Oxford House Recovery Homes: Characteristics and Effectiveness PMC

Other Recovery Residences have significantly more accountability and structure. The owner or paid staff may be involved in such a way that they check on the house and administer the drug tests. They may be sober house involved in all admissions and discharges, collect the rent/program fee, do the shopping for household items and ensure the residents are fulfilling their requirements of 12-step and self-help meetings.

The success of Oxford House is well documented and has resulted in the inclusion of the Oxford House Model into the SAMSHA National Registry of Evidence Based Programs and Practices (NREPP). Of note, members were able to stay or leave the residence voluntarily – 95% moved out of their respective Oxford Houses at some point over the 2-year study, for example. For those assigned to usual continuing care, case managers at the treatment center referred individuals to different combinations of outpatient treatment, mutual-help, and other community resources. The majority of usual care participants lived in their own home, or the home of a spouse/partner, relative, or a friend (67%). The Oxford House concept is to sustain self-run and self-supported recovery homes for men and women in recovery from drug and alcohol addiction. An Oxford House describes this democratically run sober house, run by the residents and financially supported by them alone.

What is Oxford House?

It is not easy to spread the word of a new concept or an old concept with a new twist. Propagation, or spreading the word, of the Oxford House concept is given the highest priority by the members of Oxford House. In deference to that tradition, Oxford House has never sought nor obtained sponsorship from any AA or NA group. Oxford House members value the Sixth Tradition of Alcoholics Anonymous (and Narcotics Anonymous) too greatly for themselves to try to get either movement deeply involved in the organizing, financing, or sponsorship of any Oxford House.

• All too often, an abrupt transition from a protected environment to an environment which places considerable glamour on the use of alcohol and drugs causes a return to alcoholic drinking or addictive drug use.
• Our mission is to provide housing supported by the Oxford Model throughout all areas of the state for those in need, as well as contribute as a dedicated partner organization in support of unity and strength within the recovery community.
• These findings suggest that well-managed and well-functioning substance abuse recovery homes elicit constructive and positive attitudes toward these homes and individuals in recovery (Ferrari, Jason, Sasser et al., 2006).

Our efforts involved a commitment to collaborative research with a grass-roots organization, assessing change at multiple levels with a multidisciplinary team of economists, biostatisticians, social, developmental, clinical and community psychologists. This provides a structured environment to support people working to prevent relapse. Different halfway houses will have varying degrees of supervision and support. There is no reason to believe that society as a whole had the responsibility to provide long-term housing within a protected environment for the alcoholic and drug addict. However, there is every reason to believe that recovering alcoholics and drug addicts can do for themselves that which society as a whole has no responsibility to do for them. Oxford House is built on the premise of expanding in order to meet the needs of recovering alcoholics and drug addicts.

What is the difference?!?! – Recovery Residence, Sober Living, Oxford House

Parallel to this concept lies the organizational structure of Oxford House, Inc. This publicly supported, non-profit 501(c)3 corporation is the umbrella organization which provides the network connecting all Oxford Houses and allocates resources to duplicate the Oxford House concept where needs arise. The structure of most Recovery Residence is that there is a live-in House Manager. He/She may be entitled to lower rent/free housing in exchange for this service. Their responsibilities may range from randomly drug testing residents, collecting rent, and monitoring the house to more formal responsibilities, such as case management and support. These individuals usually need to have at least 3 months of continuous clean time.

• Through chapters individual houses are able to share their experience, strength and hope with each other to assure compliance with the Oxford House concept and its respected standardized system of operations.
• Employment is can be a particularly important outcome for young adults, and of note, 94% of younger patients with 6+ months in an Oxford House were employed at the 2-year follow-up vs. 56% who stayed for less than 6 months.
• Other members were asked to leave half-way houses in order to make room for a recovering alcoholic or recovering drug addict who was ready to move into a half-way house.
• Oxford Houses indicated that larger House size predicted less criminal and aggressive behavior.
• Prior to entering Oxford House, participants were concerned that House policies would be similar to those of half-way houses they had experienced (i.e., too restrictive).
• We collected data at the individual, house, and state levels, and at times compared data over these different levels of analysis.

During early recovery for alcoholism and drug addiction, some members had to leave an institution in order to make room for an alcoholic or drug addict just beginning the recovery process. Other members were asked to leave half-way houses in order to make room for a recovering alcoholic or recovering drug addict who was ready to move into a half-way house. Each individual recovers from alcoholism or drug addiction at a different pace. All too often, an abrupt transition from a protected environment to an environment which places considerable glamour on the use of alcohol and drugs causes a return to alcoholic drinking or addictive drug use. This series of studies on Oxford Houses by Jason and colleagues is the most rigorous evaluation of recovery residences to date.

The Purpose and Structure of Oxford House

Using the contact information for the house you’ve chosen, call and set up an interview. The Wake Network of Care is a comprehensive online resource and services database designed to increase access to all community services and supports in Wake County, North Carolina. Together, increased productivity and, significantly lower incarceration rates yielded an estimated $613,000 in savings to society per year, or an average of $8,173 per Oxford House resident. Oxford House participants were twice as likely to remain abstinent over the next 2 years and had significantly higher incomes and significantly lower incarceration rates. Though founded in 1975, Oxford House underwent a transformation in 1997 during a comprehensive restructure.

The four travelled out of town to a 12-step meeting, where Kelley purchased drugs from an acquaintance. Both Jamie and the 2 gentlemen from the structured sober living were unaware that Kelley bought heroin, but after they returned to town and dropped off their friends, Jamie confronted Kelley about her odd behavior that evening. Kelley confessed to Jamie that she had been using for over a week while living in her Oxford house and offered Jamie some of the heroin. Jamie used after 8 months of clean time, overdosed and was transported to the hospital.

Jason, Schober and Olson (2008) found that Oxford House members reported participating in the community for about 10.6 hours per month. The majority of participants were involved in activities around their recovery. Forty-four percent of the sample was involved in administering and running support groups. Involvement around recovery also included involvement in large community initiatives, as 39% of participants reported involvement in informing or advising agencies or local leaders and 32% reported involvement in community anti-drug campaigns. For some, this involvement also included speaking at political events (16%), and attending community meetings (30%), and public hearings and forums (21%).