Who attends recovery high schools after substance use treatment? A descriptive analysis of school aged youth

Visualizing the Influence of Social Networks on Recovery: A Mixed-Methods Social Identity Mapping Study with Recovering Adolescents

Background: Social recovery capital (SRC) refers to resources and supports gained through relationships and is vital to adolescent addiction recovery. Much is known about how substance use relates to social networks, but little is known about how other dimensions of social networks influence recovery (e.g., network size/exposure, degree of conflict). Methods: This mixed-methods study sampled 28 adolescents who received treatment for alcohol and other drug (AOD) use disorder (14-19 yrs.: 71% male; M = 17.32 yrs., SD = 1.33; White 82%): 20 were recovery high school (RHS) students. Adolescents completed a social identity map for addiction recovery (SIM-AR), survey, and interview. Qualitative data were content analyzed and the data from the SIM-AR were quantified. Results: On average, participants reported belonging to five distinct groups within their network (Range, 2-9; SD = 1.63; M = 27.89 people, SD = 20.09). Of their social network connections, 51% drank alcohol and 46% used other substances, on average. Larger networks involved more conflict (r = 0.57). Participants were more likely to spend more time with groups that had greater proportions of non-substance-using members. These linkages were stronger for RHS than for non-RHS students. Qualitative analyses revealed that youth reported their recovery-oriented groups as supportive, but some reported that their substance-using friends also supported their recovery. Discussion: SIM-AR was a useful measurement tool, and, through qualitative interviews, we identified unique aspects of youths' social networks important for further examination. Research with recovering youth should examine SRC-related elements within their networks including relationship quality, belonging, and conflict, alongside the substance use behaviors of network members.

"A lot better than it used to be": A qualitative study of adolescents' dynamic social recovery capital

Background

Substance use recovery is a dynamic process for youth, and social networks are tied to the recovery process. The Recovery Capital for Adolescents Model (RCAM) situates the resources accessible through social networks - social recovery capital (SRC) - in a larger framework of developmentally-informed recovery resources. This study aims to investigate the social network experiences among recovering youth enrolled in a recovery high school to understand how social influences help to build, or act as barriers to building, recovery capital.

Methods

To gain insight into these networks, Social Identity Maps and semi-structured interviews were conducted with ten youth ages 17-19 years (80% male; 50% non-Hispanic White). Study visits were conducted virtually, recorded, transcribed, and thematically analyzed using the RCAM as an organizing framework.

Results

Results supported that adolescent social networks play a unique and multifaceted role in the recovery journey. Three key nuances emerged: change permeates adolescent networks throughout the treatment and recovery process; shared substance use history and non-stigmatizing attitudes play a key role in connecting with others; and SRC is interconnected with human, financial, and community recovery capital.

Conclusions

With adolescent recovery receiving increased attention from policy makers, practitioners, and researchers, the RCAM may be a useful way to contextualize available resources. Findings suggest SRC as a crucial, yet complex component intertwined with all other forms of recovery capital.

Discrepant Parent-Adolescent Reports of Parenting Practices: Associations with Adolescent Internalizing and Externalizing Symptoms

Discrepancies in multi-informant reports of parenting practices represent a meaningful clinical construct that can be harnessed to predict adolescent mental health outcomes and shed light on the nature of parent-adolescent relationships. To date, however, no research has sought to examine discrepancies in perceptions of parenting practices among adolescents with histories of substance use disorders, a population for whom supportive parenting is a critical protective factor during the recovery process. This study examined parent-adolescent informant discrepancies of parenting practices and their associations with externalizing and internalizing symptomology among a sample of adolescents with substance use disorder histories. Data were analyzed from 294 adolescents (M adolescent age = 16 years; 45% female, 72% white) and their parents (87% female, 83% white) from a larger longitudinal study. Parenting practices of interest were positive parenting, inconsistent discipline, and poor monitoring. Polynomial regression analyses were used to test the discrepancy hypotheses. The results generally suggested null associations between single informant reports and internalizing and externalizing symptoms. Discrepancies were noted, however, in multi-informant reports of positive parenting, such that higher levels of adolescent-reported positive parenting were associated with higher levels of internalizing symptoms at high (but not low) levels of parent-reported positive parenting. Similarly, discrepancies were noted in multi-informant reports of poor monitoring, such that lower levels of adolescent-poor monitoring were associated with higher externalizing symptoms at low levels of parent-reported poor monitoring. The findings are discussed in terms of research and clinical implications of collecting and utilizing multi-informant data among clinical samples of adolescents with unique risk profiles.

Social-Ecological Predictors of Opioid Use Among Adolescents With Histories of Substance Use Disorders

Adolescent opioid misuse is a public health crisis, particularly among clinical populations of youth with substance misuse histories. Given the negative and often lethal consequences associated with opioid misuse among adolescents, it is essential to identify the risk and protective factors underlying early opioid misuse to inform targeted prevention efforts. Understanding the role of parental risk and protective factors is particularly paramount during the developmental stage of adolescence. Using a social-ecological framework, this study explored the associations between individual, peer, family, community, and school-level risk and protective factors and opioid use among adolescents with histories of substance use disorders (SUDs). Further, we explored the potential moderating role of poor parental monitoring in the associations between the aforementioned risk and protective factors and adolescent opioid use. Participants included 294 adolescents (M _age = 16 years; 45% female) who were recently discharged from substance use treatment, and their parents (n = 323). Results indicated that lifetime opioid use was significantly more likely among adolescents endorsing antisocial traits and those whose parents reported histories of substance abuse. Additionally, adolescents reporting more perceived availability of substances were significantly more likely to report lifetime opioid use compared to those reporting lower perceived availability of substances. Results did not indicate any significant moderation effects of parental monitoring on any associations between risk factors and lifetime opioid use. Findings generally did not support social-ecological indicators of opioid use in this high-risk population of adolescents, signaling that the social-ecological variables tested may not be salient risk factors among adolescents with SUD histories. We discuss these findings in terms of continuing care options for adolescents with SUD histories that target adolescents' antisocial traits, perceived availability of substances, and parent histories of substance abuse, including practical implications for working with families of adolescents with SUD histories.

The Emergence, Role, and Impact of Recovery Support Services

Various community recovery support services help sustain positive behavior change for individuals with alcohol and drug use disorders. This article reviews the rationale, origins, emergence, prevalence, and empirical research on a variety of recovery support services in U.S. communities that may influence the likelihood of sustained recovery. The community recovery support services reviewed include recovery high schools, collegiate recovery programs, recovery homes, recovery coaches, and recovery community centers. Many individuals are not provided with the types of environmental supports needed to solidify and support their recovery, so there is a need for more research on who may be best suited for these services as well as when, why, and how they confer benefit.

Recovery High School Attendance Effects on Student Delinquency and Substance Use: the Moderating Role of Social Problem Solving Styles

Recovery high schools (RHSs) provide educational programming and therapeutic support services for young people in recovery from substance use disorders (SUDs). The objectives of this study were to examine whether students with SUDs who attended RHSs report less delinquency and substance use than students with SUDs who attended non-RHSs, and how students' social problem solving styles might moderate those associations. Participants were students from a longitudinal quasi-experimental study of adolescents who enrolled in high schools after receiving treatment for SUDs. The propensity-score balanced sample included 260 adolescents (143 in RHSs, 117 in non-RHSs) enrolled in schools in Minnesota, Wisconsin, or Texas (M age = 16; 83% White; 44% female). Negative binomial regression models were used to compare delinquency and substance use outcomes for RHS and non-RHS students at 6-month and 12-month follow-ups. The results indicated that students attending RHSs after discharge from SUD treatment reported less frequent delinquent behavior while intoxicated, and fewer days of substance use relative to students attending non-RHSs. Negative problem solving styles moderated the effect of RHS attendance on substance use outcomes, with RHSs providing minimal beneficial effects for those students endorsing maladaptive problem solving styles. We conclude that RHSs offer a promising continuing care approach for adolescents in recovery from SUD problems, but may vary in their effectiveness for students with impulsive, careless, or avoidant problem solving styles.

Net Benefits of Recovery High Schools: Higher Cost but Increased Sobriety and Educational Attainment

BACKGROUND

Recovery high schools (RHS) provide a supportive educational and therapeutic environment for students subsequent to treatment for substance use disorders (SUDs). Most students served by RHSs have concurrent mental health disorders and are at risk for school failure or dropout and substance use relapse.

AIMS OF THE STUDY

The central question addressed is whether RHSs are economically efficient alternatives to other high school settings for students in recovery. The aim is to estimate the incremental cost-benefit of RHSs.

METHODS

A quasi-experimental non-equivalent pretest-posttest comparison group design was used. We compared substance use and educational outcomes for adolescents who had received specialty SUD treatment; 143 who enrolled in an RHS were compared to 117 who enrolled in a non-RHS school. Groups were balanced by use of a propensity score to drop students who were not similar to those in the other group. The propensity score was also used as a covariate in multiple regression to estimate cost and outcome parameters and standard errors. To take account of uncertainties in impacts and shadow prices, we used Monte Carlo simulations to estimate the distribution of incremental benefits of RHS relative to non-RHS schooling.

RESULTS

Two beneficial impacts of statistical and substantive importance were identified: increased probability of high school graduation and increased sobriety. RHS students had significantly (p<.05) less substance use during the study period -- at 12-month follow-up, 55% of RHS and 26% of comparison students reported 3 month abstinence from alcohol and drugs. Urinalysis confirmed abstinence from THC (cannabis) for 68% of RHS versus 37% of comparison students. RHS students' high school graduation rates were 21 to 25 percentage points higher than comparison students. Adopting a societal perspective, incremental benefits of RHSs were estimated by monetizing the increased probability of high school graduation and comparing it to incremental costs. Mean net benefits ranged from USD16.1 thousand to USD51.9 thousand per participant; benefit-to-cost ratios ranged from 3.0 to 7.2.

DISCUSSION

Monetizing the benefits and the incremental costs of RHS relative to conventional schooling show substantial positive net benefits from RHS participation. Two factors lend credibility to the results. First, the RHS improvement in substance use indicates a mechanism through which the increased probability of high school graduation can plausibly occur. Second, the estimated increases in the probability of high school graduation were large and statistically significant. As the productivity gains from high school graduation are also large, the dominant benefit category is very plausible. Limitations include the non-randomized design; selection bias into the study conditions not fully controlled by the propensity scores; generalizability only to young people with treated behavioral health disorders; lack of estimates for direct monetization of reduced substance use among adolescents; possible attenuation of the value of education among individuals with behavioral health issues; and uncertainty in calculation of school costs.

IMPLICATIONS FOR BEHAVIORAL HEALTH POLICIES

This research provides evidence that the recovery high school model provides cost beneficial support for high school students after primary SUD treatment. The students who enroll in RHSs typically have co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders, adding complexity to their continuing care. Funding policies recognizing the multiple systems of care (behavioral health, education, child and family services, juvenile justice) responsible for these young people are called for.

Recovery schools for improving behavioral and academic outcomes among students in recovery from substance use disorders: a systematic review

This Campbell systematic review examines the effects of recovery schools on student behavioral and academic outcomes, compared to the effects of non-recovery schools. The review summarizes evidence from one quasi-experimental study (with a total of 194 participants) that had potential serious risk of bias due to confounding. Sizable portions of youth are in recovery from substance use disorders, and many youth will return to use after receiving substance use treatment. Youth spend most of their waking hours at school, and thus schools are important social environments for youth in recovery from substance use disorders. Recovery schools have been identified as educational programs that may help support youth in recovery from substance use disorders. This review focused on two types of recovery schools: RHSs, which are schools that award secondary school diplomas and offer a range of therapeutic services in addition to standard educational curricula; and CRCs, which offer therapeutic and sober support services on college campuses. This review looked at whether recovery schools (RHSs or CRCs) affect academic success and substance use outcomes among students, compared to similar students who are not enrolled in recovery schools.

Plain language summary

There is insufficient evidence to know whether recovery high schools and collegiate recovery communities are effective: Evidence that recovery high schools (RHSs) may improve academic and substance use outcomes is based on the findings from a single study with a serious risk of bias.The review in brief: Very limited evidence addresses the effectiveness of recovery high schools (RHSs). There is no rigorous evidence on the effectiveness of collegiate recovery communities (CRCs).It is unclear whether CRCs are effective in promoting academic success and reducing substance use among college students.What is the aim of this review?: This Campbell systematic review examines the effects of recovery schools on student behavioral and academic outcomes, compared to the effects of non-recovery schools. The review summarizes evidence from one quasi-experimental study (with a total of 194 participants) that had potential serious risk of bias due to confounding.What are the main findings of this review?: Sizable portions of youth are in recovery from substance use disorders, and many youth will return to use after receiving substance use treatment. Youth spend most of their waking hours at school, and thus schools are important social environments for youth in recovery from substance use disorders. Recovery schools have been identified as educational programs that may help support youth in recovery from substance use disorders.This review focused on two types of recovery schools: RHSs, which are schools that award secondary school diplomas and offer a range of therapeutic services in addition to standard educational curricula; and CRCs, which offer therapeutic and sober support services on college campuses.This review looked at whether recovery schools (RHSs or CRCs) affect academic success and substance use outcomes among students, compared to similar students who are not enrolled in recovery schools.What studies are included?: The included study of recovery high schools used a controlled quasi-experimental pretest-posttest design and reported on the following outcomes: grade point average, truancy, school absenteeism, alcohol use, marijuana use, other drug use, and abstinence from alcohol/drugs. The included study focused on a sample of U.S. high school students. There were no eligible studies of CRCs.What do the findings of this review mean?: Findings from this review indicate insufficient evidence on the effects of recovery schools on student well-being. Although there is some indication RHSs may improve academic and substance use outcomes, this is based on the findings from a single study. There is no available evidence on the effects of CRCs.No strong conclusions can be drawn at this time, given the lack of available evidence on RHSs and CRCs, and the serious risk of bias in the one RHS study included in the review. The evidence from this review suggests there is a clear need for additional rigorous evaluations of recovery school effects prior to widespread implementation.How up-to-date is this review?: The review authors searched for studies until September 2018. This Campbell systematic review was published in 2018.

Executive Summary/Abstract

BACKGROUND: Substance use disorders (SUDs) among youth are a major public health problem. In the United States, for example, the incidence of SUDs increases steadily after age 12 and peaks among youth ages 18-23 (White, Evans, Ali, Achara-Abrahams, & King, 2009). Although not every youth who experiments with alcohol or illicit drugs is diagnosed with an SUD, approximately 7-9% of 12-24 year olds in the United States were admitted for public SUD treatment in 2013 (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [SAMHSA], 2016). Recovery from an SUD involves reduction or complete abstinence of use, defined broadly as "voluntarily sustained control over substance use, which maximises health and wellbeing and participation in the rights, roles and responsibilities of society" (UK Drug Policy Commission, 2008). However, SUDs are often experienced as chronic conditions; among youth who successfully complete substance use treatment, approximately 45-70% return to substance use within months of treatment discharge (Anderson, Ramo, Schulte, Cummins, & Brown, 2007; Brown, D'Amico, McCarthy, & Tapert, 2001; Ramo, Prince, Roesch, & Brown, 2012; White et al., 2004). Thus, multiple treatment episodes and ongoing recovery supports after treatment are often necessary to assist with the recovery process (Brown et al., 2001; Ramo et al., 2012; White et al., 2004).Success and engagement at school and in postsecondary education are critical to healthy youth development. For youth in recovery from SUDs, school attendance, engagement, and achievement build human capital by motivating personal growth, creating new opportunities and social networks, and increasing life satisfaction and meaning (Keane, 2011; Terrion, 2012; 2014). Upon discharge from formal substance use treatment settings, schools become one of the most important social environments in the lives of youth with SUDs. Healthy school peer environments can enable youth to replace substance use behaviors and norms with healthy activities and prosocial, sober peers. Conversely, many school environments may be risky for youth in recovery from SUDs due to perceived substance use among peers, availability of drugs or alcohol, and substance-approving norms on campus (Centers for Disease Control [CDC], 2011; Spear & Skala, 1995; Wambeam, Canen, Linkenbach, & Otto, 2014).Given the many social and environmental challenges faced by youth in recovery from substance use, recovery-specific institutional supports are increasingly being linked to educational settings. The two primary types of education-based continuing care supports for youth in recovery, defined under the umbrella term of "recovery schools" for this review, are recovery high schools (RHSs) and collegiate recovery communities (CRCs). RHSs are secondary schools that provide standard high school education and award secondary school diplomas, but also include therapeutic programming aimed at promoting recovery (e.g., group check-ins, community service, counseling sessions). CRCs also provide recovery oriented support services (e.g., self-help groups, counseling sessions, sober dorms) for students, but are embedded within larger college or university settings. The primary aims of RHSs and CRCs are to promote abstinence and prevent relapse among students, and thus ultimately improve students' academic success.OBJECTIVES: This review summarized and synthesized the available research evidence on the effects of recovery schools for improving academic success and behavioural outcomes among high school and college students who are in recovery from substance use. The specific research questions that guided the review are as follows: 1. What effect does recovery school attendance (versus attending a non-recovery or traditional school setting) have on academic outcomes for students in recovery from substance use? Specifically (by program type): a. For recovery high schools: what are the effects on measures of academic achievement, high school completion, and college enrolment?b. For collegiate recovery communities: what are the effects on measures of academic achievement and college completion?2. What effect does recovery school attendance have on substance use outcomes for students in recovery from substance use? Specifically, what are the effects on alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, or other substance use?3. Do the effects of recovery schools on students' outcomes vary according to the race/ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic status of the students?4. Do the effects of recovery schools on students' outcomes vary according to existing mental health comorbidity status or juvenile justice involvement of the students? SEARCH METHODS: We aimed to identify all published and unpublished literature on recovery schools by using a comprehensive and systematic literature search. We searched multiple electronic databases, research registers, grey literature sources, and reference lists from prior reviews; and contacted experts in the field.SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were included in the review if they met the following criteria:Types of studies: Randomized controlled trial (RCT), quasi-randomized controlled trial (QRCT), or controlled quasi-experimental design (QED).Types of participants: Students in recovery from substance use who were enrolled part-time or full-time in secondary (high school) or postsecondary (college or university) educational institutions.Types of interventions: Recovery schools broadly defined as educational institutions, or programs at educational institutions, developed specifically for students in recovery and that address recovery needs in addition to academic development.Types of comparisons: Traditional educational programs or services that did not explicitly have a substance use recovery focus.Types of outcome measures: The review focused on primary outcomes in the following two domains: academic performance (e.g., achievement test scores, grade-point average, high school completion, school attendance, college enrolment, college completion) and substance use (alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, heroin, stimulant, mixed drug use, or other illicit drug use). Studies that met all other eligibility criteria were considered eligible for the narrative review portion of this review even if they did not report outcomes in one of the primary outcome domains.Other criteria: Studies must have been reported between 1978 and 2016. The search was not restricted by geography, language, publication status, or any other study characteristic.DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently screened all titles and abstracts of records identified in the systematic search. Records that were clearly ineligible or irrelevant were excluded at the title/abstract phase; all other records were retrieved in full-text and screened for eligibility by two independent reviewers. Any discrepancies in eligibility assessments were discussed and resolved via consensus. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were coded by two independent reviewers using a structured data extraction form; any disagreements in coding were resolved via discussion and consensus. If members of the review team had conducted any of the primary studies eligible for the review, external and independent data collectors extracted data from those studies. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool for non-randomized study designs (Sterne, Higgins, & Reeves, 2016).Inverse variance weighted random effects meta-analyses were planned to synthesize effect sizes across studies, as well as heterogeneity analysis, subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis, and publication bias analysis. However, these synthesis methods were not used given that only one study met the inclusion criteria for the review. Instead, effect sizes (and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals) were reported for all eligible outcomes reported in the study.RESULTS: Only one study met criteria for inclusion in the review. This study used a QED to examine the effects of RHSs on high school students' academic and substance use outcomes. No eligible studies examining CRCs were identified in the search.The results from the one eligible RHS study indicated that after adjusting for pretest values, students in the RHS condition reported levels of grade point averages (= 0.26, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.56]), truancy (= 0.01, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.31]), and alcohol use (= 0.23, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.53]) similar to participants in the comparison condition. However, students in the RHS condition reported improvements in absenteeism (= 0.56, 95% CI [0.25, 0.87]), abstinence from alcohol/drugs (OR = 4.36, 95% CI [1.19, 15.98]), marijuana use (= 0.51, 95% CI [0.20, 0.82]), and other drug use (= 0.45, 95% CI [0.14, 0.76]).Overall, there was a serious risk of bias in the one included study. The study had a serious risk of bias due to confounding, low risk of bias due to selection of participants into the study, moderate risk of bias due to classification of interventions, inconclusive risk of bias due to deviations from intended interventions, inconclusive risk of bias due to missing data, moderate risk of bias in measurement of outcomes, and low risk of bias in selection of reported results.AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence regarding the effectiveness of RHSs and CRCs for improving academic and substance use outcomes among students in recovery from SUDs. Only one identified study examined the effectiveness of RHSs. Although the study reported some beneficial effects, the results must be interpreted with caution given the study's potential risk of bias due to confounding and limited external validity. No identified studies examined the effectiveness of CRCs across the outcomes of interest in this review, so it is unclear what effects these programs may have on students' academic and behavioral outcomes.The paucity of evidence on the effectiveness of recovery schools, as documented in this review, thus suggest the need for caution in the widespread adoption of recovery schools for students in recovery from SUDs. Given the lack of empirical support for these recovery schools, additional rigorous evaluation studies are needed to replicate the findings from the one study included in the review. Furthermore, additional research examining the costs of recovery schools may be needed, to help school administrators determine the potential cost-benefits associated with recovery schools.