The Social Networks of Suicidal People
Published in The Roundtable, vol. 3, no. 5 (June 2000), p. 6

The Issue
How are suicidal individuals connected to the communities in which they live? It turns out that very little research about this subject exists. I offer here an analysis of social resources used and evaluated by 36 suicidal people from among 1,952 Connecticut consumers who were seen at 17 family service agencies in May 1999, together with comparison data from 7,542 surveys completed during the 1997 National Survey of American Families. Both surveys assessed the demographics, problems, services provided, and social assets of individuals who had contact with family service agencies.

The instrument used is a survey of social relationships. The Assets Inventory is a three-page, self-administered inventory of social resources, grouped into family, friends and other people, groups and associations, agencies, businesses, and other (two write-in lines). The person responded by recalling first whether they actually used the listed relationship during the past two years, and then, if they used it, how helpful the relationship was during those occasions when they used it. The category of helpfulness was measured on a three-point scale — not at all helpful, somewhat helpful, and very helpful. Use and helpfulness can be analyzed separately.

Findings
The ways suicidal and nonsuicidal people use resources are very distinct. Suicidal consumers attempt to rely more heavily on professional helpers — counselors, other mental health providers, doctors, hospitals, and, to a lesser degree, police. In terms of helpfulness, suicidal people evaluate counselors very highly. The other professional resources perform generally as they do for others in terms of helpfulness, with the exception of police who are sharply down-rated.

Suicidal individuals also rely less on family resources. Six of eight family relationships are seriously underutilized, to judge by state of Connecticut patterns (parents, spouse/partner, own children, own relatives/kin, spouse’s/partner’s parents, and spouse’s/partner’s relatives). These six relationships, plus godparents, are also rated very poorly by the suicidal group in terms of helpfulness. Own relatives/kin received the most votes as "very helpful", but still generally fell considerably below the ratings by other state residents or Americans.

The networks of suicidal people are generally thinner than those of other Americans. Less frequently, they resort to neighborhood agencies and institutions such as schools, community centers, and preschool or day care programs. Balancing this, the suicidal group appears more strongly connected to informal groups and associations, such as church, church groups, support groups, sports clubs, and informal social clubs.

That’s the good news. The bad news is that the landscape of "very helpful" resources is extraordinarily barren. The vast majority of social resources perform far worse for suicidal people than for those not so identified. Twenty-four of the 30 most used social relationships are viewed as significantly less helpful than they were for other state residents. Only three of the total 48 resources are found to be "very helpful" by half or more of the suicidal group.

Missing from the list of most helpful relationships, but found in the top of the statewide list, are schools, mutual support groups, day care, preschool, and charitable organizations. Only seven resources are rated as "very helpful" by one-third or more of the group. The comparable figure for the state of Connecticut as a whole is 33 resources. Generally speaking, suicidal individuals perceive their social networks as stunningly unhelpful.