The 38 Assets for Building Collegiate Recovery Capacity

Transcription

1 The 38 Assets for Building Collegiate Recovery Capacity 2014 Survey Report Transforming Youth Recovery

2 For inquiries, please contact the Transforming Youth Recovery team: Ivana Grahovac Executive Director (858) Jenna Parisi Director of Collegiate Program Development (858) Cristina Hunter Collegiate Program Manager (858) Transforming Youth Recovery c/o The Stacie Mathewson Foundation P.O. Box 6448 Reno, Nevada Publication Design by Start Interaction Permission to reproduce in whole or part for use in educational and other not-for-profit groups is granted with the acknowledgment of Transforming Youth Recovery as the source on all copies. The content of this publication is based on work by sr4 Partners LLC under contract through the support of The Stacie Mathewson Foundation. Transforming Youth Recovery: June, 2014

3 2014 Survey Report TABLE OF CONTENTS About Transforming Youth Recovery... 2 Building Capacity for Collegiate Recovery Programs and Efforts... 3 Collegiate Recovery Programs Operating or Launching in the U.S. (Figure 1)... 3 Explanation of Collegiate Recovery Asset Survey Collegiate Recovery Asset Survey Participants (Table 1)... 6 Introduction to the 38 Assets Assets Critical to Starting any Collegiate Recovery Effort (Table 2) Additional Assets Essential to Serve and Support Students in Recovery (Table 3) More Assets that Can Contribute to a Sustainable Community (Table 4) Asset Ratings Chart (Table 5) Collegiate Recovery Network Examination Composition Staffing and Space Use among Collegiate Recovery Programs/Efforts (Figures 2-4, Table 6) Lifecycle Stages of Collegiate Recovery Communities (Table 7) Types of Collegiate Recovery Programs/Efforts (Table 8) Connections Invitations Extended to Student Engagement (Figures 5-7) Community Network Models (Figures 8-10, Tables 9-11) Practices Practice Ratings Chart (Table 12) Key Practices by Lifecycle Stages (Figures 11-14)

4 The 38 Assets for Building Collegiate Recovery Capacity ABOUT TRANSFORMING YOUTH RECOVERY We approach every effort from a capacity-building perspective. This starts by making visible the assets, connections, and resulting practices that can contribute to healthy and thriving lifestyles among young people. Specific attention is given to those at-risk for drug and alcohol substance use disorders or misuse. The 2012 National Survey on Drug Use and Health found that an estimated 23.9 million Americans age 12 and over (9.2% of the population) were current illicit drug users, of which 2.4 million were young people between the ages of Additionally, an estimated 9.3 million underage persons (aged 12 to 20) were current drinkers of alcohol in 2012, including 5.9 million binge drinkers 1 and 1.7 million heavy drinkers. This reflects a public health issue that we are looking to address without hesitation. Our studies seek to find those promising prevention, intervention, and recovery practices that we should be calling upon more often, in more places, with greater consistency. When we find places where such practices live and breathe, we commit to rapidly spreading that knowledge so that connected networks can take collective action. Our intention is to build networks across boundaries of influence to better reach students, parents, educators, and community leaders. This is undertaken by partnering with those who are committed to the implementation of evidence-based practices that positively impact the well-being of young people and their families. In all we do, we stay ever mindful that our work aims to positively influence the everyday attitudes and beliefs found in educational, community and social settings. This is a reflection of the idea that change happens one student, one school, one community at a time. 1 Retrieved from: 2

5 2014 Survey Report BUILDING CAPACITY FOR COLLEGIATE RECOVERY PROGRAMS AND EFFORTS When we first got involved with collegiate recovery, we found a conventional wisdom that colleges lacked the dedicated resources for helping students in recovery fulfill their academic and personal potential. In other words, there was a perception that the problem was a resource gap. This perception led agencies and institutions to adopt a problem-solving approach and focus on additive activities and services that might address perceived deficiencies. However, through an asset-based research project funded by The Stacie Mathewson Foundation, we discovered a nearly universally held opinion that the real issue was how to manage access to resources that in many cases already existed. And the real need was for help in building the types of relationships that enable students in recovery to take advantage of the full breadth of the collegiate experience. Consequently, we have pivoted from a program focus to a relationship focus, a migration from problem solving to capacity building. It s a matter of starting with the assumption that college communities already have the resources and capabilities necessary to help students in recovery to thrive. When you start there, you can then concentrate on removing barriers that may be constraining students in recovery from accessing those assets that could help them thrive in the fullness of their college experience. Our focus is on stimulating community support for collegiate recovery programs. Our goal is to work toward institutional acceptance and ownership of essential support services in an environment prone to drug and alcohol exposure. As of June 2014, we have provided toolkits, assistance and $590,000 in seed grants to 59 colleges and universities striving to find and mobilize collegiate recovery assets that already exist. Additionally, we have awarded $37,500 in supporting grants to colleges and universities with student populations less than 5000 or established collegiate recovery programs interested in growing their communities. We are honored to be able to contribute to the broad collegiate recovery movement taking hold in the United States. 60 FIRST TYR GRANT APPLICATION RECEIVED EFFORTS PROGRAMS Number of Collegiate Recovery Programs currently operating or launching 10 0 FEB 13 MAR 13 APR 13 MAY 13 JUN JUL AUG 13 SEP 13 OCT 13 NOV 13 DEC 13 JAN FEB MAR 14 APR 14 MAY 14 JUN 14 Source: Figure 1. Collegiate Recovery Programs Operating or Launching in the U.S. 3

6 The 38 Assets for Building Collegiate Recovery Capacity EXPLANATION OF COLLEGIATE RECOVERY ASSET SURVEY 2014 The annual Collegiate Recovery Asset Survey, supported by Transforming Youth Recovery, aims to update studies undertaken to identify community assets that can help students in recovery to thrive in the fullness of the college experience. The unshakable focus of this work is to develop a methodology for increasing the capacity of a collegiate community to provide students in recovery the assets they need to pursue academic, recovery, and life goals. This survey is not intended to evaluate the effectiveness of any given college-based recovery program or effort. Rather, it is intended to help better understand how certain assets are being mobilized into practices that best support students in recovery. Survey invitations are extended annually to named program coordinators of collegiate recovery programs or efforts that receive grant funding through Transforming Youth Recovery. The survey asks those coordinators, based on their experience with the collegiate recovery program/effort at their institution, to identify which assets they believe are critical to start serving and supporting college students in recovery and essential to serving and supporting college students in recovery on an ongoing basis, which assets are essential to serving and supporting college students in recovery on an ongoing basis but not critical to start, and which assets are neither critical to start serving and supporting college students in recovery on an ongoing basis nor critical to start serving and supporting college students in recovery. Starting in 2014, the survey was lengthened to ask program coordinators about the nature of their collegiate recovery program/effort (CRP/E), the relationship between their CRP/E and local community-based assets, and the practices that are a result of their CRP/E. Results from the survey are used to annually evaluate the usefulness of 38 assets that are the basis for building collegiate recovery capacity across the United States. To date, asset models have had limited application within the field of collegiate recovery. The application of asset models in this context can aid and inform researchers and practitioners interested in the advancement and proliferation of collegiate recovery programs. The collegiate recovery asset survey instrument is designed to annually refresh and update research originally published in April, 2013 by The Stacie Mathewson Foundation. 38 ASSETS FOR BUILDING COLLEGIATE RECOVERY CAPACITY 38 ASSETS For Building Collegiate Recovery Capacity fullness of the college experience. 4 The 16 assets that can contribute to a sustainable community of students in recovery. Lifecycle of a Recovery Community Notion Establishment Maturity Sustainablilty You are cultivating a small group of students to build a recovery community. You have a community of students in recovery and are making new relationships to support those students. You have a formalized collegiate recovery program and community. You have a formalized collegiate recovery program and are building coalitions to extend community. Publication downloads available from: 4

7 2014 Survey Report BY THE NUMBERS We invited 44 grantees to take the 2014 collegiate recovery asset survey. Forty-one grantees completed the survey for a 93% response rate. 88% of the surveyed collegiate recovery programs/efforts started between 2012 and today. Average enrollment is 23,004 undergraduate and graduate students at grantee institutions of higher education. 1,525 invitations were extended to participate in collegiate recovery activities, events and services. From those invitations, 629 students regularly attended activities offered by collegiate recovery programs/efforts. Twenty-six network models were submitted listing 398 unique communitybased assets. The population of an institution of higher education should be thought of as the sphere of influence for any collegiate recovery program or effort (CRP/E). Each CRP/E that responded to the 2014 Collegiate Recovery Asset Survey has, on average, the potential to influence the attitudes and biases of more than 23,000 students. Going further, the reach of community networks forming in and around CRP/Es continues to expand and is a reflection of the invitations extended to participate in recovery-related activities, events, and services in combination with those community-based assets providing services to students actively engaged in recovery communities. The resulting reach of those CRP/ Es responding to the survey was 2,552 community-based assets and students. Finally, regular attendance at recovery-related activities, events, and services is the indicator of engagement which was reported to be 629 students being supported through responding CRP/Es. 5

8 The 38 Assets for Building Collegiate Recovery Capacity PARTICIPATING COLLEGIATE RECOVERY PROGRAMS/EFFORTS Name of Institution Name of Collegiate Recovery Program/Effort Year started Formally recognized and endorsed by institution Undergraduate students served last semester (Fall, 2013) Graduate students served last semester (Fall, 2013) Number of staff and volunteers dedicated to CRP/E Arkansas State University Jonesboro Astate Collegiate Recovery 2014 Yes Auburn University Auburn Recovery Community 2012 Yes Boise State University (Not yet) 2013 No California State University, San Bernardino STAR (Students Together Advocating Recovery) 2013 Yes Dalton State College Collegiate Recovery Community 2013 Yes Florida Atlantic University (Not yet) 2014 No Kennesaw State University Center for Young Adult Addiction and Recovery 2007 Yes Longwood University Longwood Recovers 2013 No Michigan State University Traveler s Club 2013 No Mississippi State University Mississippi State University Collegiate Recovery Community 2013 Yes Montana State University Recovering Students at MSU 2013 No Morehead State University MSU Recovery Program 2013 No North Carolina Central University Alcohol & Other Drug Resource Center 2013 Yes Oregon State University Collegiate Recovery Community 2013 Yes Pace University-New York City Collegiate Recovery Program at Pace University 2013 Yes Saint Louis University SLU Recovery Group 2012 Yes St. Cloud State University St. Cloud State University Recovery Community 2012 Yes Stony Brook University Seawolves For Recovery 2013 Yes The Ohio State University Collegiate Recovery Community 2013 Yes The University of Mississippi (Not yet) 2010 No The University of Texas at Arlington CSR 2014 Yes The University of Texas at Austin The Center for Students in Recovery 2004 Yes The University of Texas at Tyler Center for Students in Recovery 2013 Yes University of California, Riverside The Loft 2008 Yes University of California, San Diego Triton Recovery Group 2013 Yes University of California, Santa Barbara Gauchos for Recovery 2012 Yes University of California, Santa Cruz Collegiate Recovery Community - CRC 2013 Yes University of Connecticut UConn Recovery Community 2013 No University of Houston Cougars in Recovery 2013 Yes University of Massachusetts Boston UMass Boston Recovery Support Program (Tentative) 2013 No University of Michigan Collegiate Recovery Program 2012 Yes University of Nevada, Reno Nevada s Recovery and Prevention Community (NRAP) 2012 Yes University of North Carolina at Charlotte Collegiate Recovery Community at UNC Charlotte 2012 Yes University of North Carolina at Wilmington CRC Hawks 2013 Yes University of North Dakota (Not yet) 2013 No University of South Carolina Student Health Services Collegiate Recovery Community 2013 No University of Virginia Hoos In Recovery 2006 Yes University of Washington (Not yet) 2013 Yes University of Wisconsin La Crosse (Not yet) 2013 Yes Virginia Commonwealth University Rams in Recovery 2013 Yes Wake Forest University WFU CHOICE Collegiate recovery Effort 2012 Yes Table Collegiate Recovery Asset Survey Participants Table Collegiate Recovery Asset Survey Participants 6

9 2014 Survey Report INTRODUCTION TO THE 38 ASSETS Transforming Youth Recovery has identified a set of 38 community-based assets that are the basis for building collegiate recovery capacity across the nation. These assets reflect potential campus-specific individuals, associations and institutions that can be mobilized to help students in recovery to thrive in the fullness of the college experience. In 2014, a total of 41 collegiate recovery programs and efforts (CRP/Es) completed the asset ratings portion of the survey. Of those 41, there were 27 (66%) CRP/Es that self-reported being in the early stages of growing their student recovery community. The original asset survey, administered in 2013, was completed by 19 survey participants without designation of program or effort stage. Of those original 19, only 6 CRP/Es (Longwood University; St. Cloud State University; University of California, Riverside; University of California, Santa Barbara; University of Michigan; The University of Texas at Austin) completed both the 2013 and 2014 asset survey. The original set of 38 community-based assets that are the basis for building collegiate recovery capacity have been updated to reflect findings from the 2014 Collegiate Recovery Asset Survey. To assist communities undertaking collegiate recovery efforts in the United States, the assets have been designated into three categories to support a progression through a recovery community lifecycle. These categories were determined by asking survey participants to rate each asset according to the following instructions: * In this section, we ask that you consider each of the 38 assets presented individually, and based on your experience and involvement with the collegiate recovery program/effort at your institution evaluate each asset and identify them as one of the following: Critical to start serving and supporting college students in recovery and essential to serve and support college students in recovery on an ongoing basis (numeric rating of 1.00) Essential to serve and support college students in recovery on an ongoing basis but not critical to start serving and supporting college students in recovery (numeric rating of 2.00) Neither critical to start serving and supporting college students in recovery on an ongoing basis nor essential to serve (numeric rating of 3.00) Assets can be individual such as people who can help students in recovery build self-efficacy; they can be associational such as mutual aid support groups near or on campus for students in recovery, and they can be institutional such as a physical space that is dedicated for students in recovery to gather and meet. * THE SURVEY QUESTION - 7

10 The 38 Assets for Building Collegiate Recovery Capacity Given the increase in collected survey data (from 19 survey participants in 2013 to 41 participants in 2014) and the instructional change to evaluate and rate community-based assets from respondents personal experience with the CRP/E at their institution (versus from one s personal experience atlarge), the rules applied for determining asset categories were adjusted slightly for 2014 reporting purposes. 8 community-based assets were indicated by 60% or more survey participants and those self-reporting as being in the early stages of growing their student recovery community as critical to starting any collegiate recovery effort. (Table 2) Assets that were indicated by 60% or more survey or early stage survey participants as critical to starting any collegiate recovery effort were included in the category if the asset also appeared in the top quartile of the 2014 Asset Ratings. 14 additional community-based assets were categorized as essential to serve and support students in recovery if the asset received a rating below 2.00 in the 2014 Asset Ratings or was indicated by 50% or more survey participants as essential to serve and support students in recovery. (Table 3) Finally, 16 more community-based assets were categorized as contributing to a sustainable community of students in recovery given that no presented asset received a rating of 3.00 (which would denote that the asset was neither critical to start a collegiate recovery effort nor essential to serve and support students in recovery.) (Table 4) 8

11 2014 Survey Report 8 ASSETS CRITICAL TO STARTING ANY COLLEGIATE RECOVERY EFFORT Categorized as critical to starting any collegiate recovery effort if indicated by 60% or more of the survey population and those self-reporting as being in the early stages of growing their student recovery community ; or, indicated by 60% or more of the survey or early stage survey participants and appearing in the top quartile of the 2014 Asset Ratings (see page 13). Survey Pop. (N=41) % ranked Critical to start Early Stage Pop. (N=27) % ranked Critical to start Students in recovery who are interested in growing the recovery community on-campus. 95% 96% Mutual aid support groups near or on campus for students in recovery (i.e. AA, NA, GA, and other 12-Step meetings in addition to groups such as Celebrate Recovery, SMART Recovery, eating disorder recovery, Teen Challenge, etc.). 85% 81% Individuals who are dedicated staff for a collegiate recovery program (faculty, staff, students; full or part-time). 80% 74% Physical space for students to get together socially, soberly, and safely (organized meals, dances, bowling or other age-appropriate activities). 76% 78% Physical space that is dedicated for students in recovery to gather and meet. 66% 70% Organizations, departments and services that a collegiate recovery program can refer students who need outside services (treatment centers, mental health professionals, counselors, psychologists, etc.). 66% 70% Individuals who are influential within the University and/or in the broader community and are interested in advocating for students in recovery. 61% 63% Students in recovery who are interested in mentoring other students in recovery (vocational, recovery, or as a general role model). Table 2. 8 Assets Critical to Starting any Collegiate Recovery Effort 61% 59% Early stage CRP/Es are detailed on page 18. SURVEY COMMENT What has been most critical in our experience has been having at least one full-time staff member who can serve as the constant support, the advocate, and the collaborator on campus. Once momentum and traction has been gained, it is essential to hire additional staff as the program grows in order to make all of campus more recovery-oriented. 9

12 The 38 Assets for Building Collegiate Recovery Capacity 14 ADDITIONAL ASSETS ESSENTIAL TO SERVE AND SUPPORT STUDENTS IN RECOVERY Categorized as essential to serve and support students in recovery if the asset received a rating below 2.00 in the 2014 Asset Ratings (see page 13) or was indicated by 50% or more survey population. Survey Pop. (N=41) % ranked Critical to start Survey Pop. (N=41) % ranked Essential to serve Appropriate and protective housing options for students in recovery (sober roommates, floors, buildings, etc.). 29% 56% Individuals available for 1:1 recovery support (coaching, guiding, supporting, mentoring). 56% 34% Individuals available to assist with fundraising in support of a collegiate recovery program (i.e. write grants, solicit donations, run fund raisers, etc.). Individuals licensed or trained to support both mental health (ADHD, anxiety, depression, etc.) and substance use disorders (alcohol and other drugs). 46% 47% 46% 41% Individuals from medical services (medical doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists and other licensed counselors) available to provide students in recovery with medical treatment (prescriptions, referrals, etc.) specific to mental health (ADHD, anxiety, depression, etc.) and substance use disorders (alcohol and other drugs). 32% 51% Individuals trained as drug and alcohol counselors in the areas of addiction and recovery. 41% 46% Individuals who can help students in recovery build self-efficacy (confidence, social skills, budgeting, general life-skills, etc.). 39% 51% Individuals who can provide students in recovery with academic guidance (i.e. tutoring, counseling, etc.). 37% 54% Individuals who can serve as positive mentors (professional, recovery, or as a general role model) for students in recovery. Organizations, departments and services that can provide operational support to a collegiate recovery program (endowments, foundations, University departments, institutional funds, etc.). 32% 56% 59% 32% Organizations, departments and services that can provide the general population (students, faculty and staff) with education and training to increase understanding of substance use disorders and recovery (presentations, newsletters, events, orientations, new hire training, etc.). 39% 51% Organizations, groups and clubs that can provide students in recovery access to recovery resources in the broader community (support programs, wellness resources such as yoga or meditation, etc.) Organizations, departments and services that can refer students to a collegiate recovery program (judicial affairs, academic counselors, mental health counselors, treatment centers, etc.). University support for students in recovery in the form of funding, promotion, recognition, and/or staff assignment. 22% 71% 54% 46% 54% 37% Table Additional Assets Essential to Serve and Support Students in Recovery SURVEY COMMENT We have just begun our Recovery Community and we have made significant progress so far. The barriers that we are starting to hit that will slow down our progress include a funding stream for the recovery community. [We are a] student organization, but the University has begun to recognize us by agreeing to start a pilot program for housing for students in recovery. 10

13 2014 Survey Report 16 MORE ASSETS THAT CAN CONTRIBUTE TO A SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY OF STUDENTS IN RECOVERY Remaining assets categorized as contributing to a sustainable community of students in recovery. (No presented asset received a rating of 3.00 in the 2014 Asset Ratings (see page 13) which would denote that the asset was neither critical to start a collegiate recovery effort nor essential to serve and support students in recovery.) Survey Pop. (N=41) % ranked Critical to start Survey Pop. (N=41) % ranked Essential to serve Departments within the University involved in or supporting ongoing research on addiction and recovery. 7% 34% Departments within the University that offer courses on subjects related to addiction and recovery for course credit. 7% 30% Individuals from the collegiate recovery program who have graduated and are interested in supporting students in recovery. 5% 59% Individuals from the university community (alumni, parents, advocates) interested in supporting students in recovery. 5% 61% Individuals in student residential settings who are trained to identify potential addiction issues. 10% 63% Individuals interested in recovery who can use their personal network within the broader community to help students in recovery to find vocational opportunities (such as internships, sponsored research, etc.). 20% 54% Individuals who can provide students in recovery with legal assistance (i.e. consultation for referrals, expungement of records, etc.). 2% 54% Individuals who can provide students in recovery with spiritual guidance where spiritual guidance is defined as the exploration of personal values and development of a purpose-driven life. 20% 39% Organizations, departments and services that can help students meet basic needs (food, safe shelter, etc.). 37% 49% Organizations, groups and clubs that enable students to gain and practice leadership skills (through internships, community service, mentoring, through participation in student-led organizations, etc.). 15% 49% Organizations, groups and clubs that facilitate involvement in community service, philanthropy and civic engagement (speaking at high schools, service projects, etc.). 24% 39% Organizations, groups and clubs that have an interest in supporting students in recovery (i.e. community, religious or school organizations). 20% 59% Organizations, groups and clubs that help students enhance their physical health and wellness (nutrition information, fitness programs, health screenings, stress and anxiety, meditation, etc.). 24% 51% Organizations that promote awareness of collegiate recovery beyond the University (peer groups, government programs, research, associations, etc.). 34% 49% Organizations that provide financial assistance for students in recovery (scholarships, grants, etc.). 24% 46% Students in recovery who are trained to lead and facilitate groups. 22% 49% Table More Assets that Can Contribute to a Sustainable Community SURVEY COMMENT I marked many of them as Not Essential, but it certainly doesn t mean that I don t see them as valuable assets. I see them more as fantastic bonus opportunities if you have them available to your students. But the absence of them wouldn t hinder the start or continuation of a successful recovery support program. 11

14 The 38 Assets for Building Collegiate Recovery Capacity 2014 ASSET RATING CHART The Asset Ratings Chart is intended to show asset ratings by survey participants when delineated into quartiles. (Table 5) This is an alternative method for evaluating perceived importance of any community-based asset when it comes to starting a collegiate recovery effort or serving and supporting students in recovery. Quartile midrange values are determined by assigning a numeric value of 1.00 to any asset rating of critical to start serving and supporting college students in recovery and essential to serve and support college students in recovery on an ongoing basis ; 2.00 to any asset rating of essential to serve and support college students in recovery on an ongoing basis but not critical to start serving and supporting college students in recovery ; and, 3.00 to any asset rating of neither critical to start serving and supporting college students in recovery on an ongoing basis nor essential to serve. The resulting midrange values for 2014 were: 1st Quartile = nd Quartile = rd Quartile = th Quartile = 2.34 The midrange value for all community-based assets was The 4 community-based assets appearing in bold type within the 1st quartile of ratings were the only assets to have not received any rating of 3.00 (neither critical to start serving and supporting college students in recovery on an ongoing basis nor essential to serve.) A negative numeric change in rating from 2013 meant the average rating was lower (closer to 1.00) than in 2013 and could therefore be perceived as having greater value for responding CRP/Es in A positive numeric change meant that the average rating was higher (closer to 3.00) than in 2013 and could be perceived as having a diminishing value for responding CRP/Es in

15 2014 Survey Report 2014 Rating Change from st Quartile Students in recovery who are interested in growing the recovery community on-campus Mutual aid support groups near or on campus for students in recovery (i.e. AA, NA, GA, and other 12-Step meetings in addition to groups such as Celebrate Recovery, SMART Recovery, eating disorder recovery, Teen Challenge, etc.). Physical space for students to get together socially, soberly, and safely (organized meals, dances, bowling or other age-appropriate activities) Individuals who are dedicated staff for a collegiate recovery program (faculty, staff, students; full or part-time) Organizations, departments and services that a collegiate recovery program can refer students who need outside services (treatment centers, mental health professionals, counselors, psychologists, etc.) Physical space that is dedicated for students in recovery to gather and meet Individuals who are influential within the University and/or in the broader community and are interested in advocating for students in recovery Students in recovery who are interested in mentoring other students in recovery (vocational, recovery, or as a general role model) Organizations, departments and services that can refer students to a collegiate recovery program (judicial affairs, academic counselors, mental health counselors, treatment centers, etc.) nd Quartile Organizations, departments and services that can provide operational support to a collegiate recovery program (endowments, foundations, University departments, institutional funds, etc.) Individuals available for 1:1 recovery support (coaching, guiding, supporting, mentoring) University support for students in recovery in the form of funding, promotion, recognition, and/or staff assignment Individuals available to assist with fundraising in support of a collegiate recovery program (i.e. write grants, solicit donations, run fund raisers, etc.). Individuals licensed or trained to support both mental health (ADHD, anxiety, depression, etc.) and substance use disorders (alcohol and other drugs) Individuals who can help students in recovery build self-efficacy (confidence, social skills, budgeting, general life-skills, etc.) Individuals trained as drug and alcohol counselors in the areas of addiction and recovery Organizations, departments and services that can provide the general population (students, faculty and staff) with education and training to increase understanding of substance use disorders and recovery (presentations, newsletters, events, orientations, new hire training, etc.) Individuals who can provide students in recovery with academic guidance (i.e. tutoring, counseling, etc.) Table Asset Rating Chart 13

16 The 38 Assets for Building Collegiate Recovery Capacity 2014 Rating Change from rd Quartile Organizations, departments and services that can help students meet basic needs (food, safe shelter, etc.) Individuals who can serve as positive mentors (professional, recovery, or as a general role model) for students in recovery Organizations that promote awareness of collegiate recovery beyond the University (peer groups, government programs, research, associations, etc.) Appropriate and protective housing options for students in recovery (sober roommates, floors, buildings, etc.) Individuals from medical services (medical doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists and other licensed counselors) available to provide students in recovery with medical treatment (prescriptions, referrals, etc.) specific to mental health (ADHD, anxiety, depression, etc.) and substance use disorders (alcohol and other drugs). Organizations, groups and clubs that can provide students in recovery access to recovery resources in the broader community (support programs, wellness resources such as yoga or meditation, etc.) Organizations, groups and clubs that help students enhance their physical health and wellness (nutrition information, fitness programs, health screenings, stress and anxiety, meditation, etc.) Organizations, groups and clubs that have an interest in supporting students in recovery (i.e. community, religious or school organizations) Organizations that provide financial assistance for students in recovery (scholarships, grants, etc.) Individuals interested in recovery who can use their personal network within the broader community to help students in recovery to find vocational opportunities (such as internships, sponsored research, etc.) Students in recovery who are trained to lead and facilitate groups th Quartile Organizations, groups and clubs that facilitate involvement in community service, philanthropy and civic engagement (speaking at high schools, service projects, etc.) Individuals in student residential settings who are trained to identify potential addiction issues Individuals who can provide students in recovery with spiritual guidance where spiritual guidance is defined as the exploration of personal values and development of a purpose-driven life. Organizations, groups and clubs that enable students to gain and practice leadership skills (through internships, community service, mentoring, through participation in student-led organizations, etc.) Individuals from the university community (alumni, parents, advocates) interested in supporting students in recovery Individuals from the collegiate recovery program who have graduated and are interested in supporting students in recovery Individuals who can provide students in recovery with legal assistance (i.e. consultation for referrals, expungement of records, etc.) Departments within the University involved in or supporting ongoing research on addiction and recovery Departments within the University that offer courses on subjects related to addiction and recovery for course credit Table Asset Rating Chart 14

17 2014 Survey Report COLLEGIATE RECOVERY NETWORK EXAMINATION The introduction in the 2014 Collegiate Recovery Asset Survey of network-related questions reflects the ongoing intention of Transforming Youth Recovery to better understand how institutions of higher education can leverage naturally occurring, community networks to expand the reach and influence of collegiate recovery programs and efforts. The examination of networks is particularly valuable when seeking to support very personal lifestyle choices. Research clearly indicates that connected networks, particularly peer-based networks, have the power to significantly influence the general well-being of their members. The 2014 survey report is meant to offer a glimpse into the networks forming in and around collegiate recovery programs and efforts. Each network reflects the unique ways in which community-based assets appear to connect and influence peer, counseling, educational and other recovery support characteristics of campus-specific CRP/Es. By looking at these diverse patterns of connection and influence, there is an opportunity to expand our understanding of the various ways collegiate recovery is being expressed within institutions of higher education in the United States. A second purpose for a network examination is to recognize gaps. The greater the ability to view the reach of networks, observe where and how connected networks are forming and plot the prevalence of collegiate recovery practices, the greater the ability to meaningfully recruit new assets that can participate in underrepresented areas of recovery support. This report offers a network examination of the 41 survey respondents who are connected through their participation in funding activities led by Transforming Youth Recovery. While this examination paints a picture of asset-based networks forming in and around the 41 CRP/Es, the intention is to broadly learn from those who are proficient connectors within campus-specific communities and build upon their experience. The network examination includes: Composition The ability to define and make visible the composition of any network is an important step toward advancing its purpose. For local collegiate recovery efforts, network composition can be illustrated from 3 viewpoints: Staffing/ Space Use; Collegiate Recovery Community Lifecycle Stages; Collegiate Recovery Types Connections Any network examination can be further sharpened through a dedicated look at the relationships being established with and among local community-based assets. Collegiate recovery connections are illustrated through Student Engagement and a look at local collegiate recovery Community Network Models. Practices The final component of a network examination involves the analysis of recovery practices that result from the specific efforts of a collegiate recovery program or effort. In general, practices refer to the mobilization of assets into clearly defined, easily accessible activities and services. Network practices specific to collegiate recovery are illustrated through a Rating of Practices by Survey Participants and Lifecycle Stage. 15

18 The 38 Assets for Building Collegiate Recovery Capacity STAFFING AND SPACE USE among COLLEGIATE RECOVERY PROGRAMS/EFFORTS College or university staff along with physical space for meetings and services are referenced in 5 of the 8 assets deemed critical to starting any collegiate recovery effort. The importance of staff and their departmental resources to collegiate recovery efforts is demonstrated by the finding that greater than 65% of all CRP/Es are staffinitiated and led. Collectively, 86% of engaged students have access to dedicated or consistent space for their CRP/E. (Figure 2) And 81% of engaged students belong to CRP/Es that do not offer residential housing options. (Figure 4) For those CRP/Es offering residential housing, the qualitative impression is that the range of housing options can include roommate matching services, offcampus housing not affiliated with the higher education institution, recovery residence floors/suites, or recovery residence halls. When students in your collegiate recovery program/effort meet as a group, your space is: 22% 2% 48% of engaged students have dedicated space (302) 54% 22% How many staff and volunteers are currently dedicated to your collegiate recovery program/effort? Dedicated space Shared space, consistent Shared space, not consistent No Space Figure 2. Use of Space by CRP/Es 38% of engaged students have shared but consistent space (240) Average of <1 full-time staff, 1 part-time staff, and 3 volunteers per CRP/E 51 Does your collegiate recovery program/ effort offer residential housing? 33 8 Full-time staff decicated to CRP/E Part-time staff dedicated to CRP/E Volunteers dedicated to CRP/E Figure 3. Staff Allocations by CRP/ Es Non-residential programs serve 81% of engaged students (512) CRP/E offers residential housing CRP/E does not offer housing Figure 4. Residential Housing at CRP/Es 16

19 2014 Survey Report Which of the following best describes how your collegiate recovery program/effort started? 39% Clinical staff initiated 29% Non-clinical staff initiated Department or staff when indicated: Counseling Services or Center (10) Student Health Services (3) Center for Prevention and Outreach Counselor Education Professor Health Education, Prevention or Wellness Services (7) Parent (2) Alcohol and Drug Assistance Program Housing, Dining and Residential Services 17% College/University administration initiated 8% Committee or advisory board initiated 7% Student or student group initiated 0% Other Which of the following best describes who currently leads your collegiate recovery program/effort? 37% Clinical staff led 29% Non-clinical staff led Department or staff when indicated: Counseling Services or Center (9) Health & Wellness Services (2) Center for Prevention and Outreach Counseling and Testing and Wellness Resource Center Student Affairs Student Health/Alcohol & Drug Program Student Affairs, Life or Services (4) Health Education, Prevention or Wellness Services (6) Housing, Dining and Residential Services (2) 15% Student or student group led 12% College/University administration led 7% Committee or advisory board led 0% Other Table 6. How CRP/Es Started and Who Leads 17

20 The 38 Assets for Building Collegiate Recovery Capacity LIFECYCLE STAGES of COLLEGIATE RECOVERY PROGRAMS/EFFORTS Viewing collegiate recovery programs and efforts by community lifecycle stages is meant to assist in the recognition of assets, connections, and practices that can help any collegiate recovery effort expand its influence and reach. Overall, community development is a process intended to start small and grow purposefully. Survey participants were asked to self-report the community lifecycle stage they felt best described their CRP/E. (Table 7) Those CRP/Es reported in the Notion and Establishment stages are considered to be in the early stages of community development. Ratings of assets and practices by stage have then been provided in the final section of this report. (Figures 10-13) Which of the following best describes your collegiate recovery program/effort? Notion Establishment Maturity Sustainablilty You are cultivating a small group of students to build a recovery community. You have a community of students in recovery and are making new relationships to support those students. You have a formalized collegiate recovery program and community. You have a formalized collegiate recovery program and are building coalitions to extend community. 37% (15 CRP/Es) 29% (12 CRP/Es) 15% (6 CRP/Es) 19% (8 CRP/Es) Arkansas State University-Jonesboro CSU San Bernardino Dalton State College Florida Atlantic University Montana State University Morehead State University North Carolina Central University Pace University-New York City Stony Brook University The University of Texas at Tyler University of Massachusetts Boston University Of North Dakota University of South Carolina Virginia Commonwealth University Boise State University Michigan State University Saint Louis University The University of Mississippi The University of Texas at Arlington University of California, Riverside University of California, San Diego University of California, Santa Cruz University of Connecticut University of Virginia University of Washington Wake Forest University Auburn University Kennesaw State University Longwood University Oregon State University University of Michigan UNC Charlotte St. Cloud State University Mississippi State University The Ohio State University The University of Texas at Austin University of California, Santa Barbara University of Houston University of Nevada, Reno UNC Wilmington Average Number of Engaged Students by Stage Range of Engaged Students by Stage Table 7. Recovery Community Lifecycle Stages 18

21 2014 Survey Report TYPES of COLLEGIATE RECOVERY PROGRAMS/EFFORTS The final composition viewpoint provides a classification of collegiate recovery programs and efforts by type. Local networks forming in and around CRP/Es tend to reflect the intended purpose for establishing and growing a collegiate recovery community. Collegiate recovery types reflect the stated emphasis that staff and students place on certain components of recovery support practices. The purpose behind type delineation is to assist in better understanding how local collegiate recovery efforts determine the blend of peer-based support, counseling or clinical support services, and social activities that are the best fit for their community of students. An examination of types over time can help address research questions of interest: Should certain recovery support components be emphasized over others? What is the right balance? What are the different network and programmatic models that can support diverse collegiate recovery types? Within the 2014 survey, collegiate recovery types were determined by asking survey respondents to rank perceptions of emphasis as they related to: Peer support; Counseling or clinical support; Social activities; or Other (write-in). Based on their response, a CRP/E was given a lead indicator of Peer-based or Counseling-based as determined by the highest ranked emphasis from both a programmatic and student perspective. If the highest ranked emphasis was not in alignment, then the lead indicator was determined by examining the institutional staff and department that was leading the CRP/E. The addition of a secondary emphasis to the lead indicator (i.e. Peer-based with Counseling Emphasis) reflects a subjective evaluation of subsequent rankings along with researchers familiarity with the CRP/E. Overall, the hope is to show the breadth of models, structures, philosophies and services that constitute CRP/Es nationwide. The designation of collegiate recovery types is a first step toward identifying the core components of recovery support that may be applied to best meet the unique needs of collegiate recovery students in campus-specific settings. In addition, the designation should enable CRP/Es with similar types to connect and share those practices that are having a positive impact on students and the community at-large. When you talk about your collegiate recovery program/effort, which aspects do you emphasize as having the greatest impact? (Peer support; Counseling or clinical support; Social activities; Other (write-in)) When students talk about your collegiate recovery program/effort, which aspects do they emphasize as having the greatest impact on them? (Peer support; Counseling or clinical support; Social activities; Other (write-in)) 19

22 The 38 Assets for Building Collegiate Recovery Capacity Peer-based with Counseling Emphasis Counseling-based with Peer Support Emphasis Peer-based recovery support with an emphasis on extending continuing care for substance use disorders in a campus-based recovery friendly setting. Clinical recovery support with an emphasis on continuing care through peer support in a campus-based recovery friendly setting. 32% (13 programs/efforts) 5% (2 programs/efforts) Avg. Number of Engaged Students: 14 Range of Engaged Students: 1 57 students Avg. Number of Engaged Students: 5 Range of Engaged Students: 0 10 students Peer-based with Social Emphasis Counseling-based with Social Emphasis Peer-based recovery support with an emphasis on a campus-based recovery friendly setting and supportive social community. Clinical recovery support with an emphasis on social activities for staying sober and coping strategies for initiating and/ or sustaining recovery while navigating academic stressors. 61% (25 programs/efforts) 2% (1 program/effort) Avg. Number of Engaged Students: 16 Range of Engaged Students: students Number of Engaged Students: 30 Range of Engaged Students: 30 students Table 8. Collegiate Recovery Types 20

23 2014 Survey Report INVITATIONS EXTENDED to STUDENT ENGAGEMENT As collegiate recovery programs and efforts look to expand their influence and reach within collegiate settings, it is important to recognize the invaluable role they play in cultivating networks that support students in recovery. This network building role involves making connections with local community-based assets that can then be accessed by students who are striving to meet academic, recovery and lifestyle goals. One way to assess the health of networks forming in and around CRP/Es is to consider student response to extended invitations. An invitation is defined as outreach to students in order to extend information about collegiate recovery support practices. One measurement of effectiveness is student engagement based on those invitations extended. To a degree, engagement signals a positive response to those invitations that address the needs and interest of community members. Es evaluate the nature of its connections in terms of relevancy to the needs of its student population. Second it can offer insight into an expected engagement ratio the number of invitations a CRP/E should expect to extend per student engaged. The 2014 survey participants reported extending 1,525 invitations to prospective students in recovery and, from those invitations, reported that 629 students regularly attended activities, events, or services. This correlates to CRP/Es extending between 2-3 invitations for each student engagement. Breakdown of invitation-toengagement data by composition (Figures 5-7) provides baseline engagement ratios for those working toward campus-specific collegiate recovery efforts. Deviations from these baseline ratios could signal a need for evaluation in terms of the nature of connections or the invitation tactics being applied at their institution. The value in paying attention to this invitation-toengagement dynamic is two-fold. First it can help CRP/ Please indicate the number of students that currently receive communication (eg. information sent out about activities, events, or services) from your collegiate recovery program/effort. Of those students, how many regularly attend activities, events, or services offered by the collegiate recovery program/effort? 21

24 The 38 Assets for Building Collegiate Recovery Capacity Engagement Ratio 3:1 {N=12} Engagement Ratio 2:1 {N=8} Engagement Ratio 5:1 {N=15} Engagement Ratio 2:1 {N=6} Notion Establishment Maturity Sustainability Figure 5. Invitations-to-Engagement by Stage Engagement Ratio 2:1 {N=9} Engagement Ratio 3:1 {N=22} Engagement Ratio 3:1 {N=9} Engagement Ratio N/A {N=1} 0 Dedicated space Shared space, consistent Shared space, not consistent No space Invitations Engagement Figure 6. Invitations-to-Engagement by Space 22

25 2014 Survey Report 1400 Engagement Ratio 2:1 {N=25} Engagement Ratio 3:1 {N=13} Peer-based (Counseling) 890 Peer-based (Social) Engagement Ratio 1:1 {N=3} Counseling-based (Peer & Social) Invitations Engagement Figure 7. Invitations-to-Engagement by Type 23

26 The 38 Assets for Building Collegiate Recovery Capacity COMMUNITY NETWORK MODELS Since early 2013, collegiate recovery grantees supported by Transforming Youth Recovery have been asked to participate in a nationwide effort to map community-based assets that support students in recovery. This has been done by encouraging participating institutions of higher education to undertake the capacity-building activity of Community Mapping. Community Mapping is a dynamic discipline for creating an inventory of individual, organizational and physical assets that can inform and shape the practices of each campus-specific collegiate recovery effort. The idea of mapping has roots in the community development process of uncovering local talents and gifts that can contribute to a healthy and fulfilling recovery community. The true value of the mapping discipline, and why it is promoted as a keystone activity for capacity building, is the promotion of an ongoing process of outreach and relationship-building. Just as every recovery path is unique, so is every recovery community. It is the act of mapping that will reveal the unique characteristics and associations that can be brought to bear on helping students in recovery, to thrive in the fullness of their college experience. As a part of the 2014 survey activities, participating CRP/ Es were provided with a listing of community-based assets that have been mapped within a 100-mile radius of their CRP/E. For each asset listed as belonging to their community network, survey participants were asked to (1) indicate their relationship with that asset (Collaborator, Friend, or Possibility) and to (2) indicate use by students in the CRP/e (High, Medium, Low, or Not Used). A total of 26 CRP/Es (63% of the survey participants) completed this network modeling activity. The resulting Collegiate Recovery Community Network Models reveal a dynamic display of those connections that are helping students in recovery. Each model is intended for staff and students to recognize the relationships and practices that are important to their unique community and to explore new possibilities for building local coalitions that can extend the influence and reach and influence of their collegiate recovery efforts. View the community model This network has: 14 Collaborators 5 Friends 22 possibilities Visit for the community models available from participating CRP/Es program pages. For each asset listed, please indicate the relationship to your program/effort. COLLABORATOR is an asset that is actively engaged and participates in your collegiate recovery community; FRIEND is an asset that is somewhat engaged and may participate in your collegiate recovery community; POSSIBILITY is an asset you do not know or may not yet know how they support your collegiate recovery community For each asset, please indicate use by students in your collegiate recovery program/effort. (High, Medium, Low, Not Used) 24

27 2014 Survey Report Figure 8. Aggregate Collegiate Recovery Community Network Model The aggregate model displays the 499 community-based assets (398 unique) which have been mapped within 100-miles of reporting CRP/Es. The wide gray bands reflect the relationship between mapped assets and the collegiate recovery program or effort (symbolized by the black node at the model s center.) Collaborator (light gray): Assets that are actively engaged and participate in the collegiate recovery program or effort. Friend (mid gray): Assets that are somewhat engaged and may participate in the collegiate recovery program or effort. Possibility (dark gray): Assets not yet known by the collegiate recovery program or effort. Node colors are reflective of corresponding asset categories and the number with each node denotes the number of individual assets for each category in each relationship area. Of interest are the categories of assets most found to be collaborators (Health and Wellness (20); Student Services (17); Mental Health (15); and Recovery Support (15) as well as the categories that reflect the highest potential for allies but are not yet known by CRP/Es (Treatment Service (59); Recovery Support (37); Substance Use Counseling (27); and Health and Wellness (26)). There are a total of 48 CRP/E relationships noted with networks, yet only 8 (17%) have been classified by another CRP/E as a collaborator. More than 50% (26) are viewed as possibilities in terms of a future relationship. 25

28 The 38 Assets for Building Collegiate Recovery Capacity Figure 9. Collegiate Recovery Community Network Model (St. Cloud State University Recovery Community) The Collegiate Recovery Community Network Model reveals a dynamic display of those campus-specific asset connections that are serving and supporting students in recovery. Each model aims to help staff and students explore the relationships, practices, and local coalitions that can extend the reach and influence of collegiate recovery efforts in their community. The center point of the model is the collegiate recovery program or effort being viewed. In this case, the model display in Figure 9 reflects community-based assets mapped by the St. Cloud State University (MN) collegiate recovery program. The wide grey bands reflect the relationship between mapped assets and the collegiate recovery program: Collaborators (light grey); Friends (mid grey); and, Possibilities (dark grey). The size of an asset appearing in the model indicates Use by Students involved in the collegiate recovery program or effort. From largest to smallest size, use is defined as: High, Medium, Low, or Not Used. The location of an asset within its grey band is set according to Use by Students for visual spacing. Higher utility assets (larger sized nodes) are pushed toward the outer rim of a band to avoid overlapping. Assets that are Not Used remain positioned on the outer rim of a band awaiting use by students in recovery. The St. Cloud State University Recovery Community, a Peer/Counseling type self-reporting to be in the Sustainability stage, has created strong relationships with student service and sober housing assets on or near campus. Additionally, the recovery community benefits from nearby connections to two other collegiate recovery programs. Corresponding high utilization by students of assets related to student services, sober housing and recovery support services demonstrate the value of cultivated relationships. Areas to explore for the recovery community include outreach to mental health and treatment services that have been identified in their area along with some consideration to diversify contributing community-based assets. 26

29 2014 Survey Report Asset Collaborators by Stage Asset Category Notion Establishment Maturity Sustainability 27 collaborator assets 37 collaborator assets 11 collaborator assets 36 collaborator assets (24 unique assets) (12 unique assets) (11 unique assets) (36 unique assets) Activity Space 3.7% 5.6% Advocacy and Education 3.7% 16.2% 9.1% 2.8% Collegiate Recovery Effort 5.4% 9.1% 2.8% Collegiate Recovery Program 7.4% 2.7% 9.1% Health and Wellness 18.5% 18.9% 9.1% 19.4% Life Skills Mental Health 14.8% 13.5% 16.7% Other 5.4% 8.3% Recovery Support 3.7% 16.2% 18.2% 16.7% Sober Housing 5.4% 9.1% 2.8% Student Services 18.5% 13.5% 27.3% 11.1% Substance Use Counseling 14.8% 5.4% 9.1% Treatment Service 14.8% 13.9% Table 9. Network Collaborators by Recovery Community Lifecycle Stage (Percentage of Assets by Category) This initial asset category distribution table provides insight into the collaborators which appear in community network models when viewed by CRP/E lifecycle stage. Table percentages are calculated by dividing the number of community-based assets reported in each category by the number of community-based assets reported for the stage. Those percentages highlighted in orange reflect primary preferences for collaborators while percentages highlighted in blue indicate secondary preferences. For those CRP/Es in early lifecycle stages (Notion and Establishment), collaborators were most likely to be found in the asset categories of Health and Wellness and on-campus Student Services. Of interest is the increase in preference during the Establishment stage to seek collaborators in Advocacy and Education and Recovery Support categories. For those CRP/Es in later stages (Maturity and Sustainability), collaborators were also most likely to be found in the asset categories of Health and Wellness and on-campus Student Services. Of interest is the maintenance of preference to seek collaborators in the Recovery Support category while enhancing support connections in Mental Health and Treatment Services categories in the Sustainability stage. 27

30 The 38 Assets for Building Collegiate Recovery Capacity Asset Collaborators by Type Asset Category Peer-based/Counseling Peer-based/Social Counseling-based 39 collaborator assets (22 unique assets) 69 collaborator assets (59 unique assets) 4 collaborator assets (3 unique assets) Activity Space 2.6% 1.4% 25% Advocacy and Education 10.3% 7.2% Collegiate Recovery Effort 5.1% 2.9% Collegiate Recovery Program 5.1% 2.9% Health and Wellness 15.4% 18.8% 25% Life Skills Mental Health 10.3% 15.9% Other 5.1% 4.3% Recovery Support 5.1% 15.9% 50% Sober Housing 5.1% 2.9% Student Services 17.9% 14.5% Substance Use Counseling 12.8% 2.9% Treatment Service 5.1% 10.1% Table 10. Network Collaborators by Collegiate Recovery Type (Percentage of Assets by Category) The second asset category distribution table provides insight into the strong ties which appear in community network models when viewed by CRP/E types. Table percentages are calculated by dividing the number of community-based assets reported in each category by the number of community-based assets reported by designated types. Those percentages highlighted in orange reflect primary preferences for collaborators while percentages highlighted in blue indicate secondary preferences. For those CRP/Es that have a leading type indicator of being Peer-based recovery support, collaborators were most likely to be found in the asset categories of Health and Wellness and on-campus Student Services. The further delineation of CRP/E types into being Peer-based with a Counseling emphasis (Peer-based/Counseling) or Peer-based with a Social emphasis (Peer-based/Social) illustrates a variance in primary preferences for collaborators. Peer-based/Counseling types preferred collaborators in the Substance Use Counseling asset category while Peer-based/Social types connected with assets in the Mental Health and Recovery Support categories. For those CRP/Es that have a leading type indicator of being Counseling-based recovery support, collaborators were most likely to be found in the asset category of Recovery Support. Although a small sample size, this may indicate self-management of counseling services and the desire to then connect with community-based assets focused on broadening recovery support options. 28

31 2014 Survey Report Asset Distribution by Student Use Asset Category High Use Medium Use Low / Not Used 84 collaborator assets (68 unique asset) 70 collaborator assets (63 unique asset) 344 collaborator assets (267 unique asset) Activity Space 2.4% 2.9% 0.9% Advocacy and Education 4.8% 5.7% 6.4% Collegiate Recovery Effort 1.2% 1.4% 6.4% Collegiate Recovery Program 1.2% 2.9% 6.1% Health and Wellness 25.0% 10.0% 9.9% Life Skills 5.7% 0.9% Mental Health 11.9% 7.1% 6.7% Other 2.4% 8.6% 6.4% Recovery Support 16.7% 21.4% 11.9% Sober Housing 1.2% 4.3% 7.6% Student Services 23.8% 21.4% 6.1% Substance Use Counseling 7.1% 4.3% 8.7% Treatment Service 3.6% 4.3% 21.8% Table 11. Asset Utility by Students (Percentage of Assets by Category) The final asset category distribution table provides insight into the utility (perceived value) of connections between community-based assets and students engaged in CRP/Es. Table percentages are calculated by dividing the number of community-based assets reported in each category by the number of community-based assets reported by student use designation (High, Medium, or Low/Not Used). Those percentages highlighted in orange reflect primary designations within each area of use by students while percentages highlighted in blue indicate secondary designations. Of the 499 community-based assets reported in community network models, nearly half (43.9%) were Not Used by students and close to three-quarters (68.9%) were designated as Low Use or Not Used. Thirty-one percent of assets in network models were designated as High or Medium Use by students with primary designations for use appearing in the asset categories of Health and Wellness, Recovery Support, and Student Services. More than 75% of the assets designated as being Low Use or Not Used by students were classified as being possibilities in terms of network relationship with the CRP/Es. This provides an indication that CRP/Es have an opportunity to connect with community-based assets in their area and work toward collaborative relationships that can dramatically expand support options for students in recovery. 29

32 The 38 Assets for Building Collegiate Recovery Capacity Wake Forest University WFU Choices Collegiate Recovery Effort North Carolina Central University University of North Carolina at Charlotte Collegiate Recovery Community University of South Carolina Student Health Services Collegiate Recovery Community Figure 10. Collegiate Recovery Community Network Cluster The network cluster model shows the rich dynamic emerging among CRP/Es that share geographic proximity. The illustrated network cluster model results from collegiate recovery efforts being undertaken at North Carolina Central University (Notion stage), Wake Forest University (Establishment stage), University of North Carolina at Charlotte (Maturity stage), and the University of South Carolina (Notion stage). Circled nodes (community-based assets appearing in the network models of CRP/Es) reflect those assets that have a relationship designation (Collaborator, Friend, or Possibility) by more than 1 CRP/E within the cluster. Those circled nodes that appear in the color orange reflect assets that have a relationship designation by more than 2 CRP/Es within the cluster. The lines connecting two or more nodes allow for understanding of the relationship status and student use of connected assets within each independent CRP/E community network model. Of interest is the prospective use of this type of network analysis for CRP/Es that share geographic proximity. The cluster analysis allows all collegiate recovery staff to see where strong ties are forming to focus on supporting students in recovery. The ability to then collaborate with diverse support services throughout the cluster provides a clear opportunity to expand the influence and reach of collegiate recovery efforts in local areas through collective action. 30