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.

The Reshaping of the E-Cigarette Retail Environment: Its Evolution and Public Health Concerns.

E-cigarette use represents a public health controversy in the US and globally. Despite the potential of e-cigarettes to support cigarette cessation, their use increases health risks and risk for addiction, particularly in young people. Various federal, state, and local laws have impacted tobacco retail in general and e-cigarettes in particular. In the US, 2019-2020 federal laws increased in the minimum legal sales age for tobacco to 21 and banned flavored cartridge-based e-cigarettes. Many states and localities were early adopters of Tobacco 21 and implemented more comprehensive flavor restrictions than the federal ban. Meanwhile, cannabis retail is increasingly being legalized in the US-while cannabis-based product regulation has notable gaps at the federal, state, and local levels. These regulatory complexities have impacted specialized retailers selling e-cigarettes, including "vape shops" that exclusively sell e-cigarettes, "smoke shops" that sell e-cigarettes and other tobacco (and potentially CBD/THC and other un- or under-regulated products), and online retail. This commentary outlines public health concerns related to: (1) youth access; (2) consumer exposure to a broader range of tobacco products and marketing in retail settings where they may seek products to aid in cigarette cessation (i.e., such broad product exposure could hinder cessation attempts); (3) consumer exposure to un-/under-regulated products (e.g., delta-8-THC, kratom); and (4) federal, state, and local regulations being undermined by consumer access to prohibited products online and via the mail. These concerns underscore the need for ongoing surveillance of how retailers and consumers respond to regulations.

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.

Late night environments: Bar "morphing" increases risky alcohol sales in on-premise outlets.

Niche theory proposes that in areas of high alcohol availability, alcohol sales outlets will compete for patrons by diversifying their operating characteristics to provide a diversity of drinking contexts. We aimed to characterize features of outlet operations which contribute to increased risk for alcohol problems across communities. We conducted ethnographic observations in 97 on-premise outlets across 6 California cities and interviewed staff and patrons in a subsample of these. We observed outlet managers deliberately altering the environments in 17.5% of establishments. These modifications aimed to increase bar/nightclub effects, enabling venues to "morph" (i.e., alter operating conditions from restaurant to bar, or from bar to club) and display environmental characteristics associated with over-service and alcohol-related problems (e.g., more young male patrons, crowding, and dancing). Late night morphing was observed in some outlets in most cities and included outlets operating with restaurant licenses. Staff and patrons identified morphing as a strategy to increase alcohol sales in late night hours. Competition for late night customers may encourage business practices that increase the number of alcohol sales establishments operating under risky circumstances. Community alcohol policies and practices should attend to the potential expansion of risky alcohol sales niches in night time economies.

The Architecture of Recovery: Two Kinds of Housing Assistance for Chronic Homeless Persons with Substance Use Disorders.

PURPOSE: Roughly half a million persons in the United States are homeless on any given night and over a third of those individuals have significant alcohol/other drug (AOD) problems. Many are chronically homeless and in need of assistance for a variety of problems. However, the literature on housing services for this population has paid limited attention to comparative analyses contrasting different approaches. APPROACH: We examined the literature on housing models for homeless persons with AOD problems and critically analyzed how service settings and operations aligned with service goals. FINDINGS: We found two predominant housing models that reflect different service goals: Sober Living Houses (SLHs) and Housing First (HF). SLHs are communally based living arrangements that draw on the principles of Alcoholics Anonymous. They emphasize a living environment that promotes abstinence and peer support for recovery. HF is based on the premise that many homeless persons with substance abuse problems will reject abstinence as a goal. Therefore, the HF focus is providing subsidized or free housing and optional professional services for substance abuse, psychiatric disorders and other problems. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: If homeless service providers are to develop comprehensive systems for homeless persons with AOD problems, they need to consider important contrasts in housing models, including definitions of "recovery," roles of peer support, facility management, roles for professional service, and the architectural designs that support the mission of each type of housing. ORIGINALITY: This paper is the first to consider distinct consumer choices within homeless service systems and provide recommendations to improve each based upon an integrated analysis that considers how architecture and operations align with service goals.

The Evolution of Peer Run Sober Housing as a Recovery Resource for California Communities.

Sober living houses (SLHs) are alcohol- and drug-free living environments that offer social support to persons attempting to abstain from alcohol and drugs. They use a peer-oriented, social model approach that emphasizes mutual support, financial self-sufficiency, and resident involvement in decision making and management of the facility. Although they represent an important response to the increasing call for more services that help sustain abstinence from drugs and alcohol over time, they are an under recognized and underutilized recovery resource. The purpose of this paper is to trace the evolution of sober living houses in California from the early influences of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) in the 1930's to the establishment of current SLH associations, such as the Sober Living Network in Southern California. The paper describes key events and policies that influenced SLHs. Although initial research on outcomes of SLH residents has been very encouraging, there is a need for more research to guide improvement of structure and operations. The paper concludes with a discussion of implications for the growth of recovery services and for community housing policy.

Community control of alcohol and drug risk environments: the California experience.

This article describes California community (city, county) uses of local powers and resources to prevent alcohol and other drug (AOD) problems by managing AOD risk environments in retail, public, and social domains. The article presents a promising framework used in several counties dedicated to community environment approaches to prevention. A case example of its application is provided. The framework has developed locally since the mid 1980s through AOD prevention demonstration grant research, policy advocacy, and state support for local initiatives. Data for this article come from the author's experience observing and consulting with California cities and counties over 25 years.