Is Gateway Theory Applicable to the Drug Trends of Homeless Youth?

Juliana Borges

Sociology 376 AA
Dr. Jonathan Wender / TA Sarah Reinecke
November 20, 2012
Gateway theory is an intriguing and often controversial idea in and of itself, but it
becomes even more interesting when applied to scenarios concerning homeless youth. In a study

published in 2003 by a group of researchers mostly from the University of Washington, gateway
theory in homeless youth was studied in depth. The study, led by Joshua A. Ginzler, Ph.D.,
investigated the drug use (and misuse) habits of 375 homeless adolescents in the greater Seattle
area. Interviewers, most of whom were familiar with and had worked with these youth prior to
the study, conducted surveys with each adolescent concerning past and present drug use and
misuse, progression of drug use, and familial history of drug use.
Before delving into the validity of this study, it is first necessary to define some terms
used throughout the publication. In this context, the researchers defined homeless as meaning
any person who had left home and not returned for one week or more. The study also uses the
terms street youth and homeless youth/adolescent interchangeably as will this review
and both phrases refer to a person between the ages of 13 and 21 who has not lived at home for
more than one week. Furthermore, the study utilizes the terms progressor and nonprogressor
the former refers to homeless youth who started with using alcohol and then progressed to
marijuana and then to harder, illegal drugs, while the latter refers to any homeless youth who
followed a different pattern of drug usage (Ginzler et al. 2003: 725).
The articles main argument is that gateway theory cannot reliably predict trends of drug
use among street youth. For this population, who Ginzler et al. refers to as an extreme group,
normative theories do not always apply (726). This is because of the chaos inherent in a
homeless adolescents life, which generally predisposes him or her to harder drug use from an
earlier age than a normative adolescent. Specific sources of chaos as described in the article are
predominantly the behavior of the parents or guardians close to half of the parental figures in
the street youths lives abused alcohol and many street youth said that they ran away because of
these problems (Ginzler et al. 728-9). Furthermore, the tumult continues after leaving home,

since street youth inevitably face higher stressors than youth who have guaranteed food, shelter,
and support on a daily basis. As a result, street youth typically turn to drugs in order to cope. In
fact, the article states that since homeless youth are extremely vulnerable, they often initially take
methamphetamines in order to avoid the inevitable victimization they will face while sleeping in
the street (Ginzler et al. 751). This finding is significant and ties in with our class discussion on
the role of set and setting in drug use. The set, as always, is ones personal expectations of a
drugs effect; for a homeless youth, this expectation might be escalated or distorted since he or
she has likely experienced much exposure to drugs as a child. The setting is what plays a crucial
role here because the person does not have a stable home, he or she is in an environment that
lends itself to drug use. Plus, homeless youth often have greater knowledge of and access to drug
dealers than their in-school counterparts.
I believe the conclusions of this study are mostly well grounded, because by the studys
end, only one-third of homeless adolescents were classified as progressors who displayed typical
gateway behavior (Ginzler et al. 752). In the context of the 375 people studied, the researchers
stated that this result was not significant and 33 percent is not close to the majority of
participants. Beyond the results of the survey from the main study, this article also quotes the
results of several studies done before it. These additional studies cover a myriad of ages,
ethnicities, and focus groups, but they all affirm that homeless youth face a variety of risk factors
that other adolescents do not regularly face. Included in these risk factors are sexual abuse,
suicide attempts, self-harm, mental illnesses, and substance abuse and addiction (Ginzler et al.
732-38).
I found this article to be mostly sound, but there are some methodological flaws in the
procedure of the study as well as some oversimplified conclusions. For one, the articles

definition of homeless is questionable seven days away from home seems rather arbitrary
and, in the grand scheme of things, a week is an inconsequential amount of time. I would be
more tempted to call this population runaways, as they do not likely have an established living
situation outside of their home after only seven days of being away. Its not fair to lump runaway
youth with the homeless population, especially when studying something as serious as drug use,
which may take weeks or even months to manifest. Additionally, the study did not detail the
confidentiality policies in its procedures, which is important in a survey-based study like this
one. Some youth might lie about illicit drug use out of fear of prosecution. Furthermore, the
study was limited to the Pacific Northwest, which might have different drug trends than other
areas and should not be used to extrapolate data to the national homeless youth population. The
most oversimplified conclusion was the fact that the study essentially glossed over the 33 percent
of youth who did follow the gateway pattern. Even though this number is not a majority, I dont
think 125 adolescents should be ignored, either, and this number could prove helpful in deciding
at which stage of drug use society should intervene to try to help.
However, most objections to this study are rendered negligible at best, since none of the
minor procedural flaws mentioned greatly impact the conclusions of the study. In the end, the
article exposes the issue of when we as society should intervene to prevent drug use we must
consider both the appropriate age of intervention and the appropriate stage of drug use at which
we intervene. In this aspect, the article transcended its flaws by suggesting future research on the
matter. Additionally, after conducting some outside research, I found a study conducted in
Melbourne, Australia, which came up with similar findings to the study on which I am primarily
focusing. This study negates the fact that the Ginzler study only considered the Pacific Northwest
population. The Australian study found that only 15 percent of homeless youth had a substance

use problem before becoming homeless therefore, it is not rational to conclude that substance
abuse causes homelessness (Johnson & Chamberlain, 2008: 347). This conclusion, coupled with
the Ginzler finding that gateway theory is not a relevant explanation, has serious implications for
public policy regarding intervention as we move forward.
This article is highly relevant to material we have covered in Sociology 376 thus far. In
our lecture on gateway theory, we discussed at length the idea of the funnel model, which
suggests that gateway theory isnt very accurate since such a small percentage of people who
experiment with soft drugs end up at the bottom of the funnel abusing hard drugs. As has been
discussed in this class as well as several other courses I have taken in philosophy and English,
temporal precedence does not prove causality. Or, said another way, correlation does not prove
causation. Just because two events co-occur, as do use of cocaine and marijuana at times, does
not mean that one causes the other.
More specifically, one article we read in class questioned societys tendency to overblame alcohol and other softer substances for subsequent use of crack, heroin, and
methamphetamines. This article warns us against jumping to such conclusions and suggests that
we instead take a different approach by teaching children that there are safe ways to drink
alcohol and use other substances, rather than an all-or-nothing approach that is likely
counterproductive (Peele & Brodsky 1997: 101). This article, called Gateway to Nowhere, has
several valid points, including the fact that in cultures where alcohol is introduced gradually
from a young age, alcohol abuse is much less of a problem than it is in the United States (Peele
& Brodsky, 100). This argument could be discussed at length in and of itself, but it is relevant to
this review primarily because this fact is one more missing link in investigating the initial causes
of drug use in street youth.

On a deeper level, this study corresponds well with Craig Reinarmans posited drug scare
theory. Throughout most of his analysis, Reinarman examines the idea of a socially constructed
moral panic that has little correlation with actual spikes in drug usage (Reinarman 1999, 80-87).
Similarly, our society has constructed a view of alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana such that they
have become scapegoats for many of societys ills. For example, many people blame marijuana
for subsequent harder drug usage, which they say then leads to homelessness. In reality, much of
the time its the other way around society is already ill and youth become homeless, and only
then begin to use drugs. That is not the main focus of the article at hand, but is worth considering
for future studies based on this one. In Reinarmans own words, blaming alcohol and marijuana
use for pre-existing problems such as homelessness may be the most crucial element [in the
drug scare recipe] because it gives great explanatory power and thus broader resonance to claims
about the horrors of drugs (Reinarman, 85).
A great number of variations have been developed on gateway theory, and I think two in
particular could be applicable in this setting. For one, the toe in the water theory as identified
in a review we read in class states that marijuana use is tied more closely to social causes than
physiological ones (MacCoun & Reuter 2001, 350). Second, the foot in the door theory states
that the actual means of getting marijuana leads youth to experiment with harder drugs. In other
words, if a homeless teen is exposed to marijuana, he or she is more likely to move on to harder
drugs simply because of availability and accessibility (MacCoun & Reuter, 351). Both of these
theories have some valid points, but are not enough to negate the findings of the primary study.
The deeper issue at stake in this study is more than the sequence of drug use, however
in my opinion, the core issues here are the causes of drug use in homeless adolescents in the first
place. From a public health perspective, the subsequent use of drugs matters less than the root

cause of youth homelessness and their reasons for trying so-called safer or softer drugs such
as alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana. The study delves into this issue in its concluding discussion
section, which makes for a valuable closure. The researchers accomplished their goal of
investigating and proving their hypothesis, but they also admit that further research needs to be
done. While the article doesnt explicitly state it, its clear that the authors believe that the core
issue at stake here is the initial causes of substance abuse in street youth. This is supported
further by an article quoted in Ginzler et al.s works cited list: The 1996 Illinois study found that
when compared with typical high school youth, so-called serious drug users had often used
illicit drugs other than marijuana first, and that they often skipped using alcohol altogether
(Mackesy-Amiti et al., 1997: 185-6).
Statistically, street youth use and abuse drugs at a higher rate than normative youth and
move to harder drugs at a faster rate (Ginzler et al. 746). This study begs the question in that the
purpose of investigating gateway theory is questionable the sequence of drug use should
matter less than the fact that drug use is a problem for the young homeless population in the first
place. These researchers are invested in finding a solution and their goals definitely extend
beyond this study they believe it is societys duty to intervene and try to assist at-risk youth
before they become problematically addicted to a drug.
Discussing gateway theory in homeless youth brings with it a host of other political,
social, and moral implications. Personally, I have an interest in and a passion for bringing light to
stigmatized populations, and homeless youth absolutely fall into that category. For this group of
researchers, I would definitely suggest a follow-up study on the initial causes of drug use in
street youth so that society can have a better grip on how to intervene in this situation. They
scratched the surface with the example of using methamphetamines to stay alert, but I would

love to see a study explore this topic in greater depth. From data like these, we could then
develop public health intervention initiatives and actually go about making a change for this
vulnerable population. Prior to taking this class, I wouldnt have been as well equipped to discuss
this article through a critical lens. If being enrolled in Drugs and Society with Dr. Wender has
taught me one thing, it is that culture is the number one underlying factor in all social
predicaments but also in all social solutions. Moving forward, I hope that my generation will
take this message to heart and strive toward reversing the trend of drug abuse in the homeless
population rather than focusing on simply pointing out the problem and blaming chemical
substances for the problem. My scholarly interests lie in public health and sociology, and coming
from these backgrounds, I firmly believe that there is hope for this situation.

Works Cited
Ginzler, J.A., Cochran, B.N., Domenech Rodrguez, M., Cauce, A.M., & Whitbeck, L.B. 2003. Sequential
progression of substance use among homeless youth: An empirical investigation of the gateway theory.
Substance Use and Misuse, 38, 725-758.

Johnson, Guy and Chris Chamberlain. 2008. "Homelessness and Substance Abuse: Which Comes First?"
Australian Social Work 61.4: 342-56.
MacCoun, Robert J. and Peter Reuter. 2001. Drug War Heresies: Learning from Other Vices, Times, and Places.
Pp 345-51. Cambridge University Press. Quoted in LSJ/SOC 376 Drugs and Society Course Pack, edited
by Jonathan Wender (2012).
Mackesy-Amiti, M. E., Fendrich, M., Goldstein, P. J. 1997. Sequence of drug use among serious drug users:
typical vs. atypical progression. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 45:185196.
Peele, Stanton and Archie Brodsky. 1997. "Gateway to Nowhere: How Alcohol Came to Be Scapegoated for Drug
Abuse." Pp. 100-106 in The American Drug Scene: An Anthology, edited by James Inciardi and Karen
McElrath. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Reinarman, Craig. 1999. The Social Impact of Drugs and the War on Drugs. Pp 80-89 in The American Drug
Scene: An Anthology, edited by James Inciardi and Karen McElrath. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.