Although research shows treatment for alcohol and drug problems can be effective, persons without stable housing that supports recovery are at risk for relapse. Recovery residences (RRs) for drug and alcohol problems are a growing response to the need for alcohol- and drug-free living environments that support sustained recovery. Research on RRs offers an opportunity to examine how integration of these individuals into a supportive, empowering environment has beneficial impacts on substance use, housing, and other outcomes, as well as benefits for the surrounding community. Research can also lead to the identification of operations and practices within houses that maximize favorable outcomes for residents. However, research on RRs also presents significant obstacles and challenges. Based on our experiences conducting recovery home research for decades, we present suggestions for addressing some of the unique challenges encountered in this type of research.
BorkmanT. J. (1999). Understanding self-help/mutual aid: Experiential learning in the commons. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
2.
BorkmanT. J.KaskutasL. A.RoomJ.BryanK.BarrowsD. (1998). An historical and developmental analysis of social model programs. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 15, 7-17.
3.
CallahanS.JasonL. A. (2013). Strategies to minimize attrition in longitudinal research. The Community Psychologist, 46, 32-35.
4.
ChengA.-L.LinH.KasprowW.RosenheckR. A. (2007). Impact of supported housing on clinical outcomes analysis of a randomized trial using multiple imputation technique. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 195, 83-88.
5.
CloudW.GranfieldR. (2008). Conceptualizing recovery capital: Expansion of a theoretical construct. Substance Use & Misuse, 43, 1971-1986.
6.
DennisM.ScottC. K.FunkR. (2003). An experimental evaluation of recovery management checkups (RMC) for people with chronic substance use disorders. Evaluation and Program Planning, 26, 339-352.
7.
GillissC. L.LeeK. A.GutierrezY.TaylorD.BeyeneY.NeuhausJ.MurrellN. (2001). Recruitment and retention of minority women into community-based longitudinal research. Journal of Women’s Health & Gender-Based Medicine, 10, 77-85.
8.
GreenwoodG. L.WoodsW. J.GuydishJ.BeinE. (2001). Relapse outcomes in a randomized trial of residential and day drug abuse treatment. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 20, 15-23.
9.
HallE. A.ZunigaR.CartierJ.AnglinM. D.DanilaB.RyanT.MantiusK. (2003). Staying in Touch: A fieldwork manual of tracking procedures for locating substance abusers in follow-up studies. Los Angeles: UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs. Retrieved from http://www.webcitation.org/6ED9MmI2u
10.
HendersonJ.SwordW.NiccolsA.DobbinsM. (2014). Implementing stakeholder-informed research in the substance abuse treatment sector: Strategies used by Connections, a Canadian knowledge translation and exchange project. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, 9, Article 21.
11.
JasonL. A.DavisM. I.FerrariJ. R. (2007). The need for substance abuse after-care: Longitudinal analysis of Oxford House. Addictive Behaviors, 32, 803-818.
12.
JasonL. A.MericleA. A.PolcinD. L.WhiteW. L. (2013). The role of recovery residences in promoting long-term addiction recovery. American Journal of Community Psychology, 52, 406-411.
13.
JasonL. A.OlsonB. D.FerrariJ. R.Lo SassoA. T. (2006). Communal housing settings enhance substance abuse recovery. American Journal of Public Health, 96, 1727-1729.
14.
JasonL. A.OlsonB. D.HarveyR. (2015). Evaluating alternative aftercare models for ex-offenders. Journal of Drug Issues, 45, 53-68.
15.
JasonL. A.RobertsK.OlsonB. D. (2005). Attitudes toward recovery homes and residents: Does proximity make a difference. Journal of Community Psychology, 33, 529-535.
16.
JasonL. A.SalinaD.RamD. (2015). Oxford Recovery Housing: Length of stay correlated with improved outcomes for women previously involved with the criminal justice system. Substance Abuse. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/08897077.2015.1037946
17.
LaudetA. B.HumphreysK. (2013). Promoting recovery in an evolving context: What do we know and what do we need to know about recovery support services?Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 45, 126-133.
18.
LaudetA. B.WhiteW. L. (2008). Recovery capital as prospective predictor of sustained recovery, life satisfaction, and stress among former poly-substance users. Substance Use & Misuse, 43, 27-54.
19.
Lo SassoA. T.ByroE.JasonL. A.FerrariJ. R.OlsonB. (2012). Benefits and costs associated with mutual-help community-based recovery homes: The Oxford House model. Evaluation and Program Planning, 35, 47-53.
20.
McKayJ. R. (2005). Is there a case for extended interventions for alcohol and drug use disorders?Addiction, 100, 1594-1610.
21.
McLellanA. T. (2002). Have we evaluated addiction treatment correctly? Implications from a chronic care perspective [Editorial]. Addiction, 97, 249-252.
22.
McLellanA. T.McKayJ. R.FormanR.CacciolaJ. S.KempJ. (2005). Reconsidering the evaluation of addiction treatment: From retrospective follow-up to concurrent recovery monitoring. Addiction, 100, 447-458.
23.
McLellanA. T.WoodworthA. M. (2014). The affordable care act and treatment for “substance use disorders”: Implications of ending segregated behavioral healthcare. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 46, 541-545.
24.
MericleA. A.MilesJ.CacciolaJ. (2015). A critical component of the substance abuse continuum of care: Recovery homes in Philadelphia. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 47, 80-90.
25.
MericleA. A.MilesJ.CacciolaJ.HowellJ. (2014). Adherence to the social model approach in Philadelphia recovery homes. International Journal of Self Help & Self Care, 8, 259-275.
26.
MericleA. A.MilesJ.WayF. (2015). Recovery residences and providing safe and supportive housing for individuals overcoming addiction. Journal of Drug Issues, 45, 368-384.
27.
MilbyJ. B.SchumacherJ. E.WallaceD.FreedmanM. J.VuchinichR. E. (2005). To house or not to house: The effects of providing housing to homeless substance abusers in treatment. American Journal of Public Health, 95, 1259-1265.
28.
MychasiukR.BenziesK. (2012). Facebook: An effective tool for participant retention in longitudinal research. Child: Care, Health and Development, 38, 753-756.
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2012). Principles of drug addiction treatment: A research-based guide (3rd ed.) (NIH Publication No. 12–4180). Baltimore, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health. Retrieved from http://www.webcitation.org/6MpROYx6t
31.
PayneG.PayneJ. (2004). Key concepts in social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32.
PolcinD. L. (2006). What about sober living houses for parolees?Criminal Justice Studies, 19, 291-300.
33.
PolcinD. L. (2015). How should we study residential recovery homes?Therapeutic Communities, 36, 163-172.
34.
PolcinD. L.HendersonD.TrockiK.EvansK.WittmanF. (2012). Community context of sober living houses. Addiction Research & Theory, 20, 480-491.
35.
PolcinD. L.KorchaR.BondJ.GallowayG. P. (2010a). Eighteen-month outcomes for clients receiving combined outpatient treatment and sober living houses. Journal of Substance Use, 15, 352-366.
36.
PolcinD. L.KorchaR.BondJ.GallowayG. P. (2010b). Sober living houses for alcohol and drug dependence: 18-month outcomes. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 38, 356-365.
37.
PolcinD. L.KorchaR.BondJ.GallowayG. P. (2010c). What did we learn from our study on sober living houses and where do we go from here?Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 42, 425-433.
38.
ReifS.GeorgeP.BraudeL.DoughertyR. H.DanielsA. S.GhoseS. S.Delphin-RittmonM. E. (2014). Recovery housing: Assessing the evidence. Psychiatric Services, 65, 295-300.
39.
RossS.LavisJ.RodriguezC.WoodsideJ.DenisJ.-L. (2003). Partnership experiences: Involving decision-makers in the research process. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 8(Suppl. 2), 26-34.
40.
SacksS.ChapleM.SacksJ. Y.McKendrickK.ClelandC. M. (2012). Randomized trial of a reentry modified therapeutic community for offenders with co-occurring disorders: Crime outcomes. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 42, 247-259.
41.
ScottC. K. (2004). A replicable model for achieving over 90% follow-up rates in longitudinal studies of substance abusers. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 74, 21-36.
42.
ScottC. K.DennisM. L.LaudetA.FunkR. R.SimeoneR. S. (2011). Surviving drug addiction: The effect of treatment and abstinence on mortality. American Journal of Public Health, 101, 737-744.
43.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2013). SAMHSA’s National Registry of Evidence-Based Programs and Practices. Retrieved from http://www.webcitation.org/6FPqQlEy4
44.
TroutmanD. (2014). My life as the developer of sober living homes: An experience report. International Journal of Self Help & Self Care, 8, 227-238.
45.
WittmanF. D.PolcinD. L. (2014). The evolution of peer run sober housing as a recovery resource for California communities. International Journal of Self Help & Self Care, 8, 157-187.
46.
YeY.KaskutasL. A. (2009). Using propensity scores to adjust for selection bias when assessing the effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous in observational studies. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 104, 56-64.
