Maximizing social model principles in residential recovery settings

Peer support is integral to a variety of approaches to alcohol and drug problems. However, there is limited information about the best ways to facilitate it. The “social model” approach developed in California offers useful suggestions for facilitating peer support in residential recovery settings. Key principles include using 12-step or other mutual-help group strategies to create and facilitate a recovery environment, involving program participants in decision making and facility governance, using personal recovery experience as a way to help others, and emphasizing recovery as an interaction between the individual and their environment. Although limited in number, studies have shown favorable outcomes for social model programs. Knowledge about social model recovery and how to use it to facilitate peer support in residential recovery homes varies among providers. This article presents specific, practical suggestions for enhancing social model principles in ways that facilitate peer support in a range of recovery residences.

A critical component of the continuum of care for substance use disorders: recovery homes in Philadelphia

For many struggling with addiction, the ability to achieve stable recovery is often jeopardized by untenable housing or unsupportive living environments. Despite promising research on recovery residences, there are still significant gaps in the research on them. Using data collected from a stratified random sample of recovery homes in Philadelphia (N = 25), this study describes the organizational, operational, and programmatic characteristics of these homes and explores potential differences in these characteristics by funding source and gender of residents served. Although not licensed treatment providers, the majority of these homes operated in a recovery-oriented manner and offered a range of different services to their residents-all for a reasonable monthly fee (M = $340.40, SE = 18.60). Few differences emerged between homes that received funding from the Philadelphia Office of Addiction Services and those that did not or between those that served males as opposed to females. More research is needed to address resident outcomes and how Philadelphia recovery homes may compare with recovery residences in other parts of the country.

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.

Comorbid mental health and substance abuse issues among individuals in recovery homes: Prospective environmental mediators

Individuals with comorbid internalizing psychological symptoms and substance abuse issues often have more negative outcomes and evidence a relative disparity in treatment gains compared to those with only substance abuse issues. The present study examined social mechanisms over time for individuals living in self-governed recovery homes (Oxford Houses) such as 12-step group activities and social support, which likely influence both abstinence and psychological outcomes. Participants (n = 567) from a national United States sample of Oxford Houses completed baseline and multiple follow-up self-report assessments over a one-year period. A structural equation model was utilized to evaluate predicted relationships among baseline symptoms, 12-step activities, social support, and outcome variables. Results indicated that internalizing symptoms were associated with subsequent mutual help activities, but not directly with social support. Living in an Oxford House for six months and number of 12-step meetings attended were partially mediated by social support variables in predicting abstinence outcomes, but not psychological outcomes. Environments such as Oxford Houses may be viable options for recovering individuals with comorbid internalizing psychological problems, although social support mechanisms primarily promote abstinence. Implications for future research and for Oxford House policies are discussed.

Course of Psychiatric Symptoms and Abstinence among Methamphetamine-Dependent Persons in Sober Living Recovery Homes

BACKGROUND

Although studies of co-occurring psychiatric disorders among methamphetamine (MA)-dependent persons have been conducted in treatment programs, none have examined them in service settings used to sustain long-term recovery, such as sober living houses (SLHs).

METHODS

Residents entering SLHs (N = 243) were interviewed within two weeks and at 6-, 12-, and 18-month follow-up. Measures assessed psychiatric symptoms using the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI), past-year drug and alcohol dependence, and abstinence over six-month time periods.

RESULTS

Overall, severity of psychiatric symptoms on the BSI was similar among MA-dependent and other dependent residents. Global psychiatric severity, depression, and somatization scales on the BSI predicted abstinence for both groups. However, phobic anxiety and hostility scales were associated with abstinence for MA-dependent residents but not for those dependent on other substances.

CONCLUSION

The similarity of psychiatric symptoms among persons with and without MA dependence in SLHs is different from what studies have found in treatment programs. The association between psychiatric symptoms and abstinence for both groups suggests SLHs should consider provision of on- or off-site mental health services. Additional research is needed to understand why phobic anxiety and hostility are associated with abstinence among MA-dependent residents but not those dependent on other substances.

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.

Measuring Architecture in Recovery Homes: Recovery Home Architecture Scale

Background: The settings where we live shape our daily experiences and interactions. Social environment and physical setting characteristics may be particularly important in communal living services, such as recovery homes for alcohol and drug disorders. Objectives: This paper describes the measurement and mobilization of architectural characteristics in one type of recovery home, sober living houses (SLHs). The Recovery Home Architecture Scale (RHAS) is a 25-item measure comprised of six subscales designed to assess architecture in SLHs. Results: Using a sample of 528 individuals residing in 41 houses, we found the RHAS had good interrater reliability, factor structure, and internal consistency. The measure also showed modest construct validity. The RHAS was not associated with length of stay (LOS) but did interact with a measure of the social environment that predicted LOS, the Recovery Home Environment Scale (RHES). Conclusions: Future studies should include a more diverse sample of SLHs and assess how house management, recovery capital, and other factors work in concert with architecture.

Life after incarceration: The impact of stability on formerly imprisoned Oxford House residents

According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, roughly 65% of the US prison population is diagnosed with a substance use disorder (SUD) and over 600,000 individuals are released from incarceration yearly. Thus, it is important to better understand the factors that allow individuals recovering from SUD to reintegrate into communities after incarceration. This study sought to understand the relationship between a personality mediator (stability) and quality of life (QOL) and belonging support (BS), as well as the relationship between this mediator and QOL and psychological sense of community (PSOC) for 131 individuals living in Oxford House (OH) recovery homes. Stability was found to mediate the relationship between BS and QOL, as well as PSOC and QOL. The findings suggest that OH is a supportive and positive recovery community for those with criminal justice backgrounds, particularly those with higher stability.

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.

Reasons for Leaving Sober Living Houses and Their Associations with Substance Use, Psychiatric, and Housing Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Sober living houses (SLHs) offer abstinence-based housing for individuals with alcohol or drug problems. Research shows residents of SLHs make improvements on measures of substance use and other problems. Length of stay (LOS) in the house is associated with outcomes. However, little is known about the reasons residents leave houses or how reasons are associated with outcomes.

METHODS

Baseline interviews were conducted with individuals entering 48 SLHs in Los Angeles. Residents who left within 12 months completed a 12-month follow-up interview (N = 352) assessing reasons they left, abstinence, psychiatric symptoms, and housing status. Multilevel regression models assessed relationships between reasons and outcomes.

RESULTS

The most commonly cited reason for leaving was wanting to live on one's own or in a shared living situation with family or friends (45.7%), which was associated with increased odds of abstinence and fewer psychiatric symptoms. Leaving due to not liking something about the house (e.g., rules or living conditions) was the second most commonly cited reason for leaving (28.1%), but was not associated with any outcomes. Wanting to live on one's own and did not get along with residents or the house manager were associated with favorable housing (i.e., stable housing or a different SLH).

CONCLUSION

Residents who leave SLHs to live more independently in the community may be better prepared than residents who leave for other reasons. Some residents may benefit from seeking stable housing in the community or in another SLH if they are not a good match for their current house.