This is my neighborhood: comparing United States and Australian Oxford House Neighborhoods.

Department of Psychology, DePaul University, Chicago, IL 60614, USA.
Journal of Prevention & Intervention Community 02/2006; 31(1-2):41-9. DOI: 10.1300/J005v31n01_04
Source: PubMed


The number of Oxford Houses, communal-living, mutual help settings for persons in recovery of alcohol and substance abuse, has spread across the United States and recently in and around Melbourne, Australia. In this study 55 US and 6 AU Houses were compared descriptively for their neighborhood characteristics. Across settings, there were greater similarities than significant differences in the locations. Results imply that Australian Oxford Houses are "safe and sober" settings for persons in recovery consistent with the original United States model in physical dwelling settings.

Download full-text


Available from: Joseph R Ferrari, May 31, 2015
  • Source
    • "In the final assessment period, only 13% reported any substance use in the last 90 days, indicating that abstinence rates remained high over the long-term. In addition, social support networks that emphasize abstinence – an inherent facet of the Oxford House model – have been significantly related to abstinence outcomes (Jason & Ferrari, 2010; Jason et al., 2006; Majer, Jason, Ferrari, Venable, & Olson, 2002a). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: An exploratory investigation was conducted to examine the implementation of the first self-run, communal-living setting based on the Oxford House model, in the UK. A cross-sectional, mixed-methods design was used to examine the Oxford House model's total abstinence approach to recovery from substance use disorders among residents (n = 7) living in the first Oxford House established in the UK. Several measures commonly used in addiction research and personal narratives were used to assess residents’ response to Oxford House living. Findings suggest that the Oxford House model is a post-treatment intervention that meets the needs of individuals seeking an abstinence-based recovery from alcohol and/or drug dependence in the UK.
    Drugs: Education Prevention and Policy 01/2014; 21:347-356. DOI:10.3109/09687637.2013.876974 · 1.00 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "We only included the 160 OHs for which we had environmental and substance use data from the majority of House residents, representing 75.1% of OHs in the original 213 sample. Previous studies indicated that independent judges reliably categorized and assessed setting characteristics (see Ferrari et al., 2006a; 2006b). Based on responses from OH representatives on an environmental audit, we grouped the current sample by socioeconomic status in this manner: 23 OHs (18 men's homes, 5 women's homes) located in an urban and upper/middle class neighborhood, 71 urban and working/lower class OHs (47 men's homes, 24 women's homes), 39 suburban and upper/middle class OHs (27 men's homes, 12 women's homes), and 27 suburban and working/lower class OHs (20 men's homes, 7 women's homes). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study examined the setting and house-level characteristics of 160 self-governed, mutual-support substance abuse recovery homes, called Oxford Houses (OHs), across the United States. These dwellings were located in four different neighborhood types: upper or middle class (n = 23 houses), urban working or lower class (n = 71 houses), suburban upper or middle-class (n = 39 Houses), and suburban working or lower class (n = 27 houses). Interior dwelling characteristics and amenities located within a 2-block radius were similar across the four neighborhood types. However, houses in urban, working, and lower class neighborhoods reported more alcohol- or drug-intoxicated persons. Most importantly, despite the greater potential for environmental temptations and easier access for substances, none of the neighborhood factors including neighborhood socioeconomic status significantly predicted relapse rates over a 12-month period.
    Journal of Groups in Addiction & Recovery 03/2009; 4(1-1-2):100-109. DOI:10.1080/15560350802712470
  • Source
    • "They agreed to support each other in the recovery process and mandated that any use of substances by a resident would require that they leave. They did not mandate any involvement in treatment or attendance at AA; those decisions were left to the residents themselves (Davis, Olson, Jason, Alvarez & Ferrari, 2006 "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Research on treatment outcome for addictive disorders indicates that a variety of interventions are effective. However, the progress clients make in treatment frequently is undermined by the lack of an alcohol and drug free living environment supporting sustained recovery. This introduction to a special edition on Oxford Houses suggests that treatment providers have not paid sufficient attention to the social environments where clients live after residential treatment or while attending outpatient programs. The paper begins with a description of the need for alcohol and drug free living environments. The history of communal living for recovering addicts and alcoholics is then reviewed and the Oxford House model emphasized as a recent and widespread communal living option for recovering persons. The structure and philosophy of Oxford Houses are presented along with recent outcome studies providing support for their effectiveness. Three different perspectives are presented as ways of conceptualizing how residents in Oxford Houses benefit: social context theory, self governance/self care, and peer affiliation/identification.
    Journal of Groups in Addiction & Recovery 02/2009; 4(1 &AMP):7-22. DOI:10.1080/15560350802712355
Show more