Recovery Housing: Assessing the Evidence

Reif, Sharon; George, Preethy; Braude, Lisa; Dougherty, Richard H.; Daniels, Allen S.; Ghose, Sushmita Shoma; Delphin-Rittmon, Miriam E.

doi:10.1176/appi.ps.201300243

Cited by 53 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Research on recovery housing is promising, though there has been limited formal study of the model to date (Reif et al, 2014). Existing studies show positive outcomes including decreased substance use and incarceration and increased employment and income (Jason, Davis, Ferrari, & Anderson, 2007).…”

Section: What Is Recovery Housing?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Additionally, peer support enhances motivation and a sense of responsibility, as reported by the majority of residents and alumni (Jason, Aase, Mueller, & Ferrari, 2009). However, these positive findings are tempered by limitations in the research, including a lack of consistency in defining recovery housing program elements, small samples and single-site evaluations, and by small number of studies overall (Reif et al, 2014).…”

Section: What Is Recovery Housing?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Role of Recovery Housing: Prioritizing Choice in Homeless Services

Paquette

Winn

2016

Journal of Dual Diagnosis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Housing options for people exiting homelessness and seeking recovery from substance use disorders are limited. Policies tend to favor low-demand models such as housing first and permanent supportive housing that do not require abstinence, but offer immediate housing placement based on consumer choice and separate housing from clinical services. While these models have proven effective in promoting housing retention, especially among individuals with a primary diagnosis of mental illness, evidence to support positive outcomes related to people with a primary or co-occurring substance use disorder are mixed. Recovery housing models provide abstinence-focused environments and integrated peer support embedded within a recovery framework. Various models exist along a continuum from fully peer-run to clinically staffed residences. However, this continuum is typically separate from the homeless services system, and many barriers to integration persist. Recent national dialogues have begun to explore opportunities to integrate housing and substance use recovery approaches to meet the needs of people who need both types of support. This perspective paper argues that recovery housing is essential for supporting some homeless individuals and families. Within a comprehensive continuum based on choice, both recovery housing and low-demand models can support housing retention, reduce homelessness, promote recovery, and foster self-determination.

show abstract

Section: What Is Recovery Housing?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: What Is Recovery Housing?mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Recovery Housing: Prioritizing Choice in Homeless Services

Paquette

Winn

2016

Journal of Dual Diagnosis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Social support, such as that provided through 12-step program participation and social network support for sobriety, a key component of recovery housing, has been shown to directly affect recovery outcomes, including the probability of relapse (Jason et al, 2007;Polcin, Mericle, Howell, Sheridan, & Christensen, 2014;Bond, Kaskutas, & Weisner, 2003;Moos & Moos, 2006;Zywiak, Longabaugh, & Wirtz, 2002). However, due to the lack of a formal definition of recovery housing and a wide variety of models, evaluation is difficult and research gaps remain (Reif et al, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bringing Recovery Housing to Scale in Ohio: Lessons Learned

Winn

Paquette

2016

Journal of Dual Diagnosis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although recovery housing is limited and has not been integrated into many housing and treatment continuums, there is growing consensus about its importance for various subpopulations. Developing consistent definitions, program models, funding streams, networks of recovery housing providers, and collaborations among recovery-oriented systems of care will reduce misperceptions and enhance the likelihood that recovery housing will be expanded.

show abstract

“…As such, we might expect fewer benefits from variably applied contingencies in heterogeneous community-based housing programs compared to the tightly controlled evidence-based abstinent-contingent housing programs as implemented in research studies (e.g., Milby et al, 1996; 2000; 2005; Tuten et al, 2012). Despite variabilities in program policies and contingencies, substance abusers in alcohol- and drug-free housing programs appear to benefit from participating in housing programs in terms of abstinence and psychosocial improvements (e.g., Jason et al, 2006; Jason et al, 2007b; Polcin, 2009; Polcin et al, 2010ab), and a recent meta-analysis of these programs (Reif et al, 2014) found moderate benefits of recovery housing relative to usual aftercare treatment (i.e., without housing) in terms of drug and alcohol use outcomes and some psychosocial domains.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Substance Abuse Treatment Patients in Housing Programs Respond to Contingency Management Interventions

Rash¹,

Alessi²,

Petry³

2017

Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Use of homeless and transitional housing (e.g., recovery homes) programs can be associated with success in substance abuse treatment, perhaps because many of these programs encourage or mandate sobriety. In this study, we examined whether contingency management (CM) protocols that use tangible incentives for submission of drug-free specimens or other specific behaviors are effective for treatment-seeking substance abusers whose behavior may also be shaped by housing programs. Of 355 participants in randomized trials of CM, 56 (16%) reported using transitional housing during the 12-week treatment period. Main and interaction effects of housing status and treatment condition were evaluated for the primary substance abuse treatment outcomes: a) longest duration of abstinence from alcohol, cocaine, and opioids, b) percentage of samples submitted that were negative for these substances, and c) treatment retention. After controlling for demographic and clinical characteristics, those who accessed housing programs submitted a higher percentage of negative samples (75%) compared to those who did not access housing programs (67%). Housing status groups did not differ in terms of longest duration of abstinence (accessed housing: M = 3.1 weeks, SE = 0.6; did not access housing: M = 3.9 weeks, SE = 0.3) or retention in substance abuse treatment (accessed housing: M = 6.4 weeks, SE = 0.6; did not access housing: M = 6.6 weeks, SE = 0.3). Regardless of housing status, CM was associated with longer durations of abstinence and treatment retention. No interactive effects of housing and treatment condition were observed (p > .05). Results suggest that those who accessed housing programs during substance abuse treatment benefit from CM to a comparable degree as their peers who did not use such programs. These effects suggest that CM remains appropriate for those accessing housing in community-based programs.

show abstract

Recovery Housing: Assessing the Evidence

Abstract: Recovery housing appears to be an important component in the continuum of care for some individuals. However, replication of study findings with greater specificity and in more settings is needed.

Cited by 53 publications

References 15 publications

The Role of Recovery Housing: Prioritizing Choice in Homeless Services

The Role of Recovery Housing: Prioritizing Choice in Homeless Services

Bringing Recovery Housing to Scale in Ohio: Lessons Learned

Substance Abuse Treatment Patients in Housing Programs Respond to Contingency Management Interventions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About