nized as a social movement and as having a distinct identity is the fact of its overwhelming government funding and regulation. Any program that is going to treat more than a few individuals with a paid staff must have a source of regular funding. Private foundations avoid funding direct services, leaving drug treatment to city, state, or federal governments. But the money comes with regulations and guidelines that make community-based programs virtual adjuncts to government social services. Funding has obscured differences and standardized programs in how they are reported. Anyone who has worked in local government to fund community-based drug treatment programs knows of the tension and the potential for conflict in the annual funding process. What is at stake is not simply funding to run generic services. Programs want to treat clients in ways that they feel will work best and are most effective, in line with their mission and purpose. But more often, they are not able to because of funding regulations. For example, there are some community-based programs that offer methadone treatment, but would prefer not to. The idea of maintaining drug abusers on an alternative drug is against their specific view of drug abuse and their mission to reduce drug use, regardless of the drug. But methadone maintenance is a source of funding that can bring more drug abusers into their services and cannot be easily overlooked.

In recent years, drug treatment dollars are in decline and there are increasing calls for evaluation and demonstrations of effectiveness. An undetermined numbers of community-based programs are in crisis. They do not have the human resources to conduct their own evaluations, nor do they have the fiscal resources to hire someone else to do so. Institutionally based programs in hospitals, universities, and HMOs have vastly more human and fiscal resources to meet the new demands for program accountability and evaluation. So larger and more successful community-based as well as institutionally based programs are more than happy to absorb smaller, well managed community-based programs and their support dollars. The rest will simply wither. We are now witnessing a consolidation and shaking out of community-based drug treatment.

Community-based drug treatment programs are not the only community institutions shrinking in number and influence. The possibilities and resources of residential and neighborhood institutions are themselves in transition (Southworth and Owens, 1993; Wellman and Wortley, 1990). The historic centrality of residential community is itself in decline as is evident from a century of community studies (Abu-Lughod, 1994; Seeley et al., 1956; Spectorsky, 1958; Stein, 1960; Vidich and Bensman, 1958). We are now in the third generation of community research in the United States. The first and classic period was in the 1920s and 1930s, when teams of investigators spent years in the field studying Chicago, Illinois, Newburyport, Connecticut, and Natchez, Mississippi, as representative

The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement