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.

Social Model Recovery and Recovery Housing.

Recovery housing is an important resource for many in their recovery from alcohol and other drug use disorders. Yet providers of recovery housing face a number of challenges. Many of these challenges are rooted in stigma and bias about recovery housing. The ability to describe the service and purported mechanisms of action vis-a-vis an overarching framework, approach, or orientation could also go a long way in adding credence to recovery housing as a service delivery mechanism. Several aspects of social model recovery are often explicitly built or organically reflected in how recovery housing operates, yet describing recovery housing in these terms often does little to demystify key features of recovery housing. To more fully cement social model recovery as the organizing framework for recovery housing this article aims to: review the history, current status, and evidence base for social model recovery; comment on challenges to implementing the social model in recovery housing; and delineate steps to overcome these challenges and establish an evidence base for social model recovery housing.

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.

Multilevel Effects of Environmental and Neighborhood Factors on Sober Living House Resident 12-Month Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Sober living houses (SLHs) are abstinence-based environments designed for individuals in recovery to live with others in recovery. Research shows that SLHs help some individuals maintain recovery and that certain SLH-related factors may be particularly protective. Here we assess how SLH housing and neighborhood characteristics are related to abstinence and psychiatric symptoms over time. METHOD: Baseline, 6-month, and 12-month data were collected from 557 SLH residents. Multilevel mixed models tested associations between house and neighborhood characteristics and individual-level percent days abstinent (PDA) and the number of psychiatric symptoms (measured with the Psychiatric Diagnostic Screening Questionnaire [PDSQ]) as outcomes. Final models adjusted for sex, age, and race/ethnicity; ratings of house characteristics; and objective measurements of neighborhood-level exposures. RESULTS: Both PDA and PDSQ improved significantly (ps ≤ .05) over time in both unadjusted and adjusted models. More self-help groups and fewer alcohol outlets within one mile were significantly protective for PDA, whereas walkability was significantly related to worse PDA and PDSQ (ps ≤ .05). For house-level factors, better ratings of house maintenance were related to significantly fewer psychiatric symptoms, whereas higher scores on SLH's safety measures and personal or residence identity were related to more psychiatric symptoms (ps ≤ .05). No house-level factor was significantly related to PDA. CONCLUSIONS: Neighborhood-level factors such as increased availability of self-help groups and fewer nearby alcohol outlets may increase abstinence among individuals living in SLHs. House-level factors related to better maintenance may also facilitate improved mental health.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Resident and house manager perceptions of social environments in sober living houses: Associations with length of stay.

AIMS: Studies have shown persons living in recovery homes for drug and alcohol problems make significant, sustained improvements. However, there is limited information about factors associated with outcomes. This study examined how perceptions of social environment of one type of recovery home, sober living houses (SLHs), were associated with length of stay (LOS). METHODS: SLH residents and their house managers (N = 416) completed the recovery home environment scale (RHES) that assessed social model recovery characteristics and the community-oriented program evaluation scale (CPES) that evaluated perceptions of the program environment. RESULTS: Scales completed by residents predicted LOS, but those completed by house managers did not. Larger discrepancies between the two groups were associated with shorter LOS. The RHES was shown to be a stronger predictor of LOS than the CPES. CONCLUSION: Results highlight the importance of the social environment in SLHs, particularly those most closely aligned with social model recovery principles.

Psychometric Properties of the Recovery Home Environment Scale.

BACKGROUND: Recovery homes for persons with alcohol and drug problems provide an abstinent living environment and social support for recovery. Research shows residents in these homes make significant, sustained improvements. However, descriptions of recovery environments within the homes have been limited. PURPOSE: The current study assessed psychometric properties for the Recovery Home Environment Scale (RHES), which assessed social environments within one type of recovery home, sober living houses (SLHs). METHODS: 373 residents were interviewed at entry into the house, 1-month follow-up, and 6-month follow-up. Measures included the RHES, other measures of the social environment, days of substance use, and length of stay. RESULTS: Principal components analysis suggested the RHES was largely unidimensional. Exploratory factor analysis suggested items could be grouped into recovery support (3 items) and recovery skills (5 items). Cronbach's alphas for the full scale and the recovery support and recovery skills subscales were 0.91, 0.89, and 0.87, respectively. As hypothesized, construct validity of the RHES was supported by correlations with other measures of the social environment and predictive validity was supported by associations with length of stay and substance use. CONCLUSIONS: SLHs have been described as "the setting is the service." However, the field has lacked a way to capture characteristics of the social environment. The RHES represents a new way to measure the recovery environment by focusing on social interactions among residents within SLHs and shared activities in the community.

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.

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.

Testing a Socioecological Model of Relapse and Recovery from Alcohol Problems.

This study tests a socioecological model of relapse and recovery using latent class growth mixture modeling to identify neighborhood, social network and individual-level predictors of alcohol dependence trajectories among a large, longitudinal sample of problem drinkers recruited from substance use treatment settings. We identified four distinct alcohol dependence trajectories: Stable Recovery/Low (Class 1); Relapsing/Rising (Class 2); Late Recovery/Declining (Class 3); and Chronic/High (Class 4). Neighborhood context (poverty and density of bars), social network characteristics (less involvement with Alcoholics Anonymous [AA], continued affiliation with heavy drinkers), and individual predisposing (psychiatric severity) and need (returning to treatment) characteristics each distinguished individuals in the Relapsing/Rising class from individuals in the Stable Recovery/Low class. Social network characteristics (AA involvement and continued affiliation with heavy drinkers) were the primary distinguishing factors for individuals in the Chronic/High class compared to the Late Recovery/Declining class. Study findings can be used to promote recovery and help prevent relapse by: guiding development of community-level interventions to improve social and physical environments; identifying potentially modifiable factors (social network support for sobriety, participation in self-help) to reduce negative consequences among problem drinkers who remain in high-risk neighborhoods; and contributing to ongoing discussions about new and continued licensing of alcohol outlets and regulation of alcohol sales to prevent alcohol problems in high-risk areas and among high-risk people.

Sheltering in place and social distancing when the services provided are housing and social support: The COVID-19 health crisis and recovery housing.

Recovery housing is a vital service for individuals with substance use disorders who need both recovery support and safe housing. Recovery housing is a residential service, and it relies heavily on social support provided by peers both within the residence and in outside mutual help groups. As such, efforts to keep residents safe from SARS CoV-2, the virus that causes the illness COVID-19, pose a number of challenges to social distancing. Further, residents are some of the more vulnerable individuals in recovery. They are more likely to have co-occurring health conditions that place them at risk for COVID-19, and they often have risk factors such as employment in low-wage jobs that increase their potential for negative economic impacts of the pandemic. Since most recovery housing operates outside formal substance use treatment, residents who pay out-of-pocket for services largely support these residences. Comprehensive support for those using, as well as those providing and ensuring the quality of recovery housing, is needed to ensure the viability of recovery housing.

Recovery in context: Sober living houses and the ecology of recovery.

Sober living houses (SLHs) are an increasingly common element of the recovery support services landscape, yet little is known about their neighborhood context. This study describes neighborhoods in which SLHs are located and examines differences by house characteristics. SLHs in Los Angeles County (N = 297) were geocoded and linked with U.S. Census, alcohol outlet, recovery resources, and accessibility data. Regression analyses tested differences by house characteristics. Co-ed houses were in neighborhoods that were less ethnically diverse and farther away from recovery resources. Larger house capacity was associated with increased density of off-premise alcohol outlets but also increased proximity to treatment. Higher fees were associated with lower neighborhood disadvantage and off-premise alcohol outlet density but the greater distance from treatment programs and other recovery resources. House characteristics are associated with neighborhood factors that both support recovery and place residents at risk.

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.

Heavy Drinking among Women Receiving Intensive Motivational Interviewing: 6-Month Outcomes.

Compared to men, women with alcohol use disorders experience more severe consequences related to drinking. Intensive Motivational Interviewing (IMI) is a new 9-session version of Motivational Interviewing (MI) designed for women with alcohol use disorders. The current study reports outcomes from a randomized clinical trial of IMI compared to a single session of MI. Data were collected at baseline, 2-month, and 6-month follow-up. In addition to a standard "intent-to-treat" (ITT) analysis, we conducted disaggregated subgroup analyses of women who were heavy drinkers and a "per protocol" (PP) analysis of women in the IMI condition who attended 7-9 sessions (80% of the IMI sample). Women in both study conditions made large reductions in drinking between baseline and 2 months that were maintained at 6 months. Generalized estimating equation (GEE) models using the full sample (N = 215) did not show time by condition differences, but heavy drinkers(n = 153) receiving IMI showed significantly larger reductions in drinking at 2- and 6-month follow-up than the comparison condition. Assessment of heavy drinkers using the PP sample showed larger between condition differences favoring IMI at both follow-up time points. Results support the efficacy of IMI in terms of reducing drinking, particularly among women who are heavy drinkers.

Improving Recovery Outcomes among MSM: The Potential Role of Recovery Housing.

BACKGROUND: Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) face unique recovery challenges. Recovery housing may play an important role in improving outcomes among MSM, but little is known about their experiences in these settings. METHODS: This study examined 3-month outcomes among MSM (N=22) living in a group of recovery residences in Texas, one of which is a home specifically designated for gay and bisexual men. Upon intake, adult MSM were recruited to participate in the study, which involved a baseline and 3-month phone interview and allowing study staff to access records maintained by the program about their stay. RESULTS: At follow-up, only two (9.1%) reported used of any substances in the past 30 days. The vast majority (73%) had attended outpatient substance use treatment in the past three months, and 86% reported working for pay during the past 30 days. All participants reported attending four or more 12-step meetings in the past 30 days. Use of dysfunctional coping strategies significantly decreased, however so did scores on health-related quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: MSM have complex treatment needs. Recovery housing may help improve outcomes among MSM by bridging formal substance use treatment with community-based recovery support.

Sober living house characteristics: A multilevel analyses of factors associated with improved outcomes.

Safe and stable housing is integral to addiction recovery. Across numerous studies, recovery housing has been found to be associated with improvements in a variety of domains. Although procedures for operating some types of recovery housing have been manualized and national standards established, there are few empirical findings identifying which recovery residence characteristics may lead to improved outcomes. Using data from 330 newly admitted residents recruited from 49 sober living houses in California and re-contacted for 6- and 12-month follow-up interviews, this study examines the effects of organizational, operational, and programming characteristics on substance use, criminal justice, and employment outcomes. Results from multilevel analyses adjusting for resident demographics and length of stay indicate that organizational characteristics were associated with outcomes. Residents recruited from houses that were part of a larger organization or group of houses had increased odds of total abstinence (aOR = 3.98, p < 0.001) and drug abstinence (aOR = 3.19, p < 0.001). Residents recruited from houses that were affiliated with a treatment program had increased odds of employment (aOR = 2.92, p = 0.003). Operational characteristics such as where the house was located and whether the house required incoming residents to be sober for at least 30 days prior to entry were also related to improved outcomes, but additional work is needed to develop tools to assess and measure recovery housing characteristics and to better understand how these factors contribute to improved outcomes.