To examine the prevalence of social model philosophy in programs today and to study ways in which the philosophy may have eroded in recent years, a survey was mailed in 1998 to all state-licensed alcohol and drug residential programs in California (83% response rate). Analysis of the survey (Social Model Philosophy Scale, n=311) also identified specific ways in which social model programs differ from other types of programs such as medical/clinical model programs or therapeutic communities (e.g., by exhibiting more active 12-step community involvement). Results reveal that social model programs adhere decreasingly to social model principles in their philosophy and operation; for example, they now are more likely than not to keep complete case management files on all participants. Possible causes of this erosion, such as the growing dominance of managed care in the health-care world, are also discussed.
BarrowsD.The community orientation of social model and medical model recovery programs. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment15: 55–64, 1998.
2.
BoisC. and GrahamK.Assessment, case management and treatment planning. In: HowardB.M.HarrisonS.CarverV. and LightfootL. (eds.), Alcohol and Drug Problems: A Practical Guide for Counsellors. Toronto, Canada: Addiction Research Foundation, 1993, pp. 87–102.
3.
BorkmanT.A comparison of social model and clinical model services. In: ShawS. and BorkmanT. (eds.), Social Model Recovery; An Environmental Approach. Burbank, CA: Bridge Focus, 1990, pp. 45–52.
4.
BorkmanT.Understanding Self-Help/Mutual Aid: Experiential Learning in the Commons. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1999.
5.
BorkmanT.J.Is recovery planning any different from treatment planning?Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment15: 37–42, 1998.
6.
BorkmanT.J.KaskutasL.A. and BarrowsD.C.The Social Model Program: A Literature Review and History. Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, Department of Health and Human Services, 1996.
7.
BorkmanT.J.KaskutasL.A.RoomJ. and BarrowsD.An historical and developmental analysis of social model programs. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment15: 7–18, 1998.
8.
BorkmanT.J.KaskutasL.A.RoomJ.BryanK. and BarrowsD.Executive Summary of the Social Model Program: A Literature Review and Analysis. Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1997.
9.
California Association of Alcoholic Recovery Homes. Principles, guidelines, recommendations. Paper prepared for State of California, Office of Special Services, Alcohol Program Management, 1974.
10.
California Association of Alcoholic Recovery Homes. Accreditation for alcoholic recovery homes and other social model alcohol programs. Sacramento, CA: California Association of Alcoholic Recovery Homes, 1992.
11.
California Office of Alcohol Program Management. Program guidelines for alcoholic recovery homes. Sacramento: Health and Welfare Agency, Office of Program Management, 1974.
12.
CrawfordS.Experiential authority in a social model organization. Contemporary Drug Problems25: 807–829, 1998.
13.
Di MaggioP.J.Constructing an organizational field as a professional project: U.S. art museums, 1920–1940. In: PowellW.W. and Di MaggioP.J. (eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991, pp. 267–292.
14.
Di MaggioP.J. and PowellW.W.The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective reationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review48: 147–160, 1983.
15.
DillmanD.A.Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1978.
16.
Institute of Medicine. Broadening the Base of Treatment for Alcohol Problems. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1990.
17.
KaskutasL.A. (ed.). Special issue: The social model approach to substance abuse recovery. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment15: 5–6, 1998.
18.
KaskutasL.A.GreenfieldT.K.BorkmanT.J. and RoomJ.A.Measuring treatment philosophy: A scale for substance abuse recovery programs. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment15: 27–36, 1998a.
19.
KaskutasL.A.MarshD. and KohnA.Didactic and experiential education in substance abuse programs. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment15: 43–54, 1998b.
20.
KaskutasL.A.PirothK.V. and KarpR.C.A “day in the life” of residents and staff at one medical and two social model substance abuse treatment and recovery programs. Contemporary Drug Problems25: 665–710, 1998c.
21.
KellerJ.W.Measuring social model in California. California Association of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Counselors (CAADAC) annual conference, Bakersfield, September 24, 1998.
22.
LewisJ.NAADAC back in credentialing act. Alcoholism Report18(11): 1–2, 1990a.
23.
LewisJ.NAADAC responds to NCRC credentialing move. Alcoholism Report18(18): 6, 1990b.
24.
ReynoldsR. and RyanB.Policy implications of social model alcohol recovery services. In: ShawS. and BorkmanT. (eds.), Social Model Alcohol Recovery: An Environmental Approach. Burbank, CA: Bridge Focus, 1990, pp. 31–38.
25.
RoomJ.Program Philosophy Scale (PPS) Manual: Guidelines for scale administration and interpretation: Residential, non-residential & detoxification alcohol and drug programs. Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, 1996.
26.
RoomJ. (ed.). Substance abuse recovery: The social model approach (special issue). Contemporary Drug Problems25: 643–647, 1998.
27.
RoomJ.KaskutasL.A. and PirothK.A brief overview of the social model approach. Contemporary Drug Problems25: 649–664, 1998.
28.
SchmidtL. and WeisnerC.Developments in alcoholism treatment: A ten-year review. In: GalanterM. (ed.), Recent Developments in Alcoholism, Vol. 11. New York: Plenum, 1993, pp. 369–396.
29.
SchonlauK.Recovery homes: Development and operation. In: ShawS. and BorkmanT. (eds.), Social Model Alcohol Recovery: An Environmental Approach. Burbank, CA: Bridge Focus, 1990, pp. 67–74.
30.
ShawS.Recovery of a neighborhood recovery center. In: ShawS. and BorkmanT. (eds.), Social Model Alcohol Recovery: An Environmental Approach. Burbank, CA: Bridge Focus, 1990, pp. 145–156.
31.
ShawS. and BorkmanT. (eds.) Social Model Alcohol Recovery: An Environmental Approach. Burbank, CA: Bridge Focus, 1990.
32.
WrightA.Answering the Threat to Recovery Services and County Budgets. La Canada, CA: Al Wright & Associates, 1995.
