593298 research-article2015
JIVXXX10.1177/0886260515593298Journal of Interpersonal ViolencePetering et al.
Article
Bidirectional Intimate Partner Violence and Drug Use Among Homeless Youth
Journal of Interpersonal Violence 1–9 © The Author(s) 2015 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0886260515593298 jiv.sagepub.com
Robin Petering, MSW,1 Harmony Rhoades, PhD,1 Eric Rice, PhD,1 and Amanda Yoshioka-Maxwell, MSW1
Abstract Intimate partner violence (IPV) among homeless youth (HY) is common, yet it has continuously been understudied, especially in relation to substance use. As part of a longitudinal study of Los Angeles area HY, drop-in service seeking youth completed a self-administered questionnaire. The presented results are from the third panel of data collection (N = 238), and the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2) was used to assess IPV behavior regarding the participant’s most recent intimate relationship. Approximately 38% of participants reported IPV behavior in their most recent relationship, and the majority of this behavior was bidirectional. It was unlikely that a HY was only a victim or only a perpetrator. Multivariable models revealed that bidirectional IPV was related to increased odds of recent methamphetamine; whereas sole perpetration was associated with an increased likelihood of ecstasy use. Specific substance use and IPV are closely related to risk behaviors for HY. Comprehensive interventions should be developed to address both these risk behaviors.
1University
of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA
Corresponding Author: Robin Petering, School of Social Work, University of Southern California, 1150 S. Olive St., 14th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90015, USA. Email: [email protected]
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIV on November 13, 2015
2
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
Keywords homeless youth, hard drug use, intimate partner violence, bidirectional violence
Youth who are homeless experience numerous health risks as a result of risk behaviors, limited access to resources, and increased exposure to endangerment. Intimate partner violence (IPV) among homeless youth (HY) is a frequently experienced health risk (Slesnick, Erdem, Collins, Patton, & Buettner, 2010; Tyler & Beal, 2010). One fifth of HY report experiencing IPV in the previous year (Petering, Rice, Rhoades, & Winetrobe, 2014). Illegal substance use has consistently been found as a risk factor for youth and young adult IPV (Ackard, Neumark-Sztainer, & Hannan, 2003; Chase, Trebous, & O’Leary, 2002; Nabors, 2010; O’Keefe, 1997; Temple & Freeman, 2011; Tontodonato & Crew, 1992; Weiner, Sussman, Sun, & Dent, 2005). HY use illegal substances at higher levels than housed youth (Ennett, Bailey, & Federman, 1999; Nyamathi, Hudson, Greengold, & Leake, 2012; Rice, Monro, Barman-Adhikari, & Young, 2010; Tyler, 2008; Wenzel, Tucker, Golinelli, Green, & Zhou, 2010), often as a coping mechanism for stress associated with life on the streets or to mitigate the effects of childhood and current trauma (McMorris, Tyler, Whitbeck, & Hoyt, 2002; Thompson, Jun, Bender, Ferguson, & Pollio, 2010; Tyler, 2008; Tyler & Johnson, 2006). IPV is a particularly complicated phenomenon among youth because individuals in adolescence and young adulthood are newly developing relationship and conflict management skills (Furman & Wehner, 1997). IPV is manifested in different forms (e.g., physical, verbal, emotional) and youth can experience this as victims, perpetrators, or both. To the best of our knowledge, the present study provides the most detailed assessment of the bidirectionality of victimization and perpetration of IPV and how such violence is associated with specific types of drug use among HY.
Method As part of a longitudinal study of Los Angeles area HY, drop-in service seeking youth completed a self-administered questionnaire. The presented results are from the third panel of data collection. The sample was limited to youth who had engaged in a sexual relationship in the previous year (N = 238). The Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2; Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996) was adapted to assess physical IPV victimization, perpetration, and bidirectional behavior regarding each participant’s most recent intimate relationship (boyfriend or girlfriend, husband or wife, casual dating partner,
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIV on November 13, 2015
Petering et al.
3
or someone they are just “hooking up with”). The physical IPV victimization and perpetration scales of the CTS2 were dichotomized, and youth were coded based on their response to one of four categories: sole victimization, sole perpetration, bidirectional (reporting victimization and perpetration), or no experience of IPV. Participants were asked about specific drug use (including heroin, powder cocaine, methamphetamine, crack cocaine, and ecstasy) and could respond with one of eight answers reflecting an increasing number of times of use in the previous month, ranging from 0 to more than 40 times. Participants who reported using at least 1 time during the previous 30 days were coded as recent user of the particular drug. Multivariable logistic regressions were used to predict the likelihood of each type of drug use by type of IPV experience, controlling for gender, age, race, and literal homelessness. Literal homelessness was defined as currently staying in a shelter (emergency or temporary), a stranger’s home, hotel, motel, street, beach, tent or campsite, abandoned building, car, or bus. The Institutional Review Board at the University of Southern California approved all survey items and procedures and waived parental consent for minors without parents or guardians.
Results Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1. Approximately 38% of the sample experienced some form of IPV in the previous year. The majority of the violence experience was bidirectional (26%); 7% reported being solely a perpetrator and 5% reported being solely a victim. The most commonly used substance in the sample was methamphetamine, followed by powder cocaine, ecstasy, heroin, and crack cocaine. Approximately 38% of the sample was polysubstance users, meaning that they reported having used more than one of the specified drugs during the previous month. Results from multivariable logistic regressions are presented in Table 2. Black youth had lower odds of reporting all substance use behaviors except for ecstasy compared with White youth. Youth in the Other race category were less likely to report heroin use compared with White youth. Youth who were literally homeless were less likely to use heroin and crack cocaine but were more likely to report methamphetamine use. IPV behaviors were related to recent methamphetamine and ecstasy use behaviors. Youth who reported bidirectional IPV were 3 times more likely than youth who experienced no IPV to report recent use of methamphetamine. Youth who identified solely as IPV perpetrators (vs. youth with no IPV experience) were 4 times more likely to have recently used ecstasy. Reporting sole IPV victimization was not related to any type of drug use.
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIV on November 13, 2015
4
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics (N = 238). Total
n
Total 238 21.36 Agea Latino 37 White 74 Black 65 62 Otherb Literally homeless 119 Intimate partner violence None 149 Bidirectional 62 Victim 11 Perpetrator 16 Recent drug use 91 Polysubstance 54 Methamphetamine Powder cocaine 58 57 Ecstasy 44 Heroin Crack cocaine 43
Female
Male
%
n
%
n
%
Missing
100 2.12 15.55 31.09 27.31 26.05 50.42
86 20.78 14 20 23 29 42
36.13 2.03 16.28 23.26 26.74 33.72 50.00
152 21.53 23 54 42 33 76
63.87 2.11 15.13 35.53 27.63 21.71 50.76
62.61 26.05 4.62 6.72
54 25 1 6
62.79 29.07 1.16 6.98
95 37 10 10
62.50 24.34 6.58 6.58
— — — — — — — — — — — —
38.40 25.59 24.68 22.27 18.72 18.70
26 16 16 13 9 10
30.23 19.75 18.82 16.05 10.59 12.35
65 38 42 34 35 33
43.05 29.23 28.00 25.76 23.33 22.15
1 27 3 31 3 8
aValues
represent M and SD. race includes American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. bOther
Discussion IPV continues to be a significant problem among HY, with almost 38% of youth in our sample reporting some type of physical abuse in their recent relationship. Consistent with other research on youth and young adult IPV (Farrell, Mehari, Kramer-Kuhn, & Goncy, 2014), IPV in this sample was primarily bidirectional. This knowledge is imperative when developing IPVrelated programming and interventions, which should not only be developed for victims or perpetrators but should also incorporate curricula and techniques relevant for youth who are experiencing both. HY who identified as perpetrators and perpetrators/victims had greater odds of recent methamphetamine and ecstasy use. Methamphetamine is considered psychostimulants (National Institute on Drug Abuse [NIDA], 1998), in contrast to other drugs such as heroin, which is considered a depressant.
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIV on November 13, 2015
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIV on November 13, 2015
5
2.51* 1.09 0.028*** 0.37 0.40* 0.20*** 1.06 0.57 2.09 233 184.74 219.25 164.74
OR
1.034 0.915 0.004 0.12 0.159 0.086 0.423 0.064 0.539
6.093 1.299 0.224 1.153 0.985 0.481 2.657 5.056 8.138
95% CI 1.882 1.06 0.29* 1.939 2.07 2.88** 3.36** 0.872 0.497 209 217.714 251.138 197.714
OR 0.881 0.89 0.098 0.71 0.869 1.349 1.577 0.189 0.057
4.02 1.261 0.85 5.296 4.933 6.142 7.154 4.014 4.329
95% CI
Methamphetamine
1.952 1.074 0.27* 0.767 0.625 0.23*** 1.361 0.578 3.111 228 203.73 238.02 183.73
OR 0.84 0.909 0.09 0.256 0.247 0.099 0.579 0.068 0.862
4.534 1.268 0.822 2.296 1.581 0.522 3.198 4.942 11.231
95% CI
Crack Cocaine
1.458 1.058 0.28** 0.636 0.492 0.651 1.446 2.243 1.735 233 261.71 296.23 259.27
OR 0.729 0.913 0.112 0.254 0.222 0.342 0.7 0.574 0.532
2.915 1.226 0.678 1.595 1.094 1.241 2.985 8.772 5.658
95% CI
Powder Cocaine
Note. OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; AIC = Akaike information criterion; SC = Schwarz criterion; log L = log likelihood. aReference group is White race. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Male Age Blacka Latinoa Othera Literally homeless Bidirectional Victim Perpetrator n AIC SC −2 log L
Heroin
Table 2. Multivariable Logistic Regression for Recent Drug Use.
1.879 1.028 0.425 0.433 0.642 0.66 1.546 0.392 4.42* 211 222.554 256.072 202.554
OR
0.877 0.868 0.169 0.14 0.266 0.328 0.719 0.047 1.207
4.027 1.218 1.069 1.332 1.55 1.327 3.324 3.272 16.197
95% CI
Ecstasy
6
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
Psychostimulants are associated with increase in aggression (Darke, Kaye, McKetin, & Duflou, 2008) and acts of violence (Sommers, Baskin, & BaskinSommers, 2006) due to chronic use. Previous research studies have shown that acute intoxication can enhance or augment an aggressive response when an individual is provoked (Sommers et al., 2006). There are several limitations to this study that should be noted. First, this study is cross-sectional; therefore, no causality can be inferred. Second, there is a time frame discrepancy between the measures. The IPV item refers to participants experience within the previous year and the drug measure refers to experiences only within the past month. There is a possibility that some participants were not using drugs during the same time period as their most recent relationship. Finally, participants were asked to report IPV experiences in their most recent relationship. For youth who may be in the earliest stages of a relationship at the time of data collection, it is possible that the relationship may not have developed a pattern of IPV. Regardless, the findings suggest that not all types of drug use are related to IPV, suggesting that future research should explore specific substance use effects rather than grouping drugs into one category. Comprehensive interventions that simultaneously address both IPV and substance use are needed, particularly with regard to psychostimulants such as methamphetamine and ecstasy in high-risk populations such as HY. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References Ackard, D. M., Neumark-Sztainer, D., & Hannan, P. (2003). Dating violence among a nationally representative sample of adolescent girls and boys: Associations with behavioral and mental health. The Journal of Gender-Specific Medicine, 6(3), 39-48. Chase, K. A., Trebous, D., & O’Leary, K. D. (2002). Characteristics of high-risk adolescents’ dating violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 33-49. Darke, S., Kaye, S., McKetin, R., & Duflou, J. (2008). Major physical and psychological harms of methamphetamine use. Drug and Alcohol Review, 27, 253-262. Ennett, S. T., Bailey, S. L., & Federman, E. B. (1999). Social network characteristics associated with risky behaviors among runaway and homeless youth. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 40, 63-78.
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIV on November 13, 2015
Petering et al.
7
Farrell, A. D., Mehari, K. R., Kramer-Kuhn, A., & Goncy, E. A. (2014). The impact of victimization and witnessing violence on physical aggression among high-risk adolescents. Child Development, 84, 1694-1710. Farrow, J. A., Deisher, R. W., Brown, R., Kulig, J. W., & Kipke, M. D. (1992). Health and health needs of homeless and runaway youth: A position paper of the Society for Adolescent Medicine. Journal of Adolescent Health, 13, 717-726. Furman, W., & Wehner, E. A. (1997). Adolescent romantic relationships: A developmental perspective. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 1997(78), 21-36. McMorris, B. J., Tyler, K., Whitbeck, L. B., & Hoyt, D. R. (2002). Familial and “onthe-street” risk factors associated with alcohol use among homeless and runaway adolescents. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 63, 34-43. Nabors, E. L. (2010). Drug use and intimate partner violence among college students: An in-depth exploration. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 1043-1063. National Institute on Drug Abuse. (1998). Comparing methamphetamine and cocaine. Retrieved from http://archives.drugabuse.gov/NIDA_Notes/NNVol13N1/ Comparing.html Nyamathi, A., Hudson, A., Greengold, B., & Leake, B. (2012). Characteristics of homeless youth who use cocaine and methamphetamine. The American Journal on Addictions, 21, 243-249. O’Keefe, M. (1997). Predictors of dating violence among high school students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 546-568. Petering, R., Rice, E., Rhoades, H., & Winetrobe, H. (2014). The social networks of homeless youth experiencing intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29, 2172-2191. Rice, E., Monro, W., Barman-Adhikari, A., & Young, S. D. (2010). Internet use, social networking, and HIV/AIDS risk for homeless adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 47, 610-613. Slesnick, N., Erdem, G., Collins, J., Patton, R., & Buettner, C. (2010). Prevalence of intimate partner violence reported by homeless youth in Columbus, Ohio. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 1579-1593. Sommers, I., Baskin, D., & Baskin-Sommers, A. (2006). Methamphetamine use among young adults: Health and social consequences. Addictive Behaviors, 31, 1469-1476. Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2) development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283-316. Temple, J. R., & Freeman, D. H. (2011). Dating violence and substance use among ethnically diverse adolescents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 701-718. Thompson, S., Jun, J., Bender, K., Ferguson, K. M., & Pollio, D. E. (2010). Estrangement factors associated with addiction to alcohol and drugs among homeless youth in three US cities. Evaluation and Program Planning, 33, 418-427. Tontodonato, P., & Crew, B. K. (1992). Dating violence, social learning theory, and gender: A multivariate analysis. Violence and Victims, 7, 3-14.
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIV on November 13, 2015
8
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
Tyler, K. A. (2008). Social network characteristics and risky sexual and drug related behaviors among homeless young adults. Social Science Research, 37, 673-685. Tyler, K. A., & Beal, M. R. (2010). The high-risk environment of homeless young adults: Consequences for physical and sexual victimization. Violence and Victims, 25, 101-115. Tyler, K. A., & Johnson, K. A. (2006). Trading sex: Voluntary or coerced? The experiences of homeless youth. Journal of Sex Research, 43, 208-216. Weiner, M. D., Sussman, S., Sun, P., & Dent, C. (2005). Explaining the link between violence perpetration, victimization and drug use. Addictive Behaviors, 30, 1261-1266. Wenzel, S. L., Tucker, J. S., Golinelli, D., Green, H. D., & Zhou, A. (2010). Personal network correlates of alcohol, cigarette, and marijuana use among homeless youth. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 112, 140-149.
Author Biographies Robin Petering is currently a PhD candidate at the University of Southern California (USC) School of Social Work. She holds a master’s in social work from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). Her current research interests include adolescent intimate partner violence, youth homelessness, the intersection of intimate partner violence and community violence, policy advocacy and analysis, and geographic information system (GIS) mapping. She is currently working as a research assistant on a National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)-funded longitudinal research project examining the social networks and risk behaviors of homeless youth in Los Angeles. Harmony Rhoades holds a PhD in sociology and a MS in epidemiology from the UCLA. She is currently a research assistant professor at the USC School of Social Work, where she also completed a postdoctoral research appointment. She was previously a pre-doctoral trainee in the UCLA Service Systems for Persons Living With HIV/AIDS Research Training Program. Although her primary research centers on homelessness and HIV/AIDS risk behavior, her research interests also include the intersection of numerous social and biological factors that may influence health outcomes, including features of the environment, culture, gender, sexuality, and reproduction. She is currently the project director of a NIMH-funded longitudinal research project examining the social networks and risk behaviors of homeless youth in Los Angeles, and is a co-investigator on a pilot study of social network and risk behavior change among homeless persons transitioning into permanent supportive housing programs. Eric Rice, PhD, is an assistant professor at the USC School of Social Work. He is a community-based researcher who works primarily on problems faced by homeless youth. He is an expert in social network theory, social network analysis, and the application of social network methods to HIV prevention research. His current projects focus on the social networks of homeless youth and how they affect HIV risk-taking behaviors. He is the primary investigator of a NIMH-funded longitudinal research project examining the social networks and risk behaviors of homeless youth in Los
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIV on November 13, 2015
Petering et al.
9
Angeles. The project focuses on how homeless youth utilize the Internet, social networking websites, and cell phone technologies to access home-based peers and family, and how such relationships promote healthy behaviors. Amanda Yoshioka-Maxwell is a PhD student in the School of Social work at the USC, holding a master’s in social work from California State University, Northridge. Her research interests include homelessness among young adults, focusing on the intersection between the foster care system and homelessness among young adults, substance use, sex risk behaviors, and network analysis. She is currently working as a research assistant, focusing on risk behaviors among networks of homeless youth in Los Angeles.
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIV on November 13, 2015
JIVXXX10.1177/0886260515593298Journal of Interpersonal ViolencePetering et al.
Article
Bidirectional Intimate Partner Violence and Drug Use Among Homeless Youth
Journal of Interpersonal Violence 1–9 © The Author(s) 2015 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0886260515593298 jiv.sagepub.com
Robin Petering, MSW,1 Harmony Rhoades, PhD,1 Eric Rice, PhD,1 and Amanda Yoshioka-Maxwell, MSW1
Abstract Intimate partner violence (IPV) among homeless youth (HY) is common, yet it has continuously been understudied, especially in relation to substance use. As part of a longitudinal study of Los Angeles area HY, drop-in service seeking youth completed a self-administered questionnaire. The presented results are from the third panel of data collection (N = 238), and the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2) was used to assess IPV behavior regarding the participant’s most recent intimate relationship. Approximately 38% of participants reported IPV behavior in their most recent relationship, and the majority of this behavior was bidirectional. It was unlikely that a HY was only a victim or only a perpetrator. Multivariable models revealed that bidirectional IPV was related to increased odds of recent methamphetamine; whereas sole perpetration was associated with an increased likelihood of ecstasy use. Specific substance use and IPV are closely related to risk behaviors for HY. Comprehensive interventions should be developed to address both these risk behaviors.
1University
of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA
Corresponding Author: Robin Petering, School of Social Work, University of Southern California, 1150 S. Olive St., 14th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90015, USA. Email: [email protected]
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIV on November 13, 2015
2
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
Keywords homeless youth, hard drug use, intimate partner violence, bidirectional violence
Youth who are homeless experience numerous health risks as a result of risk behaviors, limited access to resources, and increased exposure to endangerment. Intimate partner violence (IPV) among homeless youth (HY) is a frequently experienced health risk (Slesnick, Erdem, Collins, Patton, & Buettner, 2010; Tyler & Beal, 2010). One fifth of HY report experiencing IPV in the previous year (Petering, Rice, Rhoades, & Winetrobe, 2014). Illegal substance use has consistently been found as a risk factor for youth and young adult IPV (Ackard, Neumark-Sztainer, & Hannan, 2003; Chase, Trebous, & O’Leary, 2002; Nabors, 2010; O’Keefe, 1997; Temple & Freeman, 2011; Tontodonato & Crew, 1992; Weiner, Sussman, Sun, & Dent, 2005). HY use illegal substances at higher levels than housed youth (Ennett, Bailey, & Federman, 1999; Nyamathi, Hudson, Greengold, & Leake, 2012; Rice, Monro, Barman-Adhikari, & Young, 2010; Tyler, 2008; Wenzel, Tucker, Golinelli, Green, & Zhou, 2010), often as a coping mechanism for stress associated with life on the streets or to mitigate the effects of childhood and current trauma (McMorris, Tyler, Whitbeck, & Hoyt, 2002; Thompson, Jun, Bender, Ferguson, & Pollio, 2010; Tyler, 2008; Tyler & Johnson, 2006). IPV is a particularly complicated phenomenon among youth because individuals in adolescence and young adulthood are newly developing relationship and conflict management skills (Furman & Wehner, 1997). IPV is manifested in different forms (e.g., physical, verbal, emotional) and youth can experience this as victims, perpetrators, or both. To the best of our knowledge, the present study provides the most detailed assessment of the bidirectionality of victimization and perpetration of IPV and how such violence is associated with specific types of drug use among HY.
Method As part of a longitudinal study of Los Angeles area HY, drop-in service seeking youth completed a self-administered questionnaire. The presented results are from the third panel of data collection. The sample was limited to youth who had engaged in a sexual relationship in the previous year (N = 238). The Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2; Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996) was adapted to assess physical IPV victimization, perpetration, and bidirectional behavior regarding each participant’s most recent intimate relationship (boyfriend or girlfriend, husband or wife, casual dating partner,
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIV on November 13, 2015
Petering et al.
3
or someone they are just “hooking up with”). The physical IPV victimization and perpetration scales of the CTS2 were dichotomized, and youth were coded based on their response to one of four categories: sole victimization, sole perpetration, bidirectional (reporting victimization and perpetration), or no experience of IPV. Participants were asked about specific drug use (including heroin, powder cocaine, methamphetamine, crack cocaine, and ecstasy) and could respond with one of eight answers reflecting an increasing number of times of use in the previous month, ranging from 0 to more than 40 times. Participants who reported using at least 1 time during the previous 30 days were coded as recent user of the particular drug. Multivariable logistic regressions were used to predict the likelihood of each type of drug use by type of IPV experience, controlling for gender, age, race, and literal homelessness. Literal homelessness was defined as currently staying in a shelter (emergency or temporary), a stranger’s home, hotel, motel, street, beach, tent or campsite, abandoned building, car, or bus. The Institutional Review Board at the University of Southern California approved all survey items and procedures and waived parental consent for minors without parents or guardians.
Results Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1. Approximately 38% of the sample experienced some form of IPV in the previous year. The majority of the violence experience was bidirectional (26%); 7% reported being solely a perpetrator and 5% reported being solely a victim. The most commonly used substance in the sample was methamphetamine, followed by powder cocaine, ecstasy, heroin, and crack cocaine. Approximately 38% of the sample was polysubstance users, meaning that they reported having used more than one of the specified drugs during the previous month. Results from multivariable logistic regressions are presented in Table 2. Black youth had lower odds of reporting all substance use behaviors except for ecstasy compared with White youth. Youth in the Other race category were less likely to report heroin use compared with White youth. Youth who were literally homeless were less likely to use heroin and crack cocaine but were more likely to report methamphetamine use. IPV behaviors were related to recent methamphetamine and ecstasy use behaviors. Youth who reported bidirectional IPV were 3 times more likely than youth who experienced no IPV to report recent use of methamphetamine. Youth who identified solely as IPV perpetrators (vs. youth with no IPV experience) were 4 times more likely to have recently used ecstasy. Reporting sole IPV victimization was not related to any type of drug use.
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIV on November 13, 2015
4
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics (N = 238). Total
n
Total 238 21.36 Agea Latino 37 White 74 Black 65 62 Otherb Literally homeless 119 Intimate partner violence None 149 Bidirectional 62 Victim 11 Perpetrator 16 Recent drug use 91 Polysubstance 54 Methamphetamine Powder cocaine 58 57 Ecstasy 44 Heroin Crack cocaine 43
Female
Male
%
n
%
n
%
Missing
100 2.12 15.55 31.09 27.31 26.05 50.42
86 20.78 14 20 23 29 42
36.13 2.03 16.28 23.26 26.74 33.72 50.00
152 21.53 23 54 42 33 76
63.87 2.11 15.13 35.53 27.63 21.71 50.76
62.61 26.05 4.62 6.72
54 25 1 6
62.79 29.07 1.16 6.98
95 37 10 10
62.50 24.34 6.58 6.58
— — — — — — — — — — — —
38.40 25.59 24.68 22.27 18.72 18.70
26 16 16 13 9 10
30.23 19.75 18.82 16.05 10.59 12.35
65 38 42 34 35 33
43.05 29.23 28.00 25.76 23.33 22.15
1 27 3 31 3 8
aValues
represent M and SD. race includes American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. bOther
Discussion IPV continues to be a significant problem among HY, with almost 38% of youth in our sample reporting some type of physical abuse in their recent relationship. Consistent with other research on youth and young adult IPV (Farrell, Mehari, Kramer-Kuhn, & Goncy, 2014), IPV in this sample was primarily bidirectional. This knowledge is imperative when developing IPVrelated programming and interventions, which should not only be developed for victims or perpetrators but should also incorporate curricula and techniques relevant for youth who are experiencing both. HY who identified as perpetrators and perpetrators/victims had greater odds of recent methamphetamine and ecstasy use. Methamphetamine is considered psychostimulants (National Institute on Drug Abuse [NIDA], 1998), in contrast to other drugs such as heroin, which is considered a depressant.
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIV on November 13, 2015
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIV on November 13, 2015
5
2.51* 1.09 0.028*** 0.37 0.40* 0.20*** 1.06 0.57 2.09 233 184.74 219.25 164.74
OR
1.034 0.915 0.004 0.12 0.159 0.086 0.423 0.064 0.539
6.093 1.299 0.224 1.153 0.985 0.481 2.657 5.056 8.138
95% CI 1.882 1.06 0.29* 1.939 2.07 2.88** 3.36** 0.872 0.497 209 217.714 251.138 197.714
OR 0.881 0.89 0.098 0.71 0.869 1.349 1.577 0.189 0.057
4.02 1.261 0.85 5.296 4.933 6.142 7.154 4.014 4.329
95% CI
Methamphetamine
1.952 1.074 0.27* 0.767 0.625 0.23*** 1.361 0.578 3.111 228 203.73 238.02 183.73
OR 0.84 0.909 0.09 0.256 0.247 0.099 0.579 0.068 0.862
4.534 1.268 0.822 2.296 1.581 0.522 3.198 4.942 11.231
95% CI
Crack Cocaine
1.458 1.058 0.28** 0.636 0.492 0.651 1.446 2.243 1.735 233 261.71 296.23 259.27
OR 0.729 0.913 0.112 0.254 0.222 0.342 0.7 0.574 0.532
2.915 1.226 0.678 1.595 1.094 1.241 2.985 8.772 5.658
95% CI
Powder Cocaine
Note. OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; AIC = Akaike information criterion; SC = Schwarz criterion; log L = log likelihood. aReference group is White race. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Male Age Blacka Latinoa Othera Literally homeless Bidirectional Victim Perpetrator n AIC SC −2 log L
Heroin
Table 2. Multivariable Logistic Regression for Recent Drug Use.
1.879 1.028 0.425 0.433 0.642 0.66 1.546 0.392 4.42* 211 222.554 256.072 202.554
OR
0.877 0.868 0.169 0.14 0.266 0.328 0.719 0.047 1.207
4.027 1.218 1.069 1.332 1.55 1.327 3.324 3.272 16.197
95% CI
Ecstasy
6
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
Psychostimulants are associated with increase in aggression (Darke, Kaye, McKetin, & Duflou, 2008) and acts of violence (Sommers, Baskin, & BaskinSommers, 2006) due to chronic use. Previous research studies have shown that acute intoxication can enhance or augment an aggressive response when an individual is provoked (Sommers et al., 2006). There are several limitations to this study that should be noted. First, this study is cross-sectional; therefore, no causality can be inferred. Second, there is a time frame discrepancy between the measures. The IPV item refers to participants experience within the previous year and the drug measure refers to experiences only within the past month. There is a possibility that some participants were not using drugs during the same time period as their most recent relationship. Finally, participants were asked to report IPV experiences in their most recent relationship. For youth who may be in the earliest stages of a relationship at the time of data collection, it is possible that the relationship may not have developed a pattern of IPV. Regardless, the findings suggest that not all types of drug use are related to IPV, suggesting that future research should explore specific substance use effects rather than grouping drugs into one category. Comprehensive interventions that simultaneously address both IPV and substance use are needed, particularly with regard to psychostimulants such as methamphetamine and ecstasy in high-risk populations such as HY. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References Ackard, D. M., Neumark-Sztainer, D., & Hannan, P. (2003). Dating violence among a nationally representative sample of adolescent girls and boys: Associations with behavioral and mental health. The Journal of Gender-Specific Medicine, 6(3), 39-48. Chase, K. A., Trebous, D., & O’Leary, K. D. (2002). Characteristics of high-risk adolescents’ dating violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 33-49. Darke, S., Kaye, S., McKetin, R., & Duflou, J. (2008). Major physical and psychological harms of methamphetamine use. Drug and Alcohol Review, 27, 253-262. Ennett, S. T., Bailey, S. L., & Federman, E. B. (1999). Social network characteristics associated with risky behaviors among runaway and homeless youth. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 40, 63-78.
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIV on November 13, 2015
Petering et al.
7
Farrell, A. D., Mehari, K. R., Kramer-Kuhn, A., & Goncy, E. A. (2014). The impact of victimization and witnessing violence on physical aggression among high-risk adolescents. Child Development, 84, 1694-1710. Farrow, J. A., Deisher, R. W., Brown, R., Kulig, J. W., & Kipke, M. D. (1992). Health and health needs of homeless and runaway youth: A position paper of the Society for Adolescent Medicine. Journal of Adolescent Health, 13, 717-726. Furman, W., & Wehner, E. A. (1997). Adolescent romantic relationships: A developmental perspective. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 1997(78), 21-36. McMorris, B. J., Tyler, K., Whitbeck, L. B., & Hoyt, D. R. (2002). Familial and “onthe-street” risk factors associated with alcohol use among homeless and runaway adolescents. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 63, 34-43. Nabors, E. L. (2010). Drug use and intimate partner violence among college students: An in-depth exploration. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 1043-1063. National Institute on Drug Abuse. (1998). Comparing methamphetamine and cocaine. Retrieved from http://archives.drugabuse.gov/NIDA_Notes/NNVol13N1/ Comparing.html Nyamathi, A., Hudson, A., Greengold, B., & Leake, B. (2012). Characteristics of homeless youth who use cocaine and methamphetamine. The American Journal on Addictions, 21, 243-249. O’Keefe, M. (1997). Predictors of dating violence among high school students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 546-568. Petering, R., Rice, E., Rhoades, H., & Winetrobe, H. (2014). The social networks of homeless youth experiencing intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29, 2172-2191. Rice, E., Monro, W., Barman-Adhikari, A., & Young, S. D. (2010). Internet use, social networking, and HIV/AIDS risk for homeless adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 47, 610-613. Slesnick, N., Erdem, G., Collins, J., Patton, R., & Buettner, C. (2010). Prevalence of intimate partner violence reported by homeless youth in Columbus, Ohio. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 1579-1593. Sommers, I., Baskin, D., & Baskin-Sommers, A. (2006). Methamphetamine use among young adults: Health and social consequences. Addictive Behaviors, 31, 1469-1476. Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2) development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283-316. Temple, J. R., & Freeman, D. H. (2011). Dating violence and substance use among ethnically diverse adolescents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 701-718. Thompson, S., Jun, J., Bender, K., Ferguson, K. M., & Pollio, D. E. (2010). Estrangement factors associated with addiction to alcohol and drugs among homeless youth in three US cities. Evaluation and Program Planning, 33, 418-427. Tontodonato, P., & Crew, B. K. (1992). Dating violence, social learning theory, and gender: A multivariate analysis. Violence and Victims, 7, 3-14.
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIV on November 13, 2015
8
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
Tyler, K. A. (2008). Social network characteristics and risky sexual and drug related behaviors among homeless young adults. Social Science Research, 37, 673-685. Tyler, K. A., & Beal, M. R. (2010). The high-risk environment of homeless young adults: Consequences for physical and sexual victimization. Violence and Victims, 25, 101-115. Tyler, K. A., & Johnson, K. A. (2006). Trading sex: Voluntary or coerced? The experiences of homeless youth. Journal of Sex Research, 43, 208-216. Weiner, M. D., Sussman, S., Sun, P., & Dent, C. (2005). Explaining the link between violence perpetration, victimization and drug use. Addictive Behaviors, 30, 1261-1266. Wenzel, S. L., Tucker, J. S., Golinelli, D., Green, H. D., & Zhou, A. (2010). Personal network correlates of alcohol, cigarette, and marijuana use among homeless youth. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 112, 140-149.
Author Biographies Robin Petering is currently a PhD candidate at the University of Southern California (USC) School of Social Work. She holds a master’s in social work from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). Her current research interests include adolescent intimate partner violence, youth homelessness, the intersection of intimate partner violence and community violence, policy advocacy and analysis, and geographic information system (GIS) mapping. She is currently working as a research assistant on a National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)-funded longitudinal research project examining the social networks and risk behaviors of homeless youth in Los Angeles. Harmony Rhoades holds a PhD in sociology and a MS in epidemiology from the UCLA. She is currently a research assistant professor at the USC School of Social Work, where she also completed a postdoctoral research appointment. She was previously a pre-doctoral trainee in the UCLA Service Systems for Persons Living With HIV/AIDS Research Training Program. Although her primary research centers on homelessness and HIV/AIDS risk behavior, her research interests also include the intersection of numerous social and biological factors that may influence health outcomes, including features of the environment, culture, gender, sexuality, and reproduction. She is currently the project director of a NIMH-funded longitudinal research project examining the social networks and risk behaviors of homeless youth in Los Angeles, and is a co-investigator on a pilot study of social network and risk behavior change among homeless persons transitioning into permanent supportive housing programs. Eric Rice, PhD, is an assistant professor at the USC School of Social Work. He is a community-based researcher who works primarily on problems faced by homeless youth. He is an expert in social network theory, social network analysis, and the application of social network methods to HIV prevention research. His current projects focus on the social networks of homeless youth and how they affect HIV risk-taking behaviors. He is the primary investigator of a NIMH-funded longitudinal research project examining the social networks and risk behaviors of homeless youth in Los
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIV on November 13, 2015
Petering et al.
9
Angeles. The project focuses on how homeless youth utilize the Internet, social networking websites, and cell phone technologies to access home-based peers and family, and how such relationships promote healthy behaviors. Amanda Yoshioka-Maxwell is a PhD student in the School of Social work at the USC, holding a master’s in social work from California State University, Northridge. Her research interests include homelessness among young adults, focusing on the intersection between the foster care system and homelessness among young adults, substance use, sex risk behaviors, and network analysis. She is currently working as a research assistant, focusing on risk behaviors among networks of homeless youth in Los Angeles.
Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIV on November 13, 2015
