Sober housing and motivational interviewing: the Treatment Access Project

Recovery Residences and Providing Safe and Supportive Housing for Individuals Overcoming Addiction

Recovery residences provide safe and supportive housing to help individuals initiate and sustain recovery from substance abuse. They are a potentially important yet understudied component of the substance abuse continuum of care. Unlike other substance abuse treatment and service delivery options, recovery residences are largely privately owned and funded by the residents themselves, and we know little about how these residences open and the factors that influence their ability to stay open. Using qualitative data from interviews with recovery home operators ( N = 21) in Philadelphia, this article explores what recovery home operators want to accomplish with their homes, how they try to do this, the obstacles they encounter in trying to run their homes, and why they keep at it. Themes highlight the potential of recovery residences as well as the challenges faced by those who operate them.

Risk factors associated with recurrent homelessness after a first homeless episode

Alcohol and drug use are commonly associated with the experience of homelessness. In order to better understand this, we explored the prevalence of drug and alcohol use as it related to successful re-housing within a sample of first-time single homeless adults at municipal shelters. From within this sample, we compared the features of recurrent homelessness with those of chronic homelessness and of being stably housed. We interviewed 344 subjects upon shelter entry and followed each one every six months for 18 months using standardized social and mental health measures. We analyzed baseline assessments relative to housing experiences during follow-up using Chi square and multinomial logistic regression. Eighty-one percent (N = 278) obtained housing over 18 months, of which 23.7 % (N = 66) experienced homelessness again. Recurrent homelessness was more common among those with a high school education and if initially re-housed with family. Bivariate analysis resulted in the observation of the highest rate of alcohol and other drug use among this recurrent group and multinomial logistic regression supported this only with the coupling of arrest history and diagnosed antisocial personality disorder. With relatively high rates of recurrent homelessness, there were differences between subjects who experienced recurrent homelessness compared to those who were stably housed and with chronic homelessness. That alcohol and other substance use disorders were associated with recurrent homelessness only if they were linked to other risk factors highlights the complexity of causes for homelessness and a resultant need to organize them into constellations of causal risk factors. Consistent with this, there should be initiatives that span bureaucratic boundaries so as to flexibly meet multiple complex service needs, thus improving outcomes concerning episodes of recurrent homelessness.

Recovery post treatment: plans, barriers and motivators

Background

The increasing focus on achieving a sustained recovery from substance use brings with it a need to better understand the factors (recovery capital) that contribute to recovery following treatment. This work examined the factors those in recovery perceive to be barriers to (lack of capital) or facilitators of (presence of capital) sustained recovery post treatment.

Methods

A purposive sample of 45 participants was recruited from 11 drug treatment services in northern England. Semi-structured qualitative interviews lasting between 30 and 90 minutes were conducted one to three months after participants completed treatment. Interviews examined key themes identified through previous literature but focused on allowing participants to explore their unique recovery journey. Interviews were transcribed and analysed thematically using a combination of deductive and inductive approaches.

Results

Participants generally reported high levels of confidence in maintaining their recovery with most planning to remain abstinent. There were indications of high levels of recovery capital. Aftercare engagement was high, often through self referral, with non substance use related activity felt to be particularly positive. Supported housing was critical and concerns were raised about the ability to afford to live independently with financial stability and welfare availability a key concern in general. Employment, often in the substance use treatment field, was a desire. However, it was a long term goal, with substantial risks associated with pursuing this too early. Positive social support was almost exclusively from within the recovery community although the re-building of relationships with family (children in particular) was a key motivator post treatment.

Conclusions

Addressing internal factors and underlying issues i.e. ‘human capital’, provided confidence for continued recovery whilst motivators focused on external factors such as family and maintaining aspects of a ‘normal’ life i.e. ‘social and physical capital’. Competing recovery goals and activities can leave people feeling under pressure and at risk of taking on or being pushed to do too much too soon. The breadth of re-integration and future plans at this stage is limited primarily to the recovery community and treatment sector. Services and commissioners should ensure that this does not become a limiting factor in individuals’ long term recovery journeys.