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

ABSTRACT 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.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A critical concept in the community psychology has been the sense of community. One of the better known instruments developed and evaluated to measure this construct is the Sense of Community Index (SCI: Perkins, Florin, Rich, Wandersman, & Chavis, 1990). The present research examined the unidimensional SCI’s measurement properties with an adult population (n = 662; M age = 38.4) recovering from substance abuse and residing in Oxford House recovery residences. Overall, the SCI exhibited sufficient reliability as a unidimensional instrument, but lacked reliability as a theoretical four factor model. It did, however, demonstrate an invariant 3 factor latent structure relating to rationale for connection (7 items), social bonds (3 items), and personal importance (2 items). Race was found to be associated with personal importance. In addition, personal importance was predictive of the likelihood of remaining a resident in Oxford House. The implications of these findings for the field of resilience are discussed.
    Australian Community Psychologist. 01/2011; 23:135-147.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The present study investigated the process of second-order change among a group of individuals recovering from substance abuse problems. Data were collected from 56 individuals who were current or past members of Oxford Houses, which are democratically operated recovery homes that have no professional staff and where there is no limit on length of stay. We collected data on individual and house demographics, per week involvement in the community, house involvement in the community, and types of community involvement while residing in the Oxford House. Findings reveal a significant positive relationship between the length of time living in an Oxford House and level of participant involvement in the community. Participants reported multiple factors that increased their community involvement and reported the type of impact that their involvement had on their neighborhoods. Findings from the present study indicate that not only do residents help themselves stay abstinent by living in the Oxford Houses, but residents report that they also make important contributions to their neighborhoods and communities.
    Australian community psychologist (Online). 06/2008; 20(1):73-83.
  • Source
    [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. · 0.53 Impact Factor