A framework for integrating young peers in recovery into adolescent substance use prevention and early intervention.

Substance use among adolescents is associated with a range of negative outcomes and risk-taking behaviors. Identifying and intervening early is essential to reducing associated risks in adolescence and adulthood. New approaches are needed to equip youth-serving systems with tools to identify and respond to substance use. Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) has emerged as a promising public health framework and there is a growing research interest in effective adaptations for its use with adolescents. However, healthcare settings, schools, and other community-based settings are slow to adapt SBIRT, citing gaps in knowledge and capacity to deliver evidence-based substance use prevention and early intervention. Further, these settings and the surrounding communities often lack the treatment and other prevention and recovery support resources needed for youth who screen as high-risk. Integrating young adult peers with personal lived experience of substance use recovery may meet this practical need. By drawing upon their shared experiences and skills developed in recovery, young adult peers can provide developmentally appropriate screening and intervention support to youth - while also providing urgently needed skills and time to under resourced settings. This article describes the value of young adult peer roles in expanding youth substance use prevention and early intervention, and features Project Amp as an example. Project Amp was designed as an extended, four-session brief intervention for low to moderate risk adolescents, delivered by trained young adult peers. Project Amp draws on best practices from peer recovery support and prevention and early intervention approaches such as SBIRT.

Enhancing adolescent SBIRT with a peer-delivered intervention: An implementation study.

PURPOSE: Innovations in adolescent prevention and early intervention strategies are needed to curb early substance use and bring public health models to scale, such as Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT). Young adults in recovery may have an important role to play in delivering these innovations. However, clinics, schools, and community programs may face barriers when implementing new prevention and early intervention approaches in their settings. The purpose of this study is to examine the feasibility, barriers, and facilitators of Project Amp, an innovative, four-session prevention and early intervention model to enhance SBIRT for adolescents. METHODS: Three school-based programs and three health clinics were selected to implement SBIRT for adolescents and refer eligible adolescents (13-17 years old, moderate risk for substance use disorder) to the study intervention. Between three and six mentors (young adults, 18-28 years old, with lived experience of substance use recovery, also known as peers), were recruited at each site and trained in core skills to deliver the intervention. Study staff communicated with each setting throughout implementation and collected quantitative and qualitative data regarding facilitators and barriers to success. The qualitative data were analyzed to identify key strategies for success when implementing Project Amp. RESULTS: Across the six sites, 71 practitioners including physicians, nurses, social workers, and counselors, completed training in SBIRT and 30 mentors were hired and trained for the study. Twenty completed sessions with adolescent participants. A total of 1192 adolescents were screened using the CRAFFT. Of those screened, 139 (12%) were eligible, 51 eligible youth (37%) enrolled in the study, and 28 enrolled youth (55%) completed the intervention. Five of the six sites were successfully able to integrate the SBIRT-based Project Amp model into their workflow. Facilitators and barriers for implementation were identified related to three critical factors: recruitment, readiness, and sustainability. CONCLUSIONS: The Project Amp intervention can be conducted successfully in school and healthcare settings in conjunction with SBIRT, adding capacity to expand access to screening and early intervention in a developmentally appropriate way. However, the study yielded insights into adaptations for future implementation, such as a more streamlined model and centralized staff roles such as integrated roles for young peer mentors.

Organizational trauma-informed care: Associations with individual and agency factors.

In response to the growing awareness of the high rates of potentially traumatic experiences and their potential adverse impacts, health and human service providers have increasingly focused on implementing trauma-informed care (TIC). However, studies focusing on effective implementation have been limited. In this study, we explored the relationship of individual and agency characteristics to the level of organizational TIC. With data collected from a sample of 345 providers from 67 agencies, we used the TICOMETER, a brief measure of organizational TIC with strong psychometric properties, to determine these associations. We found weak relationships between individual factors and TICOMETER scores and stronger associations for agency-level factors. These included agency type, time since last trauma training, and involvement of service users. These findings highlight the importance of robust cultural changes, service user involvement at all levels of the organization, flattening power differentials, and providing ongoing experiential training. This analysis fills an important gap in our knowledge of how best to ensure agency-wide provision of TIC. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Bringing Recovery Housing to Scale in Ohio: Lessons Learned.

OBJECTIVE: States across the country are recognizing recovery housing, an abstinence-based living environment promoting recovery from alcohol and other drugs, as an important yet underrepresented choice within their housing and treatment continuums. However, strategies for bringing recovery housing to scale are not well known. Building upon broader quality improvement efforts in Ohio, this paper aims to identify barriers and facilitators to expanding recovery housing in Ohio by understanding the perspectives of relevant stakeholders. METHODS: We conducted 6 recovery housing program site visits; 24 semi-structured key informant interviews with state and national researchers, policy makers, and stakeholder groups; and 16 focus groups with administrators and staff, residents, and local stakeholders including housing developers, advocates, and county and city policy makers (n = 113). Focus groups were disaggregated by stakeholder membership and guided by separate interview protocols. Transcripts were coded and analyzed to identify primary themes. RESULTS: Most participants across stakeholder groups expressed a need to increase recovery housing supports within the state. Two facilitators and three barriers emerged as primary themes from the qualitative analysis. Facilitators included (1) the ability of recovery housing programs to identify, connect, and collaborate with other recovery housing programs and service systems, an approach that increased a program's ability to refer, accept new clients, learn about programmatic and financial supports, and advocate for a space within the services continuum, and (2) support from legislators and other local stakeholders to include recovery housing as a viable and necessary option. Barriers included (1) variations in recovery housing definitions, language, and understanding that limited recovery housing providers' ability to connect with one another and be eligible for different streams of support, (2) availability of funds and ability to access them, and (3) restrictions in federal, state, and local regulations and codes. CONCLUSIONS: 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.

The Role of Recovery Housing: Prioritizing Choice in Homeless Services.

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.

Parenting and homelessness: overview and introduction to the Special Section.

This overview of parenting and homelessness includes the characteristics and needs of families who are homeless, with a focus on the unique challenges faced by mothers, fathers, and children. In addition, the authors discuss how homeless families are narrowly defined based on the family members who present at shelters and other service programs. In order to fully support parents and their children as they exit homelessness, homeless service programs should consider the broader context of the nontraditional family system and support networks. The overview also includes common challenges to parenting while homeless, a summary of the articles in the Special Section, and recommendations for research, practice, and policy.