and created the modern day incarnation of Organized Crime. Modern Prohibition has the same effect. Insistence of abstinence causes more harm, personaly and financially, than it prevents, no matter how moral it may feel.
I once managed a transitional housing center for twenty homeless families - but there was only enough money for Mon - Fri coverage. Each weekend brought fights, police visits and being a general annoyance to neighbors. My solution was to organize them as a community and I let them write their own set of rules for the program (with my suggestions only). They decided on no alcohol in front of children, limiting the amount one could have on hand - and they self-policed, because THEY had the power! After, I never got a call from the police and a few neighbors stopped by to find out why things had changed. My hardest struggle was to get the upper supervisors to allow me to give the program participants the power to create their own rules - the Board were all sure it would be Bedlam. No such thing. A very rewarding experience. Treat people like responsible adults and they will often act like responsible adults. I was not able to change management regarding one failed drug test, usually MJ, and force them into (free, volunteered)treatment - they had to be evicted in 24 hours, even if it was one of the kids who tested positive. Also, the EMIT test being only 85% accurate, no allowance was made for a confirming test.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOrganizational inertia is often why programs fail. Flexibility is what is called for - if it isn't working then try something new!
A magazine as prestigious as Scientific American should do some research and perhaps even contact the organization that developed and operates the project sited in this article rather than relying on hearsay from organizations on the Eastcoast --- too cheap for a long distance phone call? First of all, the name of the project is not 1811 House; it is 1811 Eastlake and it is the brainchild of an award winning organization in Seattle, DESC, which has been serving this community's chronically homeless adults affected by mental illness and disabilities for over 30 years. Daniel Malone is not the director of 1811 Eastlake, he is DESC's Director of Housing, overseeing 8 supportive housing sites with nearly 900 apartments for this severely vulnerable population, as well as two more sites under development. Why you look to Sam Tsembaris from Pathways in New York for comment rather than speak directly to DESC Executive Director, William Hobson for the actual facts is a mystery. And to talk about Housing First without reference to Harm Reduction technique tells only a partial story. Rose Eveleth should be taken to task for her lack of research and faulty facts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this