What’s the difference?!?! Recovery Residence or Oxford House

Oxford House, which began in 1975, is different from the traditional recovery home model. Oxford Houses are self-run and residents can stay as long as they pay their weekly rent, follow the house rules, and remain abstinent from drugs and alcohol. Over 25,000 people have lived in these homes over the past year, making them the largest network of residential recovery self-help homes in the country.

Together, the productivity and incarceration benefits yield an estimated $613,000 in savings accruing to the Oxford House participants. Limited research, however, is available regarding how Oxford House settings compare to other treatments. Using cross sectional data, Ferrari, Jason, Davis, Olson, and Alvarez (2004) compared the operational policies of 55 Oxford Houses to those of 14 Therapeutic Communities (TCs). Neither type of facility permitted self-injurious behaviors (e.g., physical self-harm or misuse of medication) or destructive acts (e.g., destroying site property or others’ possessions). Oxford Houses, however, were significantly more liberal in permitting residents personal liberties compared to the TC facilities. For example, Oxford Houses permitted greater flexibility in terms of residents’ smoking in their rooms, sleeping late in the morning or staying out late at night, going away for a weekend, and having “private time” in their locked room with guests.

Welcome to North Carolina Oxford Houses

These results suggest that well-managed and governed recovery homes pose minimal risks to neighbors in terms of criminal behavior. Finally, Mortensen, Jason, Aase, Mueller, and Ferrari (2009) studied this national sample of Oxford Houses for six years following the completion of our study in order to investigate factors related to whether the Oxford Houses remained open or closed. oxford house sober living Results indicated a high sustainability rate (86.9%) during a six year period of time. Houses that remained open had significantly higher incomes of residents than houses that eventually closed. No other significant differences were found between the two groups of houses, including sense of community among residents, neighborhood or policy characteristics, and house age.

• Staff get a large number of referrals from behavioral health providers, homeless initiatives and coalitions, the department of corrections, and word of mouth.
• Anyone in recovery can apply to join an Oxford House by filling out an application and being interviewed by the existing members of the House.
• Only 6% of these costs were for general and administrative costs of Oxford House, Inc.
• The national non-profit organization created an independent Board of Directors and World Council by electing residents and alumni from around the United States.

Oxford House residents are often considered good neighbors, and when neighbors get to know these residents, they often feel very positive about these homes. In addition, property values for individuals next to recovery homes were not significantly different from those living a block away. 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). 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. The Oxford House organization is a publicly supported, non-profit 501(c)3 corporation, providing a network connecting all Oxford House homes and working to help fund and support growth in terms of new homes when needs arise.

The Difference Between Recovery Residence, Sober Living and Oxford House’s

Nevertheless, American Indians were no more likely to report more severe substance use, psychological problems, criminal histories, or lower incomes than other groups. In addition, American Indians were more likely to report being on parole or probation https://ecosoberhouse.com/article/what-are-sober-living-homes/ and being referred for aftercare by the legal system. Moreover, American Indians reported greater disharmony within their recovery residences than Caucasians, but there were no significant ethnic differences in length of stay in Oxford House.

• Findings indicated that there were no significant differences between the crime rates around Oxford Houses and the control houses.
• Recidivism rates within one year following treatment are high for men and women, and 52–75% of all alcoholics drop out during treatment (Montgomery et al., 1993).

These houses are more likely to have an owner that is involved and a house manager that lives at the house providing some level of accountability or support. Our research examined the nature and outcomes of the Oxford House model of substance abuse recovery. We worked with the needs of diverse groups, including ex-offenders, minority groups including Native Americans, and women and women with children. 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. Within this large study, we analyzed psychiatric severity data such that we compared residents with high versus low baseline psychiatric severity (Majer, Jason, North, Davis, Olson, Ferrari et al., 2008).

Self-run, Self-supported Recovery Houses

In 2015 NARR released a metric that determines 4 levels of Recovery Residences. The least structured is “level one,” which is similar to the peer run model. Level four is the most structured model and this includes having clinical services at the home that are required for the resident to participate in.

This study also found that children present in Oxford Houses positively impacted both parents and other members, and that the well-managed and governed recovery homes posed minimal risks to neighbors. In this same study, we examined the combined effects of 12-step involvement and Oxford House residence on abstinence over a 24-month period (Groh, Jason & Ferrari, 2009). Among individuals with high 12-step involvement, the addition of Oxford House residence significantly increased the rates of abstinence (87.5% vs. 52.9%). Results suggested that the joint effectiveness of these mutual-help programs may promote abstinence and extended our previous research indicating that OH residents frequently engage in 12-step program use (Nealon-Woods, Ferrari, & Jason, 1997). As an OKARR level 3 certified program, OCARTA provides a supportive and stable environment for sustained sobriety with additional resources such as mentoring, PRSS supports, case management, and encouragement for all pathways to recovery. In addition, they offer WE CARE, Women Engaged  in Community Assistance, Recovery and Empowerment, providing outreach and engagement to women and women with children who need pre-and post-natal supports.

Oxford House Inc.

Towns pass laws that make it illegal for more than 5 or 6 non-related people to live in a house, and such laws are a threat to Oxford Houses which often have 7–10 house members to make it inexpensive to live in these settings. Jason, Groh, Durocher, Alvarez, Aase, and Ferrari (2008) examined how the number of residents in Oxford House recovery homes impacted residents’ outcomes. The Oxford House organization recommends 8–12 individuals residing in each House (Oxford House, 2006). Homes that allow for 8 or more residents may reduce the cost per person and offer more opportunities to exchange positive social support, thus, it was predicted that larger Oxford Houses would exhibit improved outcomes compared to smaller homes. Oxford Houses indicated that larger House size predicted less criminal and aggressive behavior. These data were used in 5 court cases, which were successful in arguing against closing down Oxford Houses that had more than 5 or 6 non-related residents.

Jamie used after 8 months of clean time, overdosed and was transported to the hospital. Over the past few years, Oxford Houses have been under intense scrutiny due to their peer-run model. While some have experienced major success in the Oxford House Model (this is where most of the data regarding the importance of sober living was collected), the opiate epidemic has significantly impacted the safety and success of the Oxford House. Sometime a person begins using in a peer-run house and can fly under the radar, with no house manager monitoring each resident. Often the curfews and rules surrounding meeting attendance are ignored, as long as the person is paying rent. Over the last year, multiple houses in Atlantic County have fallen into disarray, where it is common to see people smoking in the house, filthy living conditions, mattresses stacked on other mattresses with no box springs or bed frames, and people using.

Recovery Housing Voucher – Applicants for the voucher must have a substance abuse diagnosis, meet low-and-moderate income guidelines, and be deemed a priority population. These funds will only assist the individual for four months unless a waiver is approved. Voucher recipients must be willing to participate in a staffing with their support system and submit a recovery housing plan within 30 days. A recovery residence refers to a supportive, shared living environment founded on peer support and connection to community services that promote a person’s active participation in their own recovery. Recovery residences are free from alcohol and other substances and are a common pathway used to transition back into the community following residential treatment.