Housing Status, Psychiatric Symptoms, and Substance Abuse Outcomes Among Sober Living House Residents over 18 Months

Predictors of treatment attrition among individuals in substance use disorder treatment: A machine learning approach

BACKGROUND

Early treatment discontinuation in substance use disorder treatment settings is common and often difficult to predict. We leveraged a machine learning approach (i.e., random forest) to identify individuals at risk for treatment attrition, and specific factors associated with treatment discontinuation.

METHOD

Participants (N = 29,809) were individuals ≥ 18 years who attended substance use disorder treatment facilities in the United States. Using random forest, we aimed to predict three outcomes (1) leaving against medical advice (AMA), (2) discharging involuntarily, and (3) discharging early for any reason. Predictors included participant demographics, substance use the month before and at intake, indices of mental and physical health, as well as treatment center and program type.

FINDINGS

We observed low to moderate area under the curve (range = 0.631-0.671), high negative predictive values (range = 0.853-0.965), and low positive predictive values (0.088-0.336) across the three treatment attrition outcomes. The most robust predictors of the three outcomes included treatment center, treatment type, and participant age. Additional predictors of the three outcomes included employment status; reason for treatment; primary drug at intake and frequency of use; prescription opioid, benzodiazepine, or heroin use at intake; living status at intake; and driving under the influence prior to treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Our models were able to accurately identify individuals who remained in treatment, but not those who left treatment prematurely. The most robust predictors of treatment discontinuation were treatment center and program type, suggesting that targeting treatment facility features may have a significant impact on reducing treatment attrition and improving long-term recovery.

Cannabis use and alcohol-related outcomes among sober living house residents with alcohol use disorders

Background

Evidence supporting cannabis substitution along with liberalized cannabis laws have left recovery homes such as sober living houses (SLHs) in a difficult position regarding policies relating to cannabis use among SLH residents. Moreover, there are few studies of cannabis use among SLH residents that can be used to inform cannabis use policies. Here we assess whether cannabis is related to alcohol use among SLH residents.

Methods

Data came from N = 205 SLH residents entering 28 SLHs in Los Angeles from 2021 to 2023. Interviews were at baseline and one-, two-, three-, and six-month follow-ups. All participants reported lifetime alcohol use disorder (AUD). The primary predictor was any past 30-day cannabis use. Past 30-day outcomes were any drinking, number of drinking days, and any alcohol problems. Longitudinal generalized estimating equation models tested associations between any past-30-day cannabis use and outcomes, adjusting for demographics, treatment, 12-step attendance, social network use, baseline drug use, and AUD severity.

Results

After adjustment for demographics and covariates, any past-30-day cannabis use was related to 7.02 times higher odds of any past 30-day drinking (OR=7.02, 95 % CI: 3.06, 16.12), 2.03 times more drinking days (IRR=2.03, 95 % CI: 1.01, 4.08), and 3.21 times higher odds of any past-30-day alcohol problems (OR=3.21, 95 % CI: 1.68, 6.14) vs. no past-30-day cannabis use.

Conclusions

Cannabis use is positively correlated with alcohol use and related problems in a sample of sober living house residents in Los Angeles.

Recovery support services as part of the continuum of care for alcohol or drug use disorders

BACKGROUND

The definition of 'recovery' has evolved beyond merely control of problem substance use to include other aspects of health and wellbeing (known as 'recovery capital') which are important to prevent relapse to problematic alcohol or other drug (AOD) use. Developing a Recovery Oriented System of Care (ROSC) requires consideration of interventions or services (Recovery Support Services, RSS) designed to build recovery capital which are often delivered alongside established treatment structures. Lived experience and its application to the process of engaging people, changing behaviour and relapse prevention is an essential part of these services.

AIM

To map out the evidence base for RSS as part of guidance for commissioners of addiction services in each of the 152 local authorities in England.

METHODS

The authors updated the findings of a 2017 systematic review of RSS through a further rapid scoping review, aiming to map out the extent, range and nature of research under six headings: (1) Peer-based recovery support services (P-BRSS); (2) Employment support approaches; (3) Recovery housing; (4) Continuing care and recovery check-ups; (5) Recovery community centres (RCC); and (6) Recovery support services in educational settings. A systematic search of the PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL and PsychINFO databases was conducted. The abstracts of all articles published since 2017 were reviewed by two of the authors, and the full text versions of all relevant articles were obtained and relevant data extracted. A narrative review of the findings was then prepared, mapping them on to the ROSC continuum of care. The review was restricted to adults (over 18 years), but all substances and available outcomes were included.

RESULTS

Four of the six forms of RSS were well supported by evidence. RCTs of interventions to increase levels of employment demonstrated large effect sizes, and continuing care interventions that extend treatment intervention into the early recovery phase have shown small but significant benefit. Peer-delivered interventions to link people to ongoing support were associated with decreased rates of relapse and re-admission, increased engagement, and increased social support for change. However, the variability in the design of these studies means that further work is required to clarify the effective components of the intervention. Studies of recovery housing have also shown positive results, including significant differences from standard care. No controlled studies exist to support RCCs or RSS in educational settings, but the complexity of these interventions and the wide range of potential outcome measures mean that other study designs may be more relevant.

CONCLUSIONS

This monograph provides a structure to help policy makers, commissioners and service providers describe and understand an emerging field of research. Recovery Support Services (RSS) are proving to have clinical, public health and cost utility. A rational social and fiscal response to endemic alcohol or other drug challenges should therefore include the more intensive acute care clinical services linked with more extensive community-based RSS.

Reasons for choosing sober living houses and their associations with substance use recovery outcomes

Background

Sober living houses (SLHs) offer abstinence-based housing for people in recovery. Studies have shown that these supportive environments are associated with positive outcomes, yet little is known about why residents choose SLHs and their relationship to recovery outcomes.

Methods

Longitudinal data were collected from SLH residents who completed an interview six months after baseline (N = 462). Participants rated the importance of eight reasons for choosing SLHs. Multilevel models assessed whether reasons for choosing were associated with outcomes abstinence on the Timeline Followback, psychiatric distress via the Psychiatric Diagnostic Screening Questionnaire (PDSQ), employment problems severity on Addiction Severity Index (ASI), and length of stay (LOS).

Results

The most frequently cited reasons residents chose SLHs were affordability (74.4 %) and wanting to live with others in recovery (63.2 %). Reasons for choosing were not associated with neither LOS nor abstinence, except for not wanting to live with others in recovery predicting abstinence from all drugs except marijuana. Choosing SLHs due to affordability was associated with less psychiatric distress; no other place to live was associated with increased psychiatric distress (Ps < 0.05). Severity of employment problems was associated with choosing SLHs based on location, transportation, and someone else paying fees (Ps < 0.01).

Conclusion

Residents seek entry into SLHs to live affordably with others in recovery. Those who had no other option had greater psychiatric distress, thus supporting findings of housing instability being related to mental health. Reasons for choosing related to employment problems severity may reflect how concerns about employment impact housing choices.

Cannabis use and alcohol and drug outcomes in a longitudinal sample of sober living house residents in California

INTRODUCTION

Some evidence suggests that cannabis may be a safer substitute for other drugs. Historically, sober living houses (SLHs) have been abstinence-based environments designed for individuals in recovery to live with others in recovery. However, the evolving legal landscape around cannabis use has left SLH operators and managers in a difficult position regarding policies related to cannabis use among residents. The primary aim of this study was to examine how cannabis use relates to alcohol use, other drug use, and related problems among SLH residents.

METHODS

Baseline (N = 557), 6-month (n = 462), and 12-month (n = 457) data came from SLH residents living in 48 houses in Los Angeles, CA from 2018 to 2021. Longitudinal generalized estimating equation models tested associations between any past six-month cannabis use and alcohol and non-cannabis drug outcomes: any use, number of days of use, and any alcohol- or drug-related problems. Final models adjusted for baseline age, sex, race-and-ethnicity, inpatient substance use treatment, and alcohol/drug use days, and time-varying 12-step attendance and percent of social network using drugs/alcohol heavily.

RESULTS

At baseline, 107 (19.2 %) residents reported cannabis use in the past six months. At 12 months, 80 (17.5 %) residents reported cannabis use in the past six months. Across all timepoints, any vs. no past six-month cannabis use was related to significantly (P < 0.05) higher odds of past-month alcohol use (OR = 3.85, 95 % CI: 2.65, 5.59); more drinking days in the past six months (IRR = 1.76, 95 % CI: 1.40, 2.21); higher odds of alcohol problems (OR = 2.74, 95 % CI: 1.99, 3.76); higher odds of past-month drug use (OR = 10.41, 95 % CI: 6.37, 17.00); more drug use days in the past six months (IRR = 1.86, 95 % CI: 1.40, 2.49); and higher odds of drug problems (OR = 14.99, 95 % CI: 9.91, 22.68).

CONCLUSIONS

During each assessment period, almost one-fifth of individuals residing in sample of California sober living houses report using cannabis in the past six months. Cannabis does not appear to work as a substitute for alcohol or other drugs in this population because cannabis use is related to increased risk of alcohol and other drug use and problems. SLH managers and operators should consider potential harm that could result from house policies that fail to address cannabis use.

Outcomes Among Sober Living House Residents Who Relapse: Role of Recovery Capital

Studies show individuals living in residential recovery homes on average make significant improvements in multiple areas of functioning. Residents who achieve and maintain complete abstinence have particularly good outcomes. Residents who relapse after entering the houses have been studied minimally. The current study examined outcomes for 197 residents who relapsed within six months after entering sober living houses (SLHs), which is one type of residential recovery home that is common in California. Despite having relapsed, these residents made significant improvements between entry into the house and 6-month follow-up on measures of percent days abstinent from alcohol and drugs (PDA), psychiatric symptoms, severity of employment problems, and stable housing. Higher recovery capital predicted higher PDA (coefficient = 0.28, SE = 0.09, p = .001) and lower severity of employment problems (coefficient = -0.00, SE = 0.00, p = .007). Recovery capital showed a significant decrease between baseline and 6-month follow-up among persons who relapsed and were no longer living in the house. SLH providers can draw upon social model recovery principles to enhance recovery capital. However, residents should also seek other sources of recovery capital outside the SLH, which may be particularly important for individuals who leave the home.

Hospitalization and Housing: A Qualitative Study Exploring the Perspectives of Hospitalized Patients Experiencing Housing Insecurity

Although housing insecurity has clear negative impacts on health, little is known about how it impacts patients' experience of hospitalization. In this qualitative study, we interviewed 22 hospitalized patients experiencing housing insecurity. The following three major themes emerged: 1) adverse social and environmental factors directly contribute to hospitalization, 2) lack of tailored care during hospitalization leaves patients unprepared for discharge, and 3) patients have difficulty recuperating after a hospital stay, leading to the risk of rehospitalization. Within these themes, participants described the roles of extreme physical and psychological hardship, chaotic interpersonal relationships, substance use, and stigma affecting participants' experiences before, during, and following hospitalization. Our results, based directly on the patient experience, suggest a need for hospital systems to invest in universal in-hospital screening for housing insecurity, incorporation of trauma-informed care, and robust partnerships with community organizations. Future research should explore the feasibility and impact of these interventions.

Giving and Receiving Help among Persons Entering Sober Living Houses

Giving and receiving help are integral to creating the social environments necessary to support recovery. However, studies assessing the effects of helping behaviors have focused primarily on the benefits derived from giving help to others in 12-step programs and treatment. The current study examined the frequency of giving and receiving help among 188 persons entering sober living houses (SLHs), a type of recovery home that is common in California. Helping was assessed in three contexts: the SLH, 12-step meetings they attended, and interactions with their family and friends. Residents who gave help to others in one of these contexts tended to also receive help in that context. Residents who reported giving or receiving help in one context tended to report giving and receiving help in other contexts. Study findings suggest helping in recovery occurs in a broader, more reciprocal manner than currently conceptualized. Studies should address how giving and receiving help in different contexts affects recovery outcomes. Research is also needed to describe the determinants of giving and receiving help. Considerations for facilitating help among SLH residents are described.

Moving Social Model Recovery Forward: Recent Research on Sober Living Houses

Social model recovery is a peer centered approach to alcohol and drug problems that is gaining increased attention. This approach is well-suited to services in residential settings and typically includes living in a shared alcohol- and drug-free living environment where residents give and receive personal and recovery support. Sober Living Houses (SLHs) are recovery residences that explicitly use a social model approach. This paper describes recent research on SLHs, including new measures designed to assess their social and physical environments. We conclude that our understanding of social model is rapidly evolving to include broader, more complex factors associated with outcomes.

Do neighborhood characteristics of sober living houses impact recovery outcomes? A multilevel analysis of observational data from Los Angeles County

OBJECTIVE

To identify neighborhood factors associated with recovery outcomes for sober living house (SLH) residents.

METHODS

Six-month longitudinal data for new SLH residents (n = 557) was linked with census tract data, services available, alcohol outlets, and Walk Scores® (0-100 score indicating access to neighborhood resources) for 48 SLHs in 44 neighborhoods in Los Angeles County.

RESULTS

Non-significant neighborhood characteristics in separate regressions for all outcomes were residents' ratings of perceived risk, percentage of residences with access to a car, percentage of homes over $500,000, percentage of renter-occupied units, percentage with income less than $25,000, percentage that were non-white, the density of substance inpatient within 10 miles, and transit scores from Walk Score®. Multilevel regressions found outpatient substance abuse treatment and density of AA groups were positively associated with more abstinent days. No neighborhood variables were associated with psychiatric symptoms. Higher perceived neighborhood cohesion, lower crime ratings, and better transportation ratings were associated with higher recovery capital.

CONCLUSION

Greater neighborhood densities of substance abuse services and AA groups may help residents achieve more days abstinent. While residents may achieve better substance use outcomes even with negative perceptions of the neighborhood, positive perceptions of the neighborhoods may help them acquire more recovery capital.

Examining Recovery Status Trends over 7-Years for Men and Women Clients of a Substance Use Disorder Recovery Housing Program

Adults who are homeless and/or involved in the criminal justice system have significantly higher risks of substance use disorders (SUD)s and they may have increased difficulty initiating and maintaining traditional SUD treatments. To address the needs of adults with SUDs who are homeless/criminal justice system involved the Recovery Kentucky programs were established. This study examined outcomes for this recovery housing program among an unduplicated statewide sample of men ( n=672) and women ( n = 732) clients who entered the Recovery Kentucky program and who were followed-up about 12 months after program entry across a 7-year period. Low, but similar rates of problem alcohol or illicit drug use at follow-up were found across the 7-year period. Men had higher rates of return to use than women. Further, about 40% of the clients had at least one recovery status vulnerability factor at follow-up each year of the study with no differences by gender.

Living in a Sober Living House: Conversations with Residents

Background: Twenty-one residents in a sober living facility in a medium sized Midwestern city were interviewed and were asked to talk about their experiences in selecting and residing in a sober living facility. Methods: Respondents were also asked to detail their thoughts about the efficacy of sober living and their ideas about successful recovery. Interviews were semi-structured in order to provide opportunity for in-depth responses. Results: Based on an analysis of the interview transcripts the following themes were presented for analysis and discussion: The role of early trauma, the strengths of sober living, the challenges to sober living and keys to sobriety. Discussion: Discussion of contradictions between present findings and the literature as well as recommendations for future research and practice are presented.

Homelessness and publicly funded substance use disorder treatment in California, 2016-2019: Analysis of treatment needs, level of care placement, and outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Both homelessness and substance use have increased in recent years. People experiencing homelessness (PEH) are at increased risk for health problems and early mortality, both of which can be exacerbated by substance use disorders (SUD). Specialty SUD treatment is likely needed to address substance use among PEH, and more than 232,000 PEH received treatment from U.S. publicly funded SUD programs in 2015. The objective of this paper is to develop a better understanding of the SUD services that PEH receive in publicly funded treatment programs by (1) describing the characteristics and needs of the PEH population served in publicly funded SUD treatment programs, compared to non-PEH populations; (2) determining if differences exist in treatment placement (level of care) for PEH and non-PEH; and (3) gauging how successful programs are in treating PEH compared to non-PEH.

METHODS

Observational study using a two-way fixed effect model to determine associations among homelessness, retention, and outcomes among Medicaid beneficiaries receiving SUD treatment in California from 2016 to 2019 (n = 638,953). The study team used ordinary least squares (OLS) regression to measure the degree to which homelessness was associated with baseline characteristics, SUD services received, and treatment outcomes.

RESULTS

PEH were significantly more likely than non-PEH to be having methamphetamine or heroin as their primary substance. PEH had greater frequency of primary substance use prior to entering treatment, greater ER and hospital utilization, more criminal justice involvement, and greater prevalence of mental health diagnoses and unemployment. PEH were 9.82% more likely than non-PEH to receive residential treatment and 7.11% less likely than non-PEH to receive treatment intensive outpatient modalities. Homelessness was associated with an 11.90% decrease in retention, and a 19.40% decrease in successful discharge status. These trends were consistent across outpatient, intensive outpatient, and residential modalities.

CONCLUSIONS

Developing SUD treatment capacity and housing supports can improve treatment outcomes for PEH. Potential strategies to improve SUD services for PEH include providing more contingency management, opioid pharmacotherapies, programming designed to treat individuals with co-occurring mental health disorders, and resources for housing options that can support PEH in their recovery.

Associations of housing stress with later substance use outcomes: A systematic review

A synthesis of existing evidence regarding the association of housing stress with later substance use outcomes can help support and inform housing interventions as a potential strategy to address problematic substance use. We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Web of Science, PsycInfo, CINAHL, Social Work Abstracts, and Sociological Abstracts and systematically screened for articles examining housing stress and later substance use outcomes among U.S. adults. Across 38 relevant articles published from 1991 to 2020, results demonstrated an association of homelessness with an increased likelihood of substance use, substance use disorders (SUD), and overdose death. Results regarding the association of homelessness with receipt and completion of SUD treatment were mixed, and one study indicated no association of homelessness with motivation to change substance use behaviors. Several studies did not find an association of unstable housing with substance use or receipt of SUD treatment, while others found an association of unstable housing with intensified SUD symptoms and a decreased likelihood of completing SUD treatment. Overall, while there is evidence of an association of homelessness with later substance use, SUD, and overdose death, results for other forms of housing stress and some substance use outcomes are less consistent. There are several methodological considerations specific to selected measures of housing stress and substance use, study populations, and analytic approaches that have implications for results and directions for future research. Despite these considerations, results collectively suggest that innovative interventions to address housing stress, namely homelessness, may help mitigate some substance use outcomes.

Assessing Technical Assistance Needs among Recovery Residence Operators in the United States

Recovery support services such as recovery housing assist individuals with increasing their access to social support, employment services, and systems of care. Lack of evidence-based practices and calls for increased oversight of these settings suggests a growing need for technical assistance and training for recovery residence owners and staff, yet little is known about their areas of greatest need for technical assistance. We developed and administered a survey to assess the technical assistance needs of recovery housing operators in the United States using a convenience sample of individuals who own or operate a recovery residence (N = 376). A total of 77 owners/operators completed the survey (20% response rate), representing urban, suburban, and rural communities. Differences were observed between number of owned residences: owners/operators of a single residence were interested in technical assistance on house-specific policies and linkage to established systems of care, whereas owners/operators of multiple residences were interested in technical assistance on building financial sustainability and incorporation of best practices into their recovery residences. As an increasing number of states move to implement voluntary certification or licensing for recovery residences, targeted training and technical assistance to owners/operators will facilitate the successful adoption of recovery residence best practices and quality standards.

Understanding challenges for recovery homes during COVID-19

Understanding the effects of COVID-19 mitigation for persons in group living environments is of critical importance to limiting the spread of the virus. In the U.S., residential recovery homes for persons with alcohol and drug disorders are good examples of high-risk environments where virus mitigation procedures are essential. The National Alliance for Recovery Residences (NARR) has taken recommendations developed by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and applied them to recovery home settings. This paper describes how COVID-19 mitigation efforts in recovery homes may be influenced by two factors. First, while some houses are licensed by states with rigorous health and safety standards, others are not licensed and are subject to less oversight. These homes may be more inconsistent in adhering to mitigation standards. Second, to varying degrees, recovery homes use a social model approach to recovery that contrasts with mitigation procedures such as social distancing and stay-at-home orders. This paper provides examples of ways recovery homes have been forced to adjust to the competing demands of mitigation efforts and social model recovery. The paper also identifies multiple questions that could be addressed by provider-researcher coalitions to inform how social model recovery can navigate forward during the era of COVID-19. As we move forward during the era of COVID-19, providers are encouraged to remember that recovery homes have a history of resilience facing adversity and in fact have their origins in grassroots responses to the challenges of their times.

House Manager Roles in Sober Living Houses

Background

Alcohol and drug treatment providers are increasingly emphasizing the role of long-term, community-based systems of care. A good example is Sober Living Houses (SLHs), which are peer operated alcohol- and drug-free living environments. Studies show residents of SLHs make significant improvements in multiple areas. However, little attention has been devoted to describing the critically important role of SLH managers who oversee these homes.

Methods

Thirty-five SLH managers completed interviews about the characteristics and operations of their houses, their activities as managers, and ways their own recovery was affected by their work.

Results

Managers reported widespread use of some but not all principles of social model recovery. Manager roles varied dramatically in terms of time spent managing houses, activities related to their roles, and training they received. Some reported extensive amounts of time proving support to residents, while others viewed their role as primarily administrative.

Conclusions

Research is needed to understand reasons for manager differences, optimal manager functioning, and manager training needs. Research is also needed to assess whether different house characteristics require different manager roles.

Examining Recovery Program Participants by Gender: Program Completion, Relapse, and Multidimensional Status 12 Months After Program Entry

This study examined individual-level characteristics and factors associated with program completion, relapse, and multidimensional status at follow-up for 213 men and 248 women who entered one of 17 peer-led recovery programs and who completed a follow-up interview 12 months later. Study results found that although there were some significant gender differences at program entry among participants entering Recovery Kentucky, there were few gender differences at follow-up. In addition, although participants had significant psychosocial problems, polysubstance use patterns, and severe substance use disorder (SUD), the majority of both men and women reported completing the program (80.3%), a small minority reported relapse (9.5%), and about one third had worse multidimensional status about 12 months after program entry. Lower quality of life rating at program entry was associated with program completion and with better multidimensional status at follow-up. Study results suggest the recovery program provides an important option for some of the most vulnerable individuals with SUD.

Recovery Home Environment Characteristics Associated with Recovery Capital

Background

Recovery capital refers to internal and external resources that facilitate recovery from alcohol and drug disorders. Examples include support from friends and family, access to health and other services, stable housing and finances, and internal assets, such as self-esteem and motivation. Recovery capital is receiving increased emphasis as an integral component of addiction services. However, there are a limited number of studies assessing recovery capital in different settings.

Methods

The current study assessed recovery capital among 363 individuals entering sober living recovery homes (SLHs) and showed how recovery capital was associated with individual and social environment characteristics of the houses. Individual characteristics were assessed shortly after residents entered the house (mean=17 days, sd=9.0). Approximately one month later, individuals were interviewed about their perceptions of the social environment within the household. We hypothesized residents' perceptions of social model characteristics within the household would be associated with higher recovery capital.

Results

Study findings showed individual characteristics associated with recovery capital included motivation, support from friends and family, and 12-step involvement. Perceptions of the social environment assessed by four subscales on the Community Oriented Program Evaluation Scale and a measure of social model characteristics were correlated with recovery capital. Regression analyses controlling for individual characteristics showed modest, but consistent associations with recovery capital.

Conclusion

Even after relatively short periods of time in SLHs, resident perceptions of the social environment show associations with recovery capital. Additional research is needed to understand causal dynamics of this relationship and associations with outcome.

"I have more support around me to be able to change": A Qualitative Exploration of Probationers' and Parolees' Experiences Living in Sober Living Houses

Persons in the U.S. who are incarcerated for drug offenses are increasingly being released into the community as a way to decrease prison and jail overcrowding. One challenge is finding housing that supports compliance with probation and parole requirements, which often includes abstinence from drugs and alcohol. Sober living houses (SLHs) are alcohol- and drug-free living environments that are increasingly being used as housing options for probationers and parolees. Although a few studies have reported favorable outcomes for residents of SLHs, little is known about resident experiences or the factors that are experienced as helpful or counterproductive. This study conducted qualitative interviews with 28 SLH residents on probation or parole to understand their experiences living in the houses, aspects of the houses that facilitated recovery, ways residence in a SLH affected compliance with probation and parole, and ways the houses addressed HIV risk, a widespread problem among this population. Interviews were audiotaped and coded for dominant themes. Study participants identified housing as a critically important need after incarceration. For residents nearing the end of their stay in the SLHs, there was significant concern about where they might live after they left. Residents emphasized that shared experiences and goals, consistent enforcement of rules (especially the requirement of abstinence), and encouragement from probation and parole officers as particularly helpful. There was very little focus in HIV issues, even though risk behaviors were common. For some residents, inconsistent enforcement of house rules was experienced as highly problematic. Research is needed to identify the organizational and operational procedures that enhance factors experienced as helpful. This paper is the first to document the views and experiences of persons on probation or parole who reside in sober living recovery houses. These data can be used by SLH operators to develop houses that are responsive to factors experienced as helpful and counterproductive. The significance of this paper is evident in the trend toward decreasing incarceration in the U.S. of persons convicted of drug offenses and the need for alcohol- and drug-free alternative living environments.

Motivational Interviewing Case Management (MICM) for Persons on Probation or Parole Entering Sober Living Houses

The failure of incarceration as a response to drug offenses has resulted in new policies supporting community-based alternatives. One challenge has been finding appropriate housing for persons on probation and parole. Sober living houses (SLHs) are alcohol- and drug-free living environments that are increasingly being used as housing options for these individuals. The current study examined 6- and 12-month outcomes for 330 persons on probation or parole who entered 49 SLHs. Residents in 22 houses (n = 149 individuals) were randomly assigned to receive a "Motivational Interviewing Case Management" (MICM) intervention and residents in the other 27 houses (n = 181 individuals) received SLH residency as usual. At 6-and 12-month follow-up, both study conditions showed significant improvement relative to baseline on substance abuse, criminal justice, HIV risk, and employment outcomes. For persons who attended at least one MICM session, there were better criminal justice outcomes compared to the SLH as usual group.