The Impact of AA on Non-Professional Substance Abuse Recovery Programs and Sober Living Houses

Chapter
Part of the Recent Developments in Alcoholism book series (RDIA, volume 18)

Abstract

In addition to being a widely used and effective approach for alcohol problems, AA has been central to the development of several types of non-professional recovery programs. Known as “social model recovery,” these programs were staffed by individuals in recovery and they encouraged program participants to become involved in AA as a way to address their drinking problems. In addition, they relied on the traditions, beliefs, and recovery practices of AA as a guide for managing and operating programs (e.g., democratic group processes, shared and rotated leadership, and experiential knowledge). This chapter reviews the philosophy, history, and recent changes in several types of these programs, along with a depiction of AA’s influence on them. Programs examined include neighborhood recovery centers, residential social model recovery programs, and two types of sober living houses: California Sober Living Houses and Oxford Houses. Recent outcome evaluations on both types of sober living houses are presented.

References

  1. 12 & 12. (1952). Twelve steps and twelve traditions. New York: Alcoholics Anonymous World Services.Google Scholar
  2. Barrows, D. C. (1998). The community orientations of social model and medical model recovery programs. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment,15(1), 55–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borkman, T. (1982). Third generation mutual self-help organizations: Social model alcoholism recovery programs. Paper presented at Southern Sociological Society Annual Meeting, April 15, Memphis, TennesseeGoogle Scholar
  4. Borkman, T. (1983). A Social-Experiential Model in Programs for Alcoholism Recovery: A Research Report on a New Treatment Design. Rockville, MD: National Institute for Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, DHHS Publ. No. (ADM) 83–1259.Google Scholar
  5. Borkman, T. (1986). The alcohol services reporting system (ASRS) revision study report. Prepared under Contract no. A-0097-4 for the Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs, Health and Welfare Agency, State of California.Google Scholar
  6. Borkman, T. (1990). A Comparison of social model and clinical model services. In S. Shaw, & T. Borkman (Eds.), Social model alcohol recovery: An environmental approach (pp. 45–56). Burbank, Calif.: Bridge Focus.Google Scholar
  7. Borkman, T. (1998a). Resident self-governance in social model recovery programs. Contemporary Drug Problems, 25(4), 741–771.Google Scholar
  8. Borkman, T. (1998b). Is recovery planning any different from treatment planning? Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 15(1), 37–42.Google Scholar
  9. Borkman, T. (2007). AA and two sober house systems: Work-in-Progress. Paper presented at seminar in Hauser Center for Nonprofit Studies, Harvard University, April 30.Google Scholar
  10. Borkman, T., Kaskutas, L. A., & Owens, P. (2007). Contrasting and converging philosophies of three models of alcohol/other drugs treatment: Minnesota model, social model, and addiction therapeutic communities. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly, 25(3), 21–38.Google Scholar
  11. Borkman, T. J., Kaskutas, L. A., Room, J., Bryan, K., & Barrows, D. (1998). An historical and developmental analysis of social model programs. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 15(1), 7–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gerstein, D. R., Johnson, R. A., Harwood, H. J., Fountain, D., Sutter, N., & Malloy, K. (1994). Evaluating recovery services: The California drug and alcohol treatment assessment (Contract No. 92-001100). Sacramento: California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs.Google Scholar
  13. Institute of Medicine (1990). Broadening the base of treatment for alcohol problems. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  14. Jason, L. A., Davis, M. I., Ferrari, J. R., & Anderson, E. (2007). The need for substance abuse after-care: Longitudinal analysis of Oxford House. Addictive Behaviors, 32, 803–818.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jason, L., Ferrari, J., Davis, M., & Olson, B. (2006a). Creating communities for addiction recovery. New York: Haworth Press.Google Scholar
  16. Jason, L. A., Olson, B. D., Ferrari, J. R., & Lo Sasso, A. T. (2006b). Communal housing settings enhance substance abuse recovery. American Journal of Public Health, 91, 1727–1729. Google Scholar
  17. Kaskutas, L. A. (1999, April). The social model approach to substance abuse recovery: A program of research and evaluation. Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, Rockville, MD.Google Scholar
  18. Kaskutas, L. A., Ammon, L., & Weisner, C. (2003–2004). A naturalistic comparison of outcomes at social and clinical model substance abuse treatment programs, International Journal of Self Help and Self Care, 2(2), 111–133.Google Scholar
  19. Kaskutas, L. A., Greenfield, T. K., Borkman, T. J., & Room, J. A. (1998). Measuring treatment philosophy: A scale for substance abuse recovery programs. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 15, 27–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kaskutas, L. A., Keller, J. W., & Witbrodt, J. (1999). Measuring social model in California: how much has changed? Contemporary Drug Problems, 26, 607–632Google Scholar
  21. Kaskutas, L. A., & McLellan, A. T. (1998). Special issue: The social model approach to substance abuse recovery. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 15(1), 5–6.Google Scholar
  22. Kaskutas, L. A., Witbrodt, J., & French, T. (2004). Outcomes and costs of day hospital treatment and nonmedical day treatment for chemical dependency. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 65(3), 371–382.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Matthews, R. A., & Weiss, H. L. (1990) Alcoholism as a social disease: the community model of alcohol problems. In S. Shaw & T. Borkman (Eds.), Social model alcohol recovery: An environmental approach (pp. 169–188), Burbank, CA: Bridge Focus, Inc.Google Scholar
  24. Nealon-Woods, M. A., Ferrari, J. R., & Jason, L. A. (1995). Twelve-step program use among Oxford House Residents: Spirituality or social support in sobriety? Journal of Substance Abuse, 7(3), 311–318.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. O’Neill, J. V. (1990). History of Oxford House, Inc. In S. Shaw, & T. Borkman (Eds.), Social model alcohol recovery: An environmental approach (pp. 103–117), Burbank, CA: Bridge Focus, Inc.Google Scholar
  26. Oxford House Inc. (2006, September). Oxford House Manual, Silver Spring, MD: Oxford House, Inc.Google Scholar
  27. Polcin, D.L. (2001). Sober Living Houses: Potential roles in substance abuse services and suggestions for research. Substance Use and Misuse, 36(2), 301–311.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Polcin, D. L. (2006). What about Sober Living Houses for parolees? Criminal Justice Studies: A Critical Journal of Crime Law and society, 19(3): 291–300.Google Scholar
  29. Polcin, D. L. (2006, October). Sober Living Houses after, during, and as an Alternative to Treatment. Oral presentation delivered at the Addiction Health Services Research (AHSR) Conference: Understanding the Community Perspective, Little Rock, Arkansas, October 23–25.Google Scholar
  30. Polcin, D. L., Galloway, G. P., Taylor, K., & Benowitz-Fredericks (2004). Why we need to study sober living houses. Counselor: The Magazine for Addiction Professionals, 5(5), 36–45.Google Scholar
  31. Polcin, D. L., & Henderson, D. (2008). A clean and sober place to live: Philosophy, structure, and purported therapeutic factors in sober living houses. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 40(2), 153–160.Google Scholar
  32. Polcin, D. L., Prindle, S., & Bostrom, A. (2002). Integrating social model principles into broad based treatment: Results of a program evaluation. American Journal of Alcohol and Drug Abuse, 28, 585–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Room, J. (1998) Special issue: Qualitative research on the social model approach. Contemporary Drug Problems, 25(4), 643–647.Google Scholar
  34. Room. J., Kaskutas, L. A., Piroth, K. V. (1998) Brief overview of the social model approach. Contemporary Drug Problems, 25(4), 649–663.Google Scholar
  35. Schonlau, K. (2004, April). Sober and congregate living: Definitions of two types. Santa Monica, CA: The Sober Living Network.Google Scholar
  36. Shaw, S., & Borman, T. (Eds.). (1990). Social model alcohol recovery: An environmental approach, Burbank, CA: Bridge Focus, Inc.Google Scholar
  37. Toffler, A. (1980). Future shock. New York: Bantam.Google Scholar
  38. White, B., & Kurtz, E. (2008). Twelve defining moments in the history of alcoholics anonymous. In M. Galanter, & Kaskutas, L. A. (Eds.), Alcoholism research: Alcoholics Anonymous and spirituality (Vol. 18). New York, NY: Springer Publishing.Google Scholar
  39. Witbrodt, J., et al. (2007). Day hospital and residential addiction treatment: Randomized and nonrandomized managed care clients. Journal of Clinical and Consulting Psychology, 75(6), 947–959.Google Scholar
  40. Wittman, F. D. (1990) Settings for social model programs. In S. Shaw, & T. Borkman (Eds.), Social model alcohol recovery: An environmental approach (pp. 57–65), Burbank, CA: Bridge Focus, Inc.Google Scholar
  41. Wittman, F. D. (1993). Affordable housing for people with alcohol and other drug problems. Contemporary Drug Problems, 20(3), 541–609.Google Scholar
  42. Wittman, F. D., Biderman, F., & Hughes, L. (Eds.). (1993). Sober living guidebook for alcohol and drug free housing. California, CA: Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs, ADP 92-0248.Google Scholar
  43. Wright. A. (1990). Los Angeles County’s alcohol – free living centers: Long term, low cost sober housing. In S. Shaw, & T. Borkman (Eds.), Social model recovery: An environmental approach (pp. 119–128). Burbank, CA: Bridge Focus Inc.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Alcohol Research GroupPublic Health InstituteEmeryvilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of Sociology & AnthropologyGeorge Mason UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations