Mapping COVID vulnerability in relation to drug and alcohol recovery residence availability across the United States.

Recovery housing is an important resource for those in recovery from substance use disorders. Unfortunately, we know little about its relationship to key community health risk and protective factors, potentially limiting the role it could play as a broader health resource. Leveraging county-level data on recovery residences from the National Study of Treatment and Addiction Recovery Residences (NSTARR), this study used multilevel modeling to examine Community COVID Vulnerability Index (CCVI) scores as well as availability of COVID testing and vaccination sites in relation to recovery housing. CCVI composite scores were positively associated with recovery housing availability. Analyses using CCVI thematic sub-scores found that population density and number of churches were positively associated with recovery housing availability, while epidemiological factors and healthcare system factors were negatively associated with recovery housing availability. In counties with recovery housing, there also was a positive association between CCVI and both COVID testing and vaccination availability. Recovery residences tend to be located in areas of high COVID vulnerability, reflecting effective targeting in areas with higher population density, more housing risk factors, and other high-risk environments and signaling a key point of contact to address broader health issues among those in recovery from substance use disorders.

Assessing Technical Assistance Needs among Recovery Residence Operators in the United States.

Recovery support services such as recovery housing assist individuals with increasing their access to social support, employment services, and systems of care. Lack of evidence-based practices and calls for increased oversight of these settings suggests a growing need for technical assistance and training for recovery residence owners and staff, yet little is known about their areas of greatest need for technical assistance. We developed and administered a survey to assess the technical assistance needs of recovery housing operators in the United States using a convenience sample of individuals who own or operate a recovery residence (N = 376). A total of 77 owners/operators completed the survey (20% response rate), representing urban, suburban, and rural communities. Differences were observed between number of owned residences: owners/operators of a single residence were interested in technical assistance on house-specific policies and linkage to established systems of care, whereas owners/operators of multiple residences were interested in technical assistance on building financial sustainability and incorporation of best practices into their recovery residences. As an increasing number of states move to implement voluntary certification or licensing for recovery residences, targeted training and technical assistance to owners/operators will facilitate the successful adoption of recovery residence best practices and quality standards.

Understanding challenges for recovery homes during COVID-19.

Understanding the effects of COVID-19 mitigation for persons in group living environments is of critical importance to limiting the spread of the virus. In the U.S., residential recovery homes for persons with alcohol and drug disorders are good examples of high-risk environments where virus mitigation procedures are essential. The National Alliance for Recovery Residences (NARR) has taken recommendations developed by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and applied them to recovery home settings. This paper describes how COVID-19 mitigation efforts in recovery homes may be influenced by two factors. First, while some houses are licensed by states with rigorous health and safety standards, others are not licensed and are subject to less oversight. These homes may be more inconsistent in adhering to mitigation standards. Second, to varying degrees, recovery homes use a social model approach to recovery that contrasts with mitigation procedures such as social distancing and stay-at-home orders. This paper provides examples of ways recovery homes have been forced to adjust to the competing demands of mitigation efforts and social model recovery. The paper also identifies multiple questions that could be addressed by provider-researcher coalitions to inform how social model recovery can navigate forward during the era of COVID-19. As we move forward during the era of COVID-19, providers are encouraged to remember that recovery homes have a history of resilience facing adversity and in fact have their origins in grassroots responses to the challenges of their times.

Sheltering in place and social distancing when the services provided are housing and social support: The COVID-19 health crisis and recovery housing.

Recovery housing is a vital service for individuals with substance use disorders who need both recovery support and safe housing. Recovery housing is a residential service, and it relies heavily on social support provided by peers both within the residence and in outside mutual help groups. As such, efforts to keep residents safe from SARS CoV-2, the virus that causes the illness COVID-19, pose a number of challenges to social distancing. Further, residents are some of the more vulnerable individuals in recovery. They are more likely to have co-occurring health conditions that place them at risk for COVID-19, and they often have risk factors such as employment in low-wage jobs that increase their potential for negative economic impacts of the pandemic. Since most recovery housing operates outside formal substance use treatment, residents who pay out-of-pocket for services largely support these residences. Comprehensive support for those using, as well as those providing and ensuring the quality of recovery housing, is needed to ensure the viability of recovery housing.

Supporting individuals using medications for opioid use disorder in recovery residences: challenges and opportunities for addressing the opioid epidemic.

Full and partial opioid agonists and opioid antagonist medications play an important role in containing the opioid epidemic. However, these medications have not been used to their full extent. Recovery support services, such as recovery residences (RRs), also play a key role. RRs may increase an individual's recovery capital, facilitate social support for abstinence, and foster a sense of community among residents. These processes may be critical for individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD). In combination these two recovery pathways have the potential to enhance one another and improve outcomes among residents with OUD. Barriers to doing so have resulted in a limited supply of residences that can support residents using opioid agonist and antagonist medications. This perspective describes key interpersonal and structural barriers to medication use among individuals with an OUD seeking support from a recovery residence and discusses measures for reducing these barriers. These measures include workforce development to address stigma and attitudinal barriers and enhancing residence capability to ensure resident safety and reduce potential diversion. The perspective also highlights the need for additional research to facilitate the identification of best practices to improve outcomes among residents treated with medications living in recovery residences.

The Architecture of Recovery: Two Kinds of Housing Assistance for Chronic Homeless Persons with Substance Use Disorders.

PURPOSE: Roughly half a million persons in the United States are homeless on any given night and over a third of those individuals have significant alcohol/other drug (AOD) problems. Many are chronically homeless and in need of assistance for a variety of problems. However, the literature on housing services for this population has paid limited attention to comparative analyses contrasting different approaches. APPROACH: We examined the literature on housing models for homeless persons with AOD problems and critically analyzed how service settings and operations aligned with service goals. FINDINGS: We found two predominant housing models that reflect different service goals: Sober Living Houses (SLHs) and Housing First (HF). SLHs are communally based living arrangements that draw on the principles of Alcoholics Anonymous. They emphasize a living environment that promotes abstinence and peer support for recovery. HF is based on the premise that many homeless persons with substance abuse problems will reject abstinence as a goal. Therefore, the HF focus is providing subsidized or free housing and optional professional services for substance abuse, psychiatric disorders and other problems. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: If homeless service providers are to develop comprehensive systems for homeless persons with AOD problems, they need to consider important contrasts in housing models, including definitions of "recovery," roles of peer support, facility management, roles for professional service, and the architectural designs that support the mission of each type of housing. ORIGINALITY: This paper is the first to consider distinct consumer choices within homeless service systems and provide recommendations to improve each based upon an integrated analysis that considers how architecture and operations align with service goals.

Maximizing social model principles in residential recovery settings.

Peer support is integral to a variety of approaches to alcohol and drug problems. However, there is limited information about the best ways to facilitate it. The "social model" approach developed in California offers useful suggestions for facilitating peer support in residential recovery settings. Key principles include using 12-step or other mutual-help group strategies to create and facilitate a recovery environment, involving program participants in decision making and facility governance, using personal recovery experience as a way to help others, and emphasizing recovery as an interaction between the individual and their environment. Although limited in number, studies have shown favorable outcomes for social model programs. Knowledge about social model recovery and how to use it to facilitate peer support in residential recovery homes varies among providers. This article presents specific, practical suggestions for enhancing social model principles in ways that facilitate peer support in a range of recovery residences.

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

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 neighbourhood 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 neighbourhoods. 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 stigmatisation by neighbours; 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 neighbours whose family or friends had substance use problems, and organising community service activities to improve the appearance of their neighbourhoods. 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.