From personal tragedy to personal challenge: responses to stigma among sober living home residents and operators

Abstract

Sober living homes for people attempting to maintain abstinence from alcohol and drugs can act as a buffer against the high rates of substance misuse that are endemic to many urban environments. Sober living homes and other group homes for people with disabilities have faced persistent opposition from neighborhood associations, which raises the question of stigma. This article describes the responses of sober living home residents and operators to the threat of stigma across a diverse set of neighborhoods. Ten focus groups were conducted with 68 residents and operators of 35 sober living homes in Los Angeles County, California, between January 2009 and March 2010. Results showed that few residents reported experiences of blatant stigmatization by neighbors; however, they were well aware of the stereotypes that could be ascribed to them. Despite this potential stigma, residents developed valued identities as helpers in their communities, providing advice to neighbors whose family or friends had substance use problems, and organizing community service activities to improve the appearance of their neighborhoods. With their attention to local context, sober living home residents and operators challenge the personal tragedy approach of much traditional advocacy on health-related stigma.

Maximizing Social Model Principles in Residential Recovery Settings

“…Community resistance occurs despite documentation that recovery residences do not decrease property values or increase crime (American Planning Association 2003). In addition, research on level I and level II residences show they enjoy supportive relationships with neighbors (Heslin, Singzon, Aimiuwu, Sheridan & Hamilton 2012; Polcin et al 2012; Jason, Roberts & Olson 2005). These studies show when neighbors are familiar with the recovery homes in their neighborhoods and the residents who live there they tend to be more supportive.…”

“…Examples of such interaction include dissemination of information about the goals and operation of recovery residences, advice to persons in the community who have family or friends suffering from addictive disorders, education about addiction and recovery more broadly, and encouraging house residents to volunteer for community service activities (neighborhood clean-up, holiday events, etc.) (Heslin, et al 2012; Polcin et al 2012). Interaction of recovery homes and recovery home organizations with surrounding communities is another example of how social model dynamics need to occur as parallel processes across different levels of social interaction, including residents, staff and managers, and the larger community.…”

Housing Stigmatization: A General Theory

“…Take, for example, the persistence of prejudice against SROs and their residents (Dear & Taylor, 1982;Dear & Wolch, 1987;Derksen, 2017;Freeman, 2017;Harris, 1992). Similar patterns of prejudice, whether interpersonal, community-based, or formal-legal have been delineated across research on SROs, sober houses, group homes, and mobile homes (Crystal & Beck, 1992;Grant, Derksen, & Ramos, 2019;Heslin, Singzon, Aimiuwu, Sheridan, & Hamilton, 2012;Kusenbach, 2009;Mifflin & Wilton, 2005). This sometimes infuses battles over municipal zoning, where the 'saturation' of a particular housing type is rhetorically deployed to propose desaturation through zoning as a means of destigmatization (Finkler & Grant, 2011;Horgan, 2018).…”

Role of recovery residences in criminal justice reform

“…Resistance to recovery residences occurs in spite of data dispelling the notion that recovery homes are associated with decreases in property values or increases in crime (American Planning Association, 2003; Deaner, Jason, Aase, & Mueller, 2009). Studies of level I and II residences show they are perceived good neighbors (Heslin et al 2012; Jason et al, 2008; Polcin, Henderson, Trocki, Evans, & Wittman, 2012). It is noteworthy that these studies show when neighbors are familiar with the recovery homes in their neighborhoods and with the residents who live there, they tend to be supportive.…”