!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!P.!O.!Box!6448!!Reno,!NV!89513!•!Phone:!760:815:3515!•!staciemathewson@me.com!!

Title&Below&please&list&the&title&of&this&resource.&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&!Collegiate!Recovery!Communities:!Student!membership!and!preliminary!outcomes!!Author&Below&please&list&the&author(s)&of&this&resource."

!Amanda!K.!Baker,!Alexandre!Laudet,!and!Kitty!S.!Harris!!Citation&Below&please&cite&this&resource&in&APA&style.&For&guidance&on&citation&format,&please&visit&

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/&

!Baker,!A.!Laudet,!A.,!&!Harris,!K.!(2011).!Collegiate!Recovery!Communities’!Student!! !

! membership!and!prospective!outcomes.!Oral!presentation!at!the!73rd!Annual!Meeting!of!the!College!on!! Problems!of!Drug!Dependence!(CPDD).!Hollywood,!FL,!June!18:23.!

!Summary&Below&please&provide&a&brief&summary&of&this&resource.&If&an&abstract&is&available,&feel&free&to&copy&and&paste&it&here.&

!This!Power!Point!slide!deck!from!the!73rd!Annual!Meeting!of!College!on!Problems!of!Drug!Dependence!reviews!the!work!funded!by!HRSA!D1DHP20055A0.!The!deck!defines!collegiate!recovery!communities!and!describes!the!recent!growth!in!the!number!of!programs.!The!deck!outlines!the!researchers!study!objectives!to!collect!pilot!data!to!inform!the!development!of!hypothesis:driven!large:scale!evaluations!of!collegiate!recovery!communities.!Specifically!the!study!looks!to!describe!students!served!by!CRC’s,!examine!psychosocial!functioning,!and!identify!life!stage/context!specific!predictors!of!relapse!rate.!The!methods!for!this!research!are!elaborated!on!and!preliminary!results!are!explored.!The!preliminary!findings!suggest!that!these!programs!attract!young!men!and!women!who!have!had!severe!addictions!and!in!their!sobriety!have!decided!to!pursue!academic!goals.!These!programs!retain!students!for!multiple!semesters!and!are!an!attraction!for!students.!Implications!for!the!research!are!discussed!in!the!final!section!and!include,!but!are!not!limited!to!shifts!in!national!policy,!calls!for!research,!and!the!knowledge!needed!to!develop!a!rigorous!CRC!effectiveness!study.!!Categorization&Below,&please&select&the&key&words&that&describe&how&this&resource&applies&to&our&research&on&thriving&collegiate&

recovery.&If&the&keywords&below&do&not&apply,&please&select&‘other’&and&list&the&appropriate&key&word.&

"X"Success"in"Established"Collegiate"Recovery"Programs""Success"in"Established"Recovery;Oriented"Systems"of"Care""Asset;Based"Research/Methodology""General"Recovery"Assets""Interpersonal"Assets""Intrapersonal"Assets""Community;Based"Assets"X"History"of"Recovery""Other:"______________________________________"

Amanda K. Baker, Texas TechAlexandre B. Laudet, NDRIKitty S. Harris, Texas Tech

College on Problems of Drug Dependence (CPDD) June 2011

Collegiate Recovery Communities: Student membership and

preliminary outcomes

Acknowledgements and Disclosures

Funded by HRSA D1DHP20055A0

The authors have no financial relationships related to the topic of this presentation.

BackgroundHigh prevalence of drug and alcohol use and of substance use disorders (SUD) among youths 15-251

High post treatment relapse rates2

Continuum of care system for youths is under-developed and less than a third access available aftercare3,4

College attendance is a gate to opportunity but a constant threat to sobriety  for  students  in  remission  from  AUD  (‘in  recovery’)

College  students  in  recovery  described  as  ‘hidden  group’  in  terms  of  research and awareness of college personnel5

Experts call for comprehensive campus-based infrastructure to support recovering students6

Collegiate Recovery Communities

Independently started and operated (Brown U, Rutgers, Texas Tech) since  the  mid  1980’s

Aim to provide comprehensive campus-based approach to building a supportive recovery community for recovering students to enhance educational opportunities while supporting continued recovery

Sober housing optionsOn site 12 step and other peer support meetingsCounseling by small staff (2-4)Typically emphasize peer support and 12-step principles

Program records show positive results: relapse rates <15% per semester, GPAs and graduation rates exceeding that of general student body

Rapid growth of Collegiate Recovery Communities

In  the  past  decade…

Growing concern about substance use on college campus

Increased recognition of the need for continuing care for SUD affected individuals

Federal  agencies’  increased  emphasis  on  recovery  supports

Growth of CRCs 1983-201121 CRCs in 13 states serving 625 students + 8 programs enrolling students for Fall 2011 representing a 5-fold increase in number of programs since 2000

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Collegiate Recovery Communities (continued)

Rapid growth underlines need for such services

Programs start independently

Programs share mission but differ on key dimensions that may affect student outcomes – e.g., range and comprehensiveness of services, entry and participation requirements, level of supervision. Lack of formal standards and systematic evaluation cited as obstacles to wider disseminationFederal agencies (U.S. Department of Education 2011, ONDCP 2010 Drug Strategy) call for prospective studies on CRC student outcomesNeither CRCs nor their students ever systematically examined in spite of their potential to contribute to underdeveloped continuum of care system for youths

Study Objectives

To Collect pilot data to inform the development of hypothesis -driven large scale evaluations of the CRCs. Specifically:

1. Describe students served by CRC

2. Examine psychosocial functioning

3. Identify life stage/context specific predictors of relapse risk

MethodsData collected during Fall semester 2010

Convenience sample of 5 sites

Individual  institutions’  IRB  reviewed/approved  the  protocol

Survey introduced to students by the program directors of each site.

Self-administered survey consisting of standardized scales to assess summary of substance use history and current functioning domains associated with relapse and sustained abstinence

Participation based on Informed consent

Participants were entered in a sweepstake for a chance to win a $100 prize at each CRC site

148 CRC students completed the survey (79% participation)

The CRC Survey Sample by Site (N = 148)

Augsburg, MN9%

Kennesaw, GA 18%

Texas Tech 36%

Tulsa Com Coll14%

Georgia Southern23%

CRC Student Descriptives

Female 48%

Caucasian 88%

Age (Mdn) 23.2 yrs old, St. Dev. 4.51 yrs

Academic rankFreshman 20%Junior 33%Sophomore 25%Senior 22%

Semesters in CRC (Mdn) 3.1 (St. Dev. 2.29, range = 1-12)

Why every college should want a CRC……..

Found out about college’s availability of campus-based recovery support before enrolling

No36%

Yes64%

Importance of recovery support on campus to decision to enroll (among ‘yes’ to previous question: N= 102)

11%

9%

19%61%

Not at all important

Slightly Important but otherissues were more important

Somewhat Important, but wouldhave enrolled anyway

Very Important. Would NOThave enrolled here without

Why every college should want a CRC……..

43% OF CRC MEMBERS (i.e., 62 STUDENTS out of 148) ENROLLED IN THEIR UNIVERSITY BECAUSE IT HAD A CRC AND WOULD NOTHAVE ENROLLED THERE (and paid tuition there) OTHERWISE

Drug and alcohol use and consequences

ALCOHOL DRUGS

Ever used 98.6% 98.6%

Duration D&A abstinence (Mean months) 33.5 30.03

% abstinent less than one year 18.3% 22.5%

Ever stopped by police or arrested>5 times 45.2%

The CRC Membership: Addictions

86.547.9

85.8

45.7

0 20 40 60 80 100

Alcohol

Drugs

None

Secondary pbPrimary pb.Problem(s)

The CRC Membership: Physical and Behavioral Health Services Utilization History

PHYSICAL MENTAL D&A

EVER treated for 47.3%* 88.4% 90.4%

PAST  90  days…Emergency room 11.2% 1.4% 2.8%Hospital/Inpatient 3.5 1.4 11.3Outpatient/counseling 3.5 14.1 14.2Medications 14.0 26.4 1.4

* 5 or more times in a hospital or emergency room

Psychosocial Functioning

Scale range Mean St Dev.

Relapse risk (AWARE scale) 1-7 2.45 .63 MDepression (CDC scale) 0-3 .66 .51 LStress past 90 days (Gain Q)) 0-10 3.85 2.45 L/MPerceived Harm of Past Use (Primary 1-5 4.2 1.04 H

Appraisal scale: PAM)Perceived Harm of Future Use (PAM) 2-10 9.28 1.47 H Recovery support (Laudet scale) 1-4 3.49 .51 HMOS Emotional support 1-5 4.19 .91 HMOS Tangible support 1-5 3.62 1.35 HMOS Affiliative support 1-5 3.95 1.20 HMOS Positive interaction (companionship) 1-5 4.17 1.07 HExistential well-being (Ellison Palouztian) 1-6 4.01 .53 HSpiritual well-being (Ellison Palouztian) 1-6 2.91 .71 MQuality of Life satisfaction (WHOQOL-BREF) 1-5 4.45 .71 H

Low Moderate High

Predicting Relapse Risk

Predictors of Relapse Risk (AWARE scale score) : Zero-order correlations

Pearson r Sig (p.)

Duration of Abstinence -.12 nsDepression (CDC scale) .69 .000Stress past 90 days (Gain Q) .32 .000Perceived Harm of past Use (Primary

Appraisal scale) -.06 nsPerceived Harm of Future Use (PAM scale) -.08 nsRecovery support (Laudet scale) -.21 .011MOS Emotional support -.07 nsMOS Tangible support -.03 nsMOS Affiliative support -.14 nsMOS Positive interaction (companionship) .03 nsExistential well-being (meaning/purpose) -.17 .043Spiritual well-being (Ellison Palouztian) .04 nsQuality of Life satisfaction (WHOQOL-BREF) -.48 .000

Predictors of Relapse Risk (AWARE scale score): Multiple regression

----------------- Variables in the Equation ------------------Variable Regression β  Sig

weight*

DEPRESSED .731 .0000QOL satisfaction -.120 .0626 (trend)STRESS past 90 Days .027 .0986 (trend)(Constant) 2.404 .0000

------------- Variables not in the Equation -------------Duration of abstinence -.090 .1390Existential well-being -.049 .4236Recovery support -.070 .2549

Multiple R .71100R Square .50551Adjusted R Square .49461F = 46.34 Signif F = .0000

Standardized-β

Variables in the equation account for 50%

of variance explained in relapse risk score

Zero Order Correlation among Relapse Risk, Stress, Depression, and Quality of Life Rating

RLPS_RSK DEPRESSED STRSS90D QOLRLPS_RSK --- .6934 .3360 -.4745

P= .000 P= .000 P= .000

DEPRESSD --- .3119 -.5407P= .000 P= .000

STRSS90D --- -.2374P= .004

QOL satisfaction ---The heart of the ‘recovery’  matter

Conclusions and Implications

Clinical and Program Development Implications

CRCs appear to: Attract young men and women who have experienced severe alcohol and other drug problems, chosen to live a sober lifestyle and to pursue academic goals Successfully retain students for multiple semesters, testifying to its helpfulness and suitability to contributing to a recovery focused continuum of care system for youths

CRC  are  a  ‘selling  point’  for  students  in  recovery  (university  selection)  Students report high levels of Recovery support and General support types consistent with peer driven recovery models (e.g., informational and emotional supports)8

Depression, stress and quality of life: Combined account for half the variance in relapse risk scoreAre highly inter-correlated suggesting that intervening on one or more may  influence  the  others  and  indirectly,  college  students’  relapse  risk

Implications for ResearchCRCs increasingly prevalent/rapid growthRecent shifts in national policy will likely enhance the demand for CRC-type models:

SAMHSA’s  goal  to  designing  a  Recovery-Oriented Care Model for Adolescents and Transition Age Youth4

ONDCP calling for the expansion of community based recovery support models to extend the continuum of care, including in schools and colleges9

US Dept of Education May 2011 report10

Goal of ensuring a continuity of care from high school to college to post-graduation;Calls for:

Research on the needs of college students in recovery10

Prospective studies on the substance use and academic outcomes Knowledge needed to develop rigorous CRC effectiveness study includes:

Diversity of CRC students served nationwideLife-stage and context-specific recovery challenges and services/support needsDiversity of CRC services across institutions nationwide (range, comprehensiveness, entry and participation requirements) to determine modal elements to subject to evaluation first

References Cited 1. SAMHSA. Results From the 2007 NSDUH 2. Brown et al., J Psychoactive Drugs. 2000;32:107-15.3. Godley et al., Addiction. 2007;102:81-93. 4. SAMHSA Designing a Recovery-Oriented Care Model for Adolescents and

Transition Age Youth With Substance Use or Cooccurring Mental Health Disorders. Rockville; 2009.

5. Woodford M. Recovering  College  Students’  Perspectives:  Investigating  the  Phenomena of Recovery From Substance Abuse Among Undergraduate Students . Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities & Social Sciences, 62(7-A): 2001.

6. Misch DA. J Am Coll Health. 2009;58:279-80.7. Harris et al., Journal of Groups in Addiction and Recovery. 2008;2:220-237.8. Salzer M. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Skills. 2002;6:355-383.9. Office of National Drug Control Policy. National Drug Control Strategy.; 2010.10. Dickard N, Downs T, Cavanaugh D. Recovery/Relapse Prevention in Educational

Settings For Youth With Substance Use & Co-Occurring Mental Health Disorders: 2010 Consultative Sessions Report. http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osdfs/recoveryrpt.pdf: US department of Education, Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools; 2011.

Want more findings on recovery?Email: alexandrelaudet@gmail.comVisit: http://tinyurl.com/y8wq3d3

Want information on starting a Collegiate Recovery Community on your campus?

Contact Matt Russell at matt.russell@ttu.edu

Questions? Comments? Requests?