House Manager Roles in Sober Living Houses

Abstract

Background:

Alcohol and drug treatment providers are increasingly emphasizing the role of long-term, community-based systems of care. A good example is Sober Living Houses (SLHs), which are peer operated alcohol- and drug-free living environments. Studies show residents of SLHs make significant improvements in multiple areas. However, little attention has been devoted to describing the critically important role of SLH managers who oversee these homes.

Methods:

Thirty-five SLH managers completed interviews about the characteristics and operations of their houses, their activities as managers, and ways their own recovery was affected by their work.

Results:

Managers reported widespread use of some but not all principles of social model recovery. Manager roles varied dramatically in terms of time spent managing houses, activities related to their roles, and training they received. Some reported extensive amounts of time proving support to residents, while others viewed their role as primarily administrative.

Conclusions:

Research is needed to understand reasons for manager differences, optimal manager functioning, and manager training needs. Research is also needed to assess whether different house characteristics require different manager roles.

Introduction

There is a growing recognition that recovery from serious alcohol and drug problems for many individuals requires ongoing services after acute care (Society for Community Research and Action, 2013). Sober living houses (SLHs) are good examples of these types of services. These homes provide alcohol- and drug-free living arrangements for persons who complete residential treatment, are released from incarceration, or are attending outpatient treatment programs (Polcin, Mericle, Howell, Sheridan, & Christensen, 2014). SLHs also serve persons seeking help for substance use disorders outside the context of formal treatment. Unlike treatment programs, they do not provide group counseling, case management, treatment planning, or a structure of daily activities. Instead, SLHs use a social model approach to recovery that emphasizes peer support and peer involvement in how the houses are operated (Wittman, Jee, Polcin, & Henderson, 2014). Most SLHs require residents to attend 12-step meetings or other types of peer support groups. Residents are required to pay rent and utilities, but costs are reduced by requiring shared bedrooms. In addition to making the homes more affordable, shared rooms reduce the isolation that can lead to relapse.

SLHs and other types of peer-operated residential recovery homes are rapidly growing nationwide. Because SLHs are not licensed or required to report their existence to any agency or local government, it is difficult to ascertain their exact numbers. However, in California, Sober Living House Associations such as the Sober Living Network (SLN) and California Consortium of Addiction Programs and Professionals (CCAPP) report a combined membership of nearly 800 houses in the state (Wittman & Polcin, 2014). The National Alliance of Recovery Residences (NARR), which includes a broad range of different types of recovery homes in the U.S., reports a membership of 25,000 persons who are living in over 2,500 certified recovery residences throughout the United States (National Association of Recovery Residences, 2012). Another type of recovery home, Oxford Houses (O’Neill, 1990), is popular outside California, with over 1,200 homes nationwide. Factors such as the deinstitutionalization of criminal justice institutions suggest the demand for alcohol- and drug-free living environments will only increase in the years ahead (Polcin, 2018).

Evaluation of resident outcomes in SLHs are encouraging. Residents studied at 12- and 18-month follow-up showed improvement in multiple areas, including reduced substance use, HIV risk, unemployment, incarceration, and homelessness (Polcin & Korcha, 2017; Polcin, Korcha, Bond, & Galloway, 2010; Polcin, Korcha, Witbrodt, Mericle, & Mahoney, 2018). Factor associated with better outcomes in SLHS tended to support the emphasis on peer support. For example, favorable outcomes were associated with higher levels of involvement in 12-step recovery groups and fewer alcohol and drug users in the social network (Polcin, Korcha, Bond, & Galloway, 2010).

Although residents are typically involved in upkeep of the SLHs and have some input into decision-making, house operations are overseen by a house manager. This is typically a person in recovery from substance abuse problems and some have experience living in a SLH as a resident before they become a manager. The manager is typically hired by the owner of the residence and receives a small stipend or reduction in rent. Managers are responsible for the overall operation of the house, including collecting rent from residents, paying bills, facility repairs and enforcement of house rules (e.g. alcohol and drug abstinence, chores, attendance at house meetings, and attendance at 12-step meetings). A previous study using qualitative interviews with residents suggested there may be variation in terms of how much house managers focus on facilitating the recovery of residents (DeGuzman, Korcha, & Polcin, 2019). Differences appeared to include how available managers are to residents, the amount of time spent interacting with residents, and efforts toward establishing a peer-oriented, social model recovery environment in the household. Residents reported some managers were primarily involved in the administrative aspects of maintaining the household with limited attention toward recovery issues.

The house manager role in SLHs represents a unique position among the spectrum of different types of recovery homes. Unlike halfway houses and homes that provide treatment services, the managers overseeing SLHs are not employed as professional counselors or social workers. They typically are peers living in the home with other residents. Like SLHs, Oxford Houses rely on peers to oversee house operations. However, they differ in that they elect resident peers to leadership positions in the house (e.g. president, secretary, treasurer) for a maximum of 6 months. One concern of ongoing changes in leadership in Oxford Houses is the potential for inconsistency of operations over time.

Although SLH managers vary widely in terms of how long they serve in their positions, there is the potential to establish stable, long-term oversight of the homes, which can be of great benefit to residents. For example, managers who oversee houses for extensive periods of time can rely on previous experiences to inform their work, including ways they support the recovery of residents. Using personal experience as a tool to help others with their recovery is an important part of social model recovery in SLHs (Polcin et al., 2014). Many house managers appear to extend the application of personal experience to their management of the household as well. In addition, SLH managers have the benefit of potentially establishing long-term relationships with the surrounding community. Constantly changing leadership in other types of recovery homes makes those types of relationships more challenging and the leadership in those homes has more limited experience from which to draw to inform management of the house. For an excellent, first-person account of how a SLH manager can use experience as a guide to house operations and development of strong support from the community see Troutman (Troutman, 2014).

A major challenge for house managers is the lack of established, agreed upon guidelines for their roles and activities. Although recovery home organizations such as the SLN and NARR emphasize creation of a supportive, social model environment, there are currently very few good descriptions of how house managers can accomplish that goal. Without clear guidance, managers are largely on their own in terms of whether and how they work to build a culture of recovery within the household.

Purpose

The goal of the current study was to conduct interviews with SLH managers to describe how they operated their houses, the activities they engaged in as part of their work, relevant training received, and ways they have been personally impacted by their work. We also aimed to identify areas of similarity and differences among managers.

Methods

Sober Living House

All of the houses where the managers worked were participating in a larger study of SLHs in Los Angeles. That study is primarily focused on resident longitudinal outcomes. All houses were members of the Sober Living Network, an association of SLHs that provides certification to houses that comply with standards for health, safety, good neighbor relations, and good business practices. Houses were contacted using information obtained from the SLN. We did not approach houses that included children, houses that had less than 6 beds, houses that had more than 25 beds, and houses that had fees that were over $4,500 per month. Of the 42 houses participating in the parent study from which the managers were recruited, 35 agreed to participate in interviews for the current study. Participating houses were recruited in different geographical areas of Los Angeles representing diverse economic and geographical areas: West Los Angeles (19%), Central Los Angeles (21%), South Bay/Long Beach (28%), and the San Gabriel/San Fernando Valley (31%). Some houses operated as stepdown houses for persons who completed residential treatment or places to live while residents attended outpatient treatment. Some of these homes (29% of the sample) required these residents to attend counseling meetings offsite.

House Manager Sample

House managers of the homes participating in the larger study were contacted by phone and invited to participate. Of the 42 managers invited to participate, 35 agreed.

In a some of these cases, we interviewed the owner who also acted as a house manager (n=4) or someone who is involved with the management of the house but works as part of the larger organization, such as a director of operations (n=3). Interviews took place in-person at the houses and managers were compensated $50 for their time.

Measures and Analyses

House managers were interviewed about various characteristics of their houses, including house rules and policies, perceptions about house operations, and views about their roles as house managers. These areas were assessed using a 41-item survey, which included dichotomous (yes/n0), categorical, and Likert scale items. Analyses included descriptive statistics depicting means(sd) and percentages. All study procedures were approved by the Public Health Institute Institutional Review Board.

Results

House and Manager Characteristics

Seventeen houses served men only, nine served women only, and nine served both men and women. Most of the houses consisted of a single building (69%), but 7 houses (20%) consisted of two buildings and the rest up to 5 buildings. The mean number of beds onsite was 13 (sd=5) and ranged from 6 to 24. The amount of time the houses had been open varied widely, from less than one year to 30 years. The median was 6 years.

Of the 35 managers participating, 74% were men. The racial distribution was 74% white, 20% African American, and 14% Hispanic/Latino. The median amount of time participants lived in the house or served as the house managers was 2.9 years and the range was from 27 days to 15 years.

House Operations

Manager responses to survey items indicated that most SLHs follow social model principles that have been long been emphasized as fundamental to recovery in these settings (Wittman & Polcin, 2014). Examples included mandatory abstinence from alcohol and drugs, required attendance at 12-step groups, and resident involvement in cleaning and upkeep of the home. When asked about the extent to which recovery in their houses was based on 12-step principles, 86% indicated completely or quite a bit on a 5-point scale (mean=4.34, sd=.80). All of the managers (100%) indicated abstinence from alcohol and drugs was required to live in the house. When asked about other house rules, 91% stated attendance at 12-step groups was required and 60% stated a period of abstinence was required before entering the houses. The length of this requirement ranged widely, from 1 to 180 days; the median was 3 days. Other rules included a curfew (97%) and attendance at house meetings (100%). Sixty percent indicated house meetings were held weekly or more frequently. Interviewer observations suggested some of the house meetings appeared to be primarily administrative, focusing on issues such as resident compliance with cleaning and basic upkeep of the houses. However, others attempted to build a social model environment by discussion of issues such as conflicts among residents and ways to increase peer support. SLHs appeared to be widely known as a recovery resource among stakeholder constituent groups. Table 1 shows that residents learned about SLHs from multiple sources. Consistent with the history of SLHs (Wittman & Polcin, 2014), nearly all of the managers (94%) indicated residents were free to stay as long as they wanted.

Table.1.

Sources for Hearing about Sober Living Houses

Source	Percent
Treatment Program	77
Prior Residents	74
12-Step Groups	66
Friends and Family	60
Probation/Parole	40
Other Managers/Owners	37
Advertising	37
Sober Living Network	34

Note: Managers indicated all sources that applied to residents in their houses.

House Manager Activities

Most house managers reported they lived on site (83%) and most had additional jobs (57%). Nearly all reported receiving some type of compensation for their work in the houses (87%), usually reduced rent (48%). Fifty-seven percent indicated they felt the compensation was somewhat or very fair.

The total amount of time managers spent at the houses varied widely from 20 to 168 hours per week (median=60).As Table 2 indicates, the number of hours per week they spent on activities related to their house manager role varied dramatically. The table shows that the median for the total amount of time on all activities combined was 40 hours but ranged from 3 to 100. Dealing with residents took up the most time (median=20 per week), but the range of hours varied from 4 to 125. Administrative tasks ranged from 2 to 60 hours with a mean of 10 hours.

Table.2.

House Manager Time Engaged in Activities

Activity	Range (Hours Per Week)	Median
Administrative	0–60	10
Dealing with Residents	4–125	20
Fixing/Arranging Repairs	0–20	5
Total	3–100	40

Although the amount of time and range of activities varied among managers, they all indicated they felt satisfied of very satisfied (60%) or satisfied (40%) with their relationships with residents. Over three quarters of the managers felt their house manager role was somewhat (26%) or very (51%) helpful to their own recovery.

Most managers (66%) indicated they did not receive any trainings, workshops, or classes related to their house manager role during the past year. Managers were queried about training that addressed legal, business, case management, or recovery issues. The majority of those who did receive some type of training reported they were very brief, typically under one hour.

Discussion

Although SLHs and other types of peer-oriented recovery homes have proliferated in recent years, there are few descriptions of how they are operated. There are also few studies that have examined the critical roles played by persons who oversee recovery homes. Relative to persons overseeing other types of recovery residences, house managers overseeing SLHs have unique opportunities. For example, oversight of SLHs does not entail use a short-term, rotating model of leadership, as in Oxford Houses. Therefore, SLH managers have the opportunity to provide long-term stability to SLH residences over time and draw upon their own experiences as a manager as a guide to understanding and addressing issues. Because SLHs do not hire professional counselors or case managers to provide onsite services, they are well-positioned to emphasize a peer-oriented, social model approach to recovery as the primary focus rather than formal treatment services.

A major challenge for SLH managers is the lack of evidence-based guidelines to which they can turn as a roadmap for their work. Moreover, we currently know very little about how SLHs are operated, the activities in which managers are engaged, or their opportunities for relevant training. This scenario may make it difficult for some managers to settle into their position for a long time period or know how to best facilitate social model recovery in the household. As an initial step to understanding these issues, we drew upon the experiences and views of thirty-five SLH managers operating houses in Los Angeles.

Perceptions of Manager Roles

There were some areas where managers were consistent in terms of how they operated their houses. Manager responses to survey items indicated that nearly all SLHs emphasize several social model principles that have been long been viewed as fundamental to recovery in these settings (Wittman & Polcin, 2014). These included an emphasis on abstinence and attendance at 12-step recovery groups. Other operations that supported a sense of ownership and commitment that is consistent with social model recovery included sharing chores and upkeep of the home and attendance at house meetings.

In addition to some notable areas of consistency, results were also striking in terms of how different managers viewed their roles and activities. There were particularly stark differences in the amount of time devoted to interacting with residents. Qualitative interviews with residents in previous studies (DeGuzman et al., 2019) suggest managers may view their obligations to residents differently. Some managers appear to see their role as primarily administrative, while others feel it is important to be more intimately involved in the recovery of all house residents.

SLH organizations, such as the SLN and CCAPP, offer standards for operation of recovery homes, including health, safety, and administrative issues. However, there is a lack of clarity about what should be expected of house managers in terms of providing personal support to residents and their efforts to facilitate a social model culture in the household that enhances peer support.

Training Needs

The level of training received by house managers was minimal.All of the houses in the study were members of the SLN, which requires new managers to attend a house manager training workshop. However, the training typically lasts for one day and no further training is required after that. Managers who participated in the study indicated they received little training over the past year. Two-thirds indicated no training at all and the trainings that were attended were very brief, less than one hour. This represents a significant problem given the complexities of operating SLHs as businesses and the challenges of applying social model recovery principles to operation of the houses. In addition, there are a host of rapidly changing issues that need to be addressed, including legal issues and objections from neighbors who do not want recovering substance users in their neighborhood. Global objections from neighbors to any type of residential services in communities, regardless of the potential benefits, has been described as “not-in-my-backyard” (NIMBY). To effectively address all of these issues, there is a need for more infrastructure within sober living associations that includes provision of training in different areas that affect recovery home operations.

Need for Additional Research

Findings from the current study raise a number of important questions needing to be addressed. First, it would be informative to investigate the perspectives residents have about house operations and whether they are consistent with manager views. Researchers could then assess which perspectives are associated with outcome. Second, studies using larger samples of houses could assess whether operations and manager activities vary by size, location, gender, and association with formal treatment. Finally, studies are needed to assess how operations and manager activities are associated with recovery outcomes.

House manager responses to questions about the amount of time devoted to their house manager role were striking in terms of their differences.Over 90% reported spending at least a few hours each week overseeing administrative tasks, such as house repairs, collecting rent, admitting new residents, and enforcing house rules. However, there was large variation in activities was related to dealing with residents. For managers who indicated large numbers of hours dealing with residents, it would be interesting to assess whether they considered the actual time they spent interacting with residents or all of the time the considered themselves available. A related question is how much time and effort do managers spend facilitating a social model climate within the household versus providing one to one support to residents? A central element of social model is facilitating emotional and recovery support among peers, which broadens support from the overall community rather than one individual (i.e., the manager).A final issue that needs to be investigated is how the characteristics of houses (e.g. size, gender, and stability of recovery of the residents) might require different leadership activities.

Limitations

There are a number of limitations that are important to emphasize, First, although we recruited a diverse sample of houses from which the managers were drawn, we did not select houses randomly from a larger population and a portion of the houses chose not to participate. Second, the number of houses participating was small and limited to Los Angeles. Third, the study was designed to be descriptive and does not link manager provided data with outcomes. Fourth, there is a need for further inquiry to help explain the reasons for some of the manager responses. Targeted qualitative interviews would be helpful in this regard. Finally, we need to examine manager views and experiences relative to a broader range of issues, including their relationships with stakeholder groups.