Advancing the science of evaluating Collegiate Recovery Program processes and outcomes: A recovery capital perspective.

Collegiate recovery programs (CRPs) offer resources and programming for postsecondary students in addiction recovery to ensure they can initiate or maintain their recovery and complete college. To achieve these goals, CRPs offer a variety of activities that research and theory suggests should produce positive outcomes among their students; yet the lack of systematic evaluation research in this area means it is unknown which programming components may drive outcomes. Recovery capital theory posits a variety of factors at multiple ecological levels that might influence students' recovery experience and their engagement and success in community programs like CRPs. To address this complexity in research and evaluation work on CRPs, we provide a recovery capital-oriented theory of change and logic model for CRP evaluations, and demonstrate how this model could be used with an exemplar case. This is followed by a recovery capital-oriented data collection toolkit for future research and evaluation. These efforts should help to inform program planners and evaluators interested in understanding the influence of the ecosystem of recovery-oriented systems of care in CRPs for emerging adults.

A multi-site study of emerging adults in collegiate recovery programs at public institutions.

BACKGROUND: Collegiate Recovery Programs (CRPs) are campus-based support programs for substance use and recovery needs among college students. These CRPs utilize a variety of program activities and components aimed at promoting healthy development and sobriety while encouraging college retention among participants. OBJECTIVES: Describe the types of activities and administrative structures used in CRPs, examine the characteristics of students involved in this sample, and explore changes in students' outcomes after they have enrolled in a CRP. METHODS: This multi-site study collected de-identified data from six CRPs on participating students' sociodemographic characteristics, academic performance, substance use, and socioemotional well-being. One CRP administrator from each participating site completed a survey on CRP programming. Data were harmonized across sites and descriptively summarized. RESULTS: Participating CRPs had been in operation since 2007 to 2012. Five of the six sites provided individual-level student data for a total of 861 students (56% male, 89% White, 91% undergraduate). Student histories indicated the majority had received treatment for a substance use disorder (82%) or mental health concern (77%), 56% had criminal justice involvement, and the majority were in recovery less than five years. Student GPA improved in three of the four sites that provided student GPA data. CONCLUSIONS: CRPs collect diverse types of data on participating students, but more effort is needed to focus on systematic data collection. Findings from this study suggest that CRPs play an important role in providing needed services for this vulnerable population of college students.