14.12.2012 Views

The Context of HIV Risk Among Drug Users and Their Sexual Partners

The Context of HIV Risk Among Drug Users and Their Sexual Partners

The Context of HIV Risk Among Drug Users and Their Sexual Partners

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

the night <strong>and</strong> food for the morning. With such immediate <strong>and</strong> basic<br />

concerns, youths are not thinking about dying from AIDS 10 years in the<br />

future. Unless the youth’s life is considered holistically, the salience <strong>of</strong><br />

primary <strong>and</strong> secondary <strong>HIV</strong> prevention will be transient at best. A needshierarchy<br />

approach must be adopted to the design <strong>of</strong> intervention<br />

strategies (Maslow 1970). <strong>The</strong>refore, the authors make following<br />

recommendations.<br />

1. Unless immediate needs for survival (food, shelter), security (food<br />

<strong>and</strong> shelter tomorrow), safety (some protection from violence), <strong>and</strong><br />

social support are met, youths will be unlikely to practice<br />

<strong>HIV</strong>-preventive behaviors consistently. Youths whose survival needs<br />

are not met <strong>of</strong>ten need to trade sex for money <strong>and</strong> drugs (Abel-<br />

Peterson 1992). In such bartering, the person who needs money is in<br />

a less powerful negotiating position (Cohen 1992). Reid <strong>and</strong><br />

colleagues (1993) found that gay youths who bartered sex were far<br />

less likely to decrease their <strong>HIV</strong>-risk behaviors. Youths living with<br />

<strong>HIV</strong> or AIDS who have received housing supplements feel more<br />

secure <strong>and</strong> may choose to remain at home instead <strong>of</strong> going out to<br />

barter sex. <strong>The</strong>y know they will have shelter the next day. <strong>The</strong> need<br />

to raise quick money for housing is eliminated.<br />

2. Alternatives must be developed <strong>and</strong> encouraged whereby youths can<br />

meet their needs for intimacy <strong>and</strong> community in ways other than<br />

unprotected sexual activity <strong>and</strong> shared drug use. Providing youths<br />

with a positive social support network can reduce the need for<br />

seeking sexual intimacy in risky ways. <strong>The</strong> challenge in developing<br />

interventions <strong>and</strong> programs for these youths is whether programs<br />

should address short- or long-term needs, or both.<br />

3. <strong>The</strong>re are not enough long-term placements to serve the numbers <strong>of</strong><br />

disenfranchised, alienated youths (Rotheram-Borus et al. in press).<br />

Federal, State, <strong>and</strong> municipal agencies typically have devoted their<br />

resources to emergency or temporary shelters instead <strong>of</strong> more stable,<br />

long-term facilities. A major goal for social service agencies should<br />

be to develop a system to relocate youths gradually from drugsaturated<br />

environments to less seductive <strong>and</strong> less toxic long-term<br />

settings. <strong>The</strong>y also must provide vocational <strong>and</strong> employment<br />

opportunities whereby youths can satisfy their basic survival needs in<br />

more conventional ways. <strong>The</strong> program at Larkin Street Youth Center<br />

in San Francisco is an example <strong>of</strong> a successful approach (Kennedy<br />

1989). <strong>The</strong> Center <strong>of</strong>fers street outreach services, daily drop-in<br />

176

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!