Collegiate Recovery Programs Research Articles

Nationwide survey of collegiate recovery programs: Is there a single model?

Nationwide survey of collegiate recovery programs: Is there a single model?

Social work and collegiate recovery programs.

Social work and collegiate recovery programs.

Collegiate Recovery Programs

More than ever, people are seeking substance use disorder treatment during the adolescent and young adult stages of development. Developmentally, many of these young adults new to recovery are in the process of making career decisions that may require attendance at a college or university. However, the collegiate environment is not conducive to a recovery lifestyle. Since the 1980s, several colleges and universities have implemented Collegiate Recovery Programs, offering students “safe havens” where they can obtain support from other students in recovery and from staff while they pursue a college education. The collegiate recovery programs have been successful at graduating students and supporting their recovery. Today, there are more than 75 collegiate recovery programs already established or in the process of development, serving more than 500 students across the United States. Although the various programs offer different types of services, each one seems to be having some type of success based on the research thus far. This article describes the emerging adult population of recovering college students, the history of Collegiate Recovery Programs, and what they offer.

Fostering Growth and Development of Recovering Students in Higher Education Through Servant Leadership

Servant leadership is a leadership style complementary to a lifestyle of recovery from a substance use disorder. Across the country, thousands of students in recovery from substance use disorders are pursuing higher education. Support for students in recovery is increasing, primarily through collegiate recovery programs (CRP) that are being implemented to support student recovery, education and personal development. Servant leadership has been used successfully by many business, organizations, religions, and educational systems. In the 1960s, Robert Greenleaf brought new attention to the concept when he began writing about his observations and experiences in the business world. According to Greenleaf, many businesses and organizations had lost sight of their role and responsibility to serve others. The main philosophy of servant leadership is service to others, and through service, others will look to the one serving for leadership. This article is intended to share elements of servant leadership and how these elements can be implemented into a CRP to promote and foster the growth and development of students in recovery.

Collegiate Recovery Communities Programs: What Do We Know and What Do We Need to Know?

As the broad construct of recovery increasingly guides addiction services and policy, federal agencies have called for the expansion of peer-driven recovery support services. The high prevalence of substance use and abuse in colleges and universities in the United States constitutes a significant obstacle to pursuing an education for the unknown number of youths who have attained remission from substance use dependence. Collegiate recovery programs (CRPs) are an innovative and growing model of peer-driven recovery support delivered on college campuses. Although no systematic research has examined CRPs, available site-level records suggest encouraging outcomes: low relapse rates and above-average academic achievement. The number of CRPs nationwide is growing, but there is a noticeable lack of data on the model, its students, and their outcomes. We review the literature supporting the need for the expansion of CRPs, present information on the diversity of CRP services, and outline key areas where research is needed.

Important Factors of Early Addiction Recovery and Inpatient Treatment

Research is needed that confirms inpatient treatment outcomes and evaluates patient typologies. Factors of early recovery and inpatient treatment are examined to (1) support inpatient treatment effectiveness research, (2) explore impacts on outcomes of patient differences (collegiate vs. traditional), and (3) learn about factors that influence inpatient treatment effectiveness. Overall, 95 of 149 (63.8%) participants were classified as progressing in readiness for change from pre to post treatment. Second, a MANCOVA showed significant increases in hope, resiliency, and family functioning and decreases in craving from pre- to posttreatment. Expectations of significant differences in rates of change of treatment outcome variables between traditional and collegiate recovery programs were partially supported.