Estimating the Use of Illegal Drugs Among Homeless People Using Shelters in Denmark

Abstract

Based on a longitudinal study of approximately 1000 homeless people who used shelters or similar institutions in 1988–89, an estimate was made of the rate of people using illegal drugs in that population. This estimation was made possible by combining information from different registers—criminal records, enrollments at drug user treatment centers, and registers indicating cause of death. The samples use of drugs is also noted. The implications of these findings are discussed in the light of Denmark's current policy towards people using illegal drugs and using shelters.

• Rate of drug users among homeless people
• Sheltering of homeless drug users
• Register-based research

Notes

^aStax, [2000a].

^bReferring to §105 in the former Social Assistance Act which stated that “the regional council has to make provisions for the necessary number of places at institutions intended for temporal residence for persons who do not possess, or cannot stay in, their own dwelling, and who because of special social difficulties need to be offered a place to dwell or who need activating support which cannot be provided through other … legislation” (Ministry of Social Affairs, 1994:12, own translation). It should be noted the municipality of Copenhagen is not part of a regional country and that this municipality thus carries out the functions elsewhere carried out by regional counties. With a social reform in 1998, §105 was replaced by §94 in “The Bill on Social Services.” This led to some changes in the organization of the measures directed towards homeless but it can be argued that many of the changes simply brought old legislation into line with ongoing practice in regard to homelessness. Thus while the legislative reform did change the wording in the relevant sections in the law, it did not significantly change the homeless population in Denmark, nor the measures directed towards these people (see Stax and Kæmpe, [1999] for a comparison and discussion of the social reform in regard to homelessness).

^cIt is not my intention to define homeless or homelessness in this article. Here I use a more pragmatic understanding that refers to people living at institutions provided in accordance with §105 mentioned in note b and I conceive of this group of people as only one group of homeless among other groups of homeless. I shall reflect upon the limitations in this understanding of homelessness later. For a discussion of the Danish understanding of homelessness written in English see Stax, [2001]; for discussions on the issue in Danish see for example Børner, [1997]; Caswell & Schultz, [2001]; Järvinen, [1993].

^dBrandt, [1992]

^eThe Danish equivalent to a social security number, but every nontourist legally residing in Denmark has one.

^fAs the registration of people using §105-institutions was not mandatory until the fifth day of one's stay it is likely that many people who did not say for five days were not registered. Therefore anyone who did not spend five days in a row at a §105-institution was left out

^gThe distinction between the institutions for homeless and the centers for battered women is not a distinction in §105. Both types of institutions were provided in accordance with this section in the Social Assistance Act (and both are now provided in accordance with §94, see note 2 above). Also, users of both types of institutions were included in the register providing the basis for the research project referred to in this article. However, in most of the studies on homelessness in Denmark, centers for battered women are excluded, since the people using these institutions are considered to be different from those using institutions for the homeless (see e.g., Berg, [1982]; Brandt, [1992]; Børner, [1997]; Fridberb, [1992]; Järvinen, [1993]; Munk, et al. [2000]). As noted below the distinction between the two types of institutions is also significant in regard to the use of illegal drugs: in this article I am mostly touching upon issues of relevance for people using institutions for homeless

^hThis is not to say that such estimations were straightforward. Working with register-based information raises many issues regarding validity and reliability, also in regard to what a first seems to be straightforward information (for a further discussion see Stax, [2000b]).

ⁱA registration of convictions. The convictions registered are mostly convictions in a accordance with criminal law. The register contains information on the charges presented in court and the result of the trial.

^jThis is a registration of people who are enrolled in treatment for the use of illegal drugs.

^kA registration of cause of death

^lOne should note the difference in the years of registration between the two groups. The information on the 100 people from the sample used in the study that this article is based upon is from 1996 and 1997. The information about all people involved with a drug-users treatment program is from 1998. However, in the report on all drug users enrolled in a treatment program it is stated that the distribution of types of drugs used is by and large similar to the equivalent distributions occurring during 1996 and 1997 (Sundhedsstyrelsen, 1999).

^mFor a discussion of the current understanding of homelessness in the Danish debate see Brandt, 1999; Børner, [1997]; Caswell and Schultz, [2001]; Stax, [2001]. For a more historical view see Berg, [1982]; Brandt, [1992]; Bømler, [2000]; Järvinen, [1993].

ⁿSee e.g., Koch-Nielsen and Stax, [1999]; Jensen, [1995]; Järvinen, [1993] as well as various annual reports throughout the 90's from e.g., the shelter Sundholm.

^oBørner, [1997]; Caswell and Schultz, [2001]; Stax, [2001]

^pCaswell and Schultz, [2001].

^qSee also Munk, et al. [2000]

^rSee e.g., Koch-Nielsen, 1996.

^sI am here referring to the most hardcore homeless drug users, e.g., people injecting their methadone and using heroin or Ketogan on the side

^tIn general, considerations about how one should provide homeless people with suitable housing have been very prominent in the Danish debate during the last five years or so. One of the very popular solutions has been shared dwellings—a housing arrangement where a few (often three to eight people, categorized as being similar, share a house or a flat (see e.g., Børner & Koch-Nielsen, [1996]; Stax, [1999]; Jensen, [1995]; Jensen, et al., [1997]). These shared dwellings have, however, never been preferred when it comes to homeless people using illegal drugs (see Jensen, [1995]; Jensen, et al., [1997]).

^uI am primarily reflecting over three attempts at providing shelter for people using illegal drugs: two projects at the shelter where I have conducted my fieldwork and one project at another shelter in Copenhagen

^vSee e.g., Brandt, [1999] or Stax, 2000.

^wThe reduction in the number of beds is not just a consequence of converting normal beds into places targeted towards homeless illegal drug users. Currently the gamut of measures directed towards homeless people is undergoing various changes, e.g., an attempt at deinstitutionalization. In defense of such policy is the intention in the previously mentioned newly enacted social legislation in Denmark: that more focus should be directed towards providing permanent housing for homeless people—and that it shall be housing arrangements the meet the special needs of these somewhat different people. It is however questionable whether these positive changes—that should reduce the demand for beds at shelters—have taken effect yet. Furthermore, it is questionable whether the aim of this policy is going to be achieved when it comes to homeless people using illegal drugs

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Tobias Børner Stax

Tobias Børner Stax, M.A., is a researcher at The Danish National Institute of Social Research and a parttime associated professor at the Department of Social Science, Roskilde University. His primary area of research interest is social exclusion with special emphasis on homelessness. His latest major research project, published in 2000, focused upon the development in the lives of approximately 1000 people who used shelters in Copenhagen in 1988–89. In addition to the use of drugs among these people—the issue touched upon in this article—the project documented the population's contacts with the labor market, their places of residencies, causes of deaths, etc., from their use of shelters in 1988–89 to the present. Currently, the author is undertaking fieldwork at a shelter in Copenhagen focusing on meetings between social workers and homeless people in various public institutions and how these play a role in the daily lives of the homeless. From this initial focus on social exclusion, the author's research interests have evolved into issues of methodology and theory of science with special emphasis on the possibilities for combining qualitative methods such as interviews and fieldwork with quantitative methods such as analysis of register-based data.