RURAL-URBAN DIFFERENCES IN SUBSTANCE USE AND TREATMENT UTILIZATION AMONG PRISONERS

Abstract

Surveys of incarcerated offenders and arrestees consistently report high rates of both alcohol and drug use in this population. This drug-crime connection has highlighted the need to learn more not only about drug treatment effectiveness, but also about drug treatment utilization. While studies have begun to examine drug treatment utilization, most of these studies have been based on urban substance abusers. Little is known about the extent to which urban and rural substance abusers may be different in terms of treatment utilization. This study, therefore, examines differences between urban and rural drug use patterns and treatment utilization among chronic drug abusers to determine whether, and in what ways, rurality may affect substance abuse and treatment seeking. The study examines these issues in a group of chronic drug users who were incarcerated at the time of the study. Findings show significant differences in drug use and treatment utilization of urban and rural offenders. Chronic drug abusers from rural and very rural areas have significantly higher rates of lifetime drug use, as well as higher rates of drug use in the 30 days prior to their current incarceration than chronic drug abusers from urban areas. Nonetheless, being from a very rural area decreased the likelihood of having ever been in treatment after controlling for the number of years using and race. While problem recognition appears to explain much of the effect of very rural residence on treatment utilization for alcohol abuse, the effects of being from a very rural area on seeking treatment for drug abuse remain statistically significant even after controlling for several other variables. The findings point to the importance of providing culturally appropriate education to very rural communities on the benefits of substance abuse treatment and of providing substance abuse treatment within the criminal justice system.

• Drug treatment utilization
• Prisoners
• Rural drug use

Notes

Number of close friends was highly skewed, with values as high as 500. Values therefore were truncated at 30, which included 98% of the responses.