In 2002, I penned twin essays entitled “ Recovery as a Heroic Journey” and “The Boon of Recovery” that were later included in the book, Let’s Go Make Some History: Chronicles of the New Recovery Advocacy Movement. As an invitation to explore these collected papers, the first of these essays is displayed below. (All proceeds from this book support Faces and Voices of Recovery.)
In his classic work, The Hero with a Thousand Faces, Joseph Campbell described a dominant myth pervading the world’s cultures. Campbell noted that, in spite of their myriad variations, mythic stories of the heroic adventure shared a common structure: the hero’s departure, the hero’s transformation by great trials, and the hero’s return. Campbell’s portrayal of the heroic journey beautifully depicts the metamorphoses of addiction and recovery at the same time it poses provocative questions about the final stage of the recovery process.
The beginning of the hero’s tale is the call to adventure. Here the yet-to-be hero, often a person of little note or a community outcast, responds to a call from beyond his or her parochial world. To answer this call requires leaving that which is familiar to enter regions of “both treasure and danger.” The call to adventure marks a great separation from family and community and entry into an unknown world.
As the adventure unfolds, the hero encounters numerous trials and tribulations that test his or her character. Eventually, the hero experiences an ultimate test. It is here that the hero is “swallowed into the unknown, and would appear to have died.” But the hero, often with the aid of a personal guide, finds a way to escape, whether from the labyrinth or the monster’s belly. The death experienced by the hero turns out to be not a death of the body but a living death of the ego. It is in this transformation that the hero recognizes and embraces new sources of power and understanding and is reborn into a new consciousness and a new relationship with the world. The central part of the heroic tale involves the acquisition of new knowledge that turns out to be as much rediscovery as discovery. Campbell notes: “the powers sought and dangerously won are revealed to have been within the heart of the hero all the time.”
According to Campbell, the most difficult stage of the hero’s journey is the return home. This is a stage of reentry into the community that was left behind, reconciliation between the hero and the family/community, and a stage of service through which the hero delivers the gift of his/her newfound knowledge to the community. To complete the heroic journey, the hero who left the community as a seeker must return as a servant and teacher. Campbell notes that the task of fully returning is so difficult that many heroes fail to complete this final step of their journey.
There are obvious parallels between the processes of addiction and recovery and the structure of the hero’s tale. There are hundreds of thousands of people whose recovery stories share striking similarities to Campbell’s myth of the hero. My primary purpose for exploring this similarity is to explore one aspect of this comparison: what the hero’s return to the community implies as a task of late stage recovery. Several questions arise from Campbell’s discussion. Have recovering people returned to their communities to share the boon (gift of knowledge) of their adventure? How can this return be completed? What is the nature of this boon that can help the community work out its own salvation?
Returning to the community calls not just for a physical and social re-entry into the community, but also for acts of reconciliation (healing the wounds inflicted upon the community, forgiving the community for its own transgressions), and giving something of value back to the community. For the heroic journey to be completed, for the hero to reclaim his or her citizenship in the community, those debts and obligations must be paid. Left unpaid, the hero’s final act of fulfillment remains unconsummated. Left unpaid, the community loses experience and knowledge that could enhance its own health and resiliency.
The boon of the heroic journey can be offered individually through acts of restitution, by carrying a message of hope to others (sharing one’s “story”), and by modeling the lessons contained in the boon (practicing recovery principles in our daily lives). And yet the questions could be asked: Have recovering people as a group fully returned to their communities or are they hiding within those communities? Are recovering people as a group reaching out or have they escaped into the comfort and security of their own recovery?
The stigma of addiction–the price that even those in long-term recovery can pay in disclosing this aspect of their personal history–leads many recovering people to “pass” as a “normal,” scrupulously hiding their recovery journey from members of the larger community. Some recovering people live a socially cloistered existence, interacting almost exclusively with others in recovery. Does such isolation constitute a failure at re-entry, a missed opportunity for reconciliation, and an abdication of the responsibility to teach and serve the community?
These questions are not easy to answer because recovering people and their styles of recovery and styles of living are extremely diverse. There are clearly recovering individuals who have achieved Campbell’s stages of re-entry, reconciliation, and service.
If recovering people have not fully returned to their communities, it is as much a cultural failure as a personal one. It is the cultural stigma–the very real price that can be exacted for disclosure of recovery status–that is a primary culprit here. It is time for a new recovery advocacy movement that, by removing the cultural stigma that continues to be attached to addiction/recovery, can open the doors for recovering people to return to their communities. It is time recovering people shared the boon of their recovery, not just with others seeking recovery, but with the whole community.
There is a new recovery advocacy movement afoot in America that promises greater contact between recovering people and the larger community. Recovering people around the country are again creating grassroots organizations aimed at supporting recovery through advocacy, community education, and recovery resource development. The participants in this New Recovery Advocacy Movement, while responding to critical community needs, are finding in this recovery activism a way to complete their own personal journeys. They are finding ways to return and serve their communities.
For those wishing a more detailed and recent discussion of these themes, click HERE.

Post Date September 16, 2016 by Bill White


Both high social status and high social stigma can lead to isolation within isolated from mainstream community life. Such closed systems are prone to charismatic leadership, ideological extremism, internal scapegoating, internal plots and schisms, breaches in ethical and legal conduct, fall of the “high priest,” and, in the extreme, the complete implosion of the organization. Within the alcohol and drug problems arena, the rise and fall of Synanon, the first ex-addict-directed therapeutic community, offers just one of many potential examples of this process. When addiction treatment programs or recovery mutual aid societies emulate such closure, they inadvertently further the community isolation and estrangement of those they are pledged to serve.
An essential dimension of the recovery process is healing the person-community relationship by forging pathways of reentry into community life, particularly for those who have been deeply enmeshed in cultures of addiction or whose addiction-related activities may have inflicted great harm on the community. The call for recovery-oriented addiction treatment and related support services is, in part, a call for forging space within local communities in which recovery can flourish, creating pathways that lead to such healing spaces, and providing personal guides to facilitate this psychological and cultural journey. Brief biopsychosocial stabilization should not be mistaken for sustainable recovery from addiction; recovery is not durable until it is firmly nested in the community—within the physical and cultural environment of each person/family. As a new generation of recovery support specialists is called to fulfill this role, it seems timely revisit the role of community in addiction recovery and the role recovery guides, whether in professional or indigenous helping roles, play in this person-community linkage process. I suggested the following in 2002.
All of us—physicians and nurses, addiction counselors, researchers and teachers, supervisors and managers—need to leave our offices and rediscover the social ecology within which both addiction and recovery are nested within our communities. We need to be meeting with the service committees of local addiction mutual aid societies. We—those in recovery and those not in recovery—need to get to know the recovering community by attending (within the prescribed guidelines for participation) meetings and social events of such organizations. We need to be visiting with the leaders of religious and cultural revitalization movements in our communities. We need to break bread with those working within our local union counseling programs. Rather than waste our lives obsessing about managed care, we need to relearn the cultural terrain outside our agencies and help create spaces within our communities that can serve as sanctuaries and places of renewal for recovering addicts and their families. And most importantly, we must enter into relationship with these indigenous resources as students rather than teachers.
What I was trying to suggest in these words was that you cannot guide others into relationships within the life of a local community if you are not yourself vitally involved in that community. Too many of us have for too long hidden from the slings hurled by a public that sees only caricatures of drug users, caricatures of the families affected by addiction, and caricatures of those who seek to help addicted men and women. Only through publicly sharing the truth of our stories as people in recovery and helpers in the recovery process will those images collapse into the dustbin of history. Only then can we forge the space in local communities where we–helpers and those helped–can live authentically and fully embrace our citizenship. Only then will pathways exist through which we can guide the lost, estranged, and abandoned into the heart of community life.
We must have the courage to travel out of our cloistered sanctuaries and enter local community life. We must come to know these communities. We must serve these communities. If recovery takes a village, we must do all we can to assure the presence of welcoming arms reaching toward every suffering individual and family. To create such a mass welcome, we need a vanguard of people in each local community to publicly and professionally share the news that long-term addiction recovery is a reality, that there are many pathways to recovery, and that recovery flourishes in supportive communities. These are quite simple but transformative messages that must be carried into the very heart of each community. Many people in recovery face great fear in entering or reentering community life. We must be in a position to say, “Take my hand and I will take you there.” To offer those words, we must first know that community terrain and have connections with its people and institutions.
Post Date September 9, 2016 by Bill White


A confluence of historically unprecedented forces has driven addiction-related disease and death into the very heart of rural and frontier communities in the United States. It remains to be seen whether this perfect storm can be met by the development and mobilization of expanded recovery support resources for individuals, families, and communities.
Rural and frontier communities vary widely in their characteristics, vulnerabilities, and resiliencies, but they do tend to share some distinguishing features: geographical isolation, individualism, religiosity, cultural and political conservatism, a distrust of outsiders, and recent decades of economic distress (e.g., declines in rural farming, manufacturing, and mining) and out-migration of young adults. The perfect storm that brought rising rates of addiction-related death and disease (e.g., HIV, Hep C) must be viewed within the context of these larger strains on rural community life. In 2009, in our book Methamphetamine: Its History, Pharmacology, and Treatment, Dr. Ralph Weisheit and I suggested that drug surges could ignite rapidly within conditions of high drug availability, the absence of drug controls, a vulnerable population, and a climate of cultural demoralization, mass unemployment, poverty, or mass migration. We further went on to predict that methamphetamine could be the Trojan Horse that would lead to the rise of prescription opioid and heroin use and increased sedative addiction in rural communities that had long been immune to opioid addiction.
That sequence of cultural, family, and personal vulnerability and the transition from methamphetamine, oral use of prescription opioids, and the migration to heroin use is the perfect storm that now bears the aftermath of overdose deaths and outbreaks of HIV infection and portends potentially enduring increases in alcohol and sedative dependence in these communities. (A rarely noted fact in coverage of the surge in opioid addiction is that the majority of overdose deaths result from combinations of opioids with alcohol and other sedative drugs—particularly benzodiazepines).
There are all manner of responses to the alarms rising in rural communities over surges in opioid addiction. Most focus on drug control measures, harm reduction measures aimed at reducing overdose deaths, and expanding access to treatment—particularly medication-assisted treatment. These are all important efforts, but the question remains whether supports for long-term personal and family recovery from opioid addiction will be included within these strategies. Such supports would involve shifting the lens through which we examine rural areas from a pathology or intervention paradigm to a solution-focused recovery paradigm (See my 2011 paper). It will require, as it will for the whole country, shifting from models of acute stabilization (serial episodes of brief treatment) to models of sustained recovery management and creating recovery landscapes within which long-term recovery can flourish. It will require mobilizing assets within the rural community—including individuals and families in recovery, recovery mutual aid organizations, new recovery support institutions, and new technology-based recovery supports to create such models and such recovery spaces.
One of the obstacles to achieving this vision is that we have so little scientific research on addiction recovery within rural and frontier communities. Lacking such guidance, we must rely at the moment on a growing body of experiential knowledge drawn from the heart of rural communities facing this crisis. We need venues to bring professional and lay leaders within these communities together to share their experience, strength, and hope—and to share the most effective recovery support strategies. For those on the front-lines of this crisis, I urge you to share in whatever ways you can what you are learning. The future of many rural communities may well rest on how quickly such lessons can be learned and exchanged.

Post Date August 26, 2016 by Bill White


In April of this year, Don Coyhis, leader of the Native American Wellbriety Movement, and I penned a communication to the field entitled Intergenerational Healing: Recognition, Resistance, Resilience, and Recovery. In that communication, we suggested that: 1) addiction in oppressed communities was fed by historical trauma and its residual remnants within contemporary life, and 2) the healing of historical trauma and its legacies involves distinct processes of personal and cultural renewal: Awakening and Collective Commitment; Mass Mobilization; Personal and Collective Mourning; Forgiving the Unforgivable; Achieving a New Harmony; Acts of Empowerment, Service, and Advocacy; Cultural Revitalization; and Acts of Celebration. These culturally indigenous processes must be accompanied by a reconstruction of the relationship between the oppressed group and the dominant culture. A central step in that process is for the dominant culture to fully acknowledge its historical actions and seek to make amends for these acts. The principle is one of restorative justice—healing the breach between wounding and wounded parties.
One of the darkest chapters in the history of the Indigenous Peoples of North America is that of the forced removal of Indian children from their homes and their internment in Indian Boarding Schools. The prolonged wounds wrought on the lives of Indian children, families, and tribes was a product of a policy whose explicit purpose was to: “Assimilate American Indian children into the American culture by placing them in institutions where they are forced to reject their own culture.”
White Bison has launched a petition to ask the U.S. Government to offer a public apology for the Abuses at U.S. Indian Boarding Schools. The petition reads as follows:
We the People ask the Administration to give a public apology for the abuse of Native American children in US Indian boarding schools. We ask that our President take the next step in the Native American Apology Resolution S. J. RES. 14 Section I, which he signed on December 19, 2009. The US government-funded 500 boarding schools for Native American children in order to integrate them into dominate culture. Children were taken away from their families and stripped of their identities and their cultures and were mentally, emotionally and physically abused. The trauma they faced has been passed down from generation to generation. This intergenerational trauma is directly connected as a cause for many social issues today.
I encourage everyone to SIGN THE WHITE HOUSE PETITION for the Apology for Abuses at US Indian Boarding Schools before the August 27 deadline. 100,000 signatures are needed. Be sure to log into your email after signing to confirm, so your signature will count. You may sign the petition at the following link:
Please share this with your friends and colleagues so we can all be part of this healing process.

Post Date August 9, 2016 by Bill White


Is it possible we are seeing the rise of a new generation of scholar activists who combine the experiential knowledge of addiction recovery, academic excellence, and a desire to give back through recovery-focused research, writing, teaching, and advocacy activities?
Over the past decade, I have interviewed many of the pioneers who made major contributions to the modern scientific and historical study of addiction recovery. All of these pioneers brought impeccable academic credentials to their work, but many withheld their personal or family recovery status or only disclosed that status late in their careers when they felt such disclosure would not damage their career opportunities or professional reputations. (See HERE and HERE for examples of the latter). Such secrecy or delays in disclosure were the result of the social stigma attached to addiction. Major efforts to reduce recovery-related stigma may make it easier for a new generation of scholars to pursue the study of the personal and family recovery experience while living openly as people in long-term addiction recovery.
Six factors will influence this future. First, the levels of education of people in recovery is increasing due both to the number of people with advanced education who are seeking recovery and the number of people in recovery choosing to pursue continued education as part of their recovery process. As examples, nearly 20% of AA members work as professionals, health professionals, or educators; 41% of surveyed NA members report having a college or graduate degree; and 47% of SMART Recovery members report having a college or graduate degree. Second, resources have expanded via the growing network of collegiate recovery programs through which people in recovery can pursue advanced education in a recovery-supportive academic and social environment. Third, there are now more than 280 colleges and universities offering formal addiction studies programs that academically prepare people to work within such areas as policy, administration, research, harm reduction, prevention, treatment, and recovery support services (Click HERE for a full list of such programs). The number of recovery-focused studies within Master’s theses and doctoral dissertations is increasing exponentially. Fourth, people are entering recovery at younger ages, with a growing contingent of politically aware and articulate young recovery advocates, some of whom are being drawn to academically prepare themselves for a career in the addictions field. Fifth, this emerging generation of recovery advocates has a seasoned vanguard of recovery role models working as addiction professionals, including at the highest levels of policy development and service delivery, as well as strong associations representing addiction medicine specialists and other addiction professionals. Sixth, recovery mutual aid organizations are themselves getting more involved in historical research and in collaborating with academic and private research organizations in the conduct of recovery research. Collectively, these forces are motivating people in recovery to further their education and extend their avocation of volunteer service work into a vocation within the addictions field.
This is all a way of saying there are ways that those who have been part of the problem can be part of the solution and that this influence can be exerted locally, nationally, and globally. Perhaps this invitation is being written for you. Perhaps you have changed your own life for a purpose that remains unclear to you. Perhaps that purpose is to help change the world—to help us understand the personal and family recovery processes in new ways, to elevate the quality of addiction treatment, to widen the doorways of entry into recovery, or to help find ways to break intergenerational cycles of addiction. Yes, such contributions will take a profound commitment, sustained preparation, and tenaciousness that will test you beyond measure. But from one who has followed this path, I invite you to accept the torch extended to you from my aging generation of scholar activists. Combining recovery-grounded experiential knowledge with the most rigorous historical and scientific methods of inquiry might indeed reshape the future of addiction and addiction recovery. Is that vision something that calls to you? Is it time to begin or take the next step in your preparation for this calling?

Post Date August 5, 2016 by Bill White


There were many policy and service agendas that came out of the 2001 Recovery Summit in St. Paul, Minnesota—the formal launch of the new recovery advocacy movement in the U.S., but none more central than increasing recovery representation at the tables where decisions are made affecting the lives of addicted and recovering individuals and their families. We embraced the mantra of the disabilities movement—“Nothing about us without us!”—in calling for recovery representation at all levels of the field—from the highest national and state policy venues to the governing boards, staff, and volunteers of local service organizations. It was a grand vision we had in 2001, and recent weeks have reminded me just how far we have come in achieving that vision. First was a photo sent to me of three men—Michael Botticelli, Tom Hill, and Tom Coderre—who live openly as persons in long-term addiction recovery and who serve in national policy advisory positions. Michael Botticelli is Director of White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) where he has led historic reforms in national drug policy, including elevating recovery as a new organizing paradigm for policy and service delivery. He earlier served as Deputy Director and Acting Director of ONDCP and before that served as Director of the Bureau of Substance Abuse Services at the Massachusetts Department of Public Health. Tom Hill, after earlier positions with Faces and Voices of Recovery and Altarum Institute, was appointed to serve as a Senior Advisor for Addiction and Recovery for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and Acting Director of the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT). Tom Coderre serves as a Senior Advisor and Chief of Staff at SAMHSA. He formerly served as the Chief of Staff to the Senate President in Rhode Island and as National Field Director of Faces & Voices of Recovery. Michael, Tom, and Tom are among a growing legion of professionals in long-term recovery who serve in key national policy development and policy advisory positions. Recovery representation is similarly increasing at state, regional, and local levels.
Recovery at the Table
Second was a photo sent to me of Justin Luke Riley of Young People in Recovery (YPR) participating in a forum with a listening President Barack Obama. YPR leaders have rapidly gained access to some of the most important decision-making venues within the addictions field. (See Those of us at the 2001 Recovery Summit shared our hopes of a new generation of recovery advocates that would bring youthful zeal and creativity into the recovery advocacy movement, but none of us could have predicted the speed with which this vision would be fulfilled.
Third was the recent news of passage of the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act (CARA) in the wake of a national mobilization of recovery advocates supporting this landmark legislation. It is not an overstatement to suggest that this legislation would not have been written and passed without the preceding cultural and political mobilization of people in recovery and others personally affected by addiction. CARA was signed by President Barack Obama on July 22, 2016 as he challenged Congress to provide increased funding to realize CARA’s potential healing influence on individuals, families, and communities.
The vision in 2001 was to bring the lived experience of recovery and the voices of the affected into policy development and the design, delivery, and evaluation of prevention, harm reduction, addiction treatment, and recovery support services. What is now transpiring is more than we could have dreamed in 2001. And that is cause for celebration and renewal of the commitment to create a sustainable recovery advocacy movement in the United States.

Post Date July 29, 2016 by Bill White


Fresh proposals to respond to rising opioid use/addiction/deaths arrive daily, but are striking in their collective silence on the needs of affected others—parents, siblings, intimate partners, children, extended family members, and social network members. Neglect of affected families has deep historical roots within the history of addiction treatment and recovery. Historically, family members were more likely to be viewed by addiction professionals as causative agents of addiction or hostile interlopers in the treatment process than people in need of recovery support services in their own right. Overcoming such attitudes has taken on added urgency due to the rising prevalence, morbidity, and mortality of opioid addiction in the United States and its rippling effects upon families and communities. In this brief communication, we offer some reflections on this issue and how we might use the current social crisis to forge a new chapter in the nation’s response to addiction-affected families and children.
Scientific research on the effects of opioid addiction on children and families is robust and its findings are unequivocal. Opioid addiction of a family member exerts profound consequences on the physical, emotional, and financial health of other family members and the family as a whole. Opioid addiction dramatically alters family roles, rules, rituals, and the family’s internal and external relationships. Its effects are observed across all family subsystems—adult intimacy relationships, parent-child-relationship, sibling relationships, and the relationship between the nuclear family and kinship networks.
The emotional life of opioid-affected families is rife with denial, shock, anger, verbal confrontations, confusion, guilt, humiliation, shame, fear, fleeting glimmers of hope, frustration, anticipatory grief, and feelings of extreme isolation and helplessness. Such feelings are exacerbated in the presence of an addicted family member’s threatening behavior, physical violence, lying, manipulation, failed promises, pleas for money, and damage or theft of property. Affected family members often report role disruption across generations (e.g., grandparents or aunts and uncles raising children of an addicted parent), a restricted social life, financial distress, a reduced standard of living (from the direct effects of opioid addiction, legal expenses, and repeated episodes of addiction treatment), and a progressive, stress-related increase in their own alcohol and other drug use. The presence, severity, and duration of these effects are mediated by multiple factors, such as the type, severity, complexity, and duration of the opioid addiction and the internal and differences in the external resources available to be mobilized to respond to the addiction crisis.
Many reports note the significant increase in the use of opioids and opioid-related deaths, with much of the focus on prescription practices, the specific opioids used, and the epidemiology of overdose in various communities. Yet, each OD death affects many people left behind. The loss of a loved one through death, incarceration or incapacitation causes immeasurable suffering for the family and other concerned people. One of the authors recently attended a Vigil of Hope in which family members honored the memory of a loved one lost to addiction. Over 130 attended this event. Photos of lost family members lined a table, most of them of young adults. The majority of participants lit a candle and made a statement about losing a loved one (a few lit candles to express gratitude that their loved one is in recovery). One little boy said “I light this candle in memory of my dad who died when I was 3 years old.” A man lit a candle in memory of “two brothers and a cousin who died from drug overdoses.” Several couples and families lit candles as a group in memory of their lost loved one. Tears flowed throughout this Vigil as members shared their sadness and grief. We must all remember that there is a person’s story behind every case of addiction. There are also multiple family stories behind each case of addiction. Addiction truly is a family disease affecting us all. Death by overdose and incarceration from criminal behaviors caused by addiction affects us all. And our pain as family members may persist for years after losing our loved one.
Research and our combined clinical experience on the effects of opioid addiction on children (beyond the effects of prenatal opioid exposure) and the effects of parental opioid addiction on the parent-child relationship are equally unequivocal. Children of opioid-addicted parents are at increased risk of developing attachment, mood (including suicide risk), anxiety, conduct, and substance use disorders and experiencing problems in school adjustment and performance. These effects tend to be gender-mediated with female children experiencing greater mood and anxiety disorders and male children experiencing more disruptive and substance use disorders. These risks are exacerbated when the parental intimate relationship is marked by conflict, violence, and cyclical patterns of engagement, abandonment, and reengagement. Studies of the effects of parental opioid addiction on parental effectiveness and the parent-child relationship note cyclical patterns of disengagement, neglect, abandonment, and guilt-induced over-protection, over-control, and over-discipline—combinations that often leave children confused and rebellious.
While the above addiction-related effects on families and children have been extensively documented in the scientific and professional literature, that same body of literature offers surprisingly little data about the prevalence of recovery from opioid addiction and how affected families recover as individuals and as a family unit. The neglect of families effected by opioid addiction ignores the damage such addiction inflicts on the family, but it also fails to convey the very real possibility of long-term recovery, and offers no normative map to guide families into and through the recovery process. Below are examples of what family-oriented care would look like within policy, prevention, treatment, recovery support, and research contexts.
*Family members affected by opioid addiction are included within policy and service planning discussions to provide family perspectives on service needs.
*Such representation includes a diversity of family experience, e.g., partner, parent, and child perspectives; families who have experienced opioid-related deaths, families experiencing active addiction, and families in recovery from opioid addiction.
*Targeted prevention and/or counseling services are offered to all children/siblings affected by opioid addiction.
*Where possible, assertive linkage to professional and peer-based family support services accompanies all opioid addiction encounters, e.g., emergency services, point of arrest and adjudication, treatment admission, and mutual help contact.
*Families affected by opioid addiction are provided an independent advocate to help them navigate legal and service systems and to reduce the risk of financial exploitation by helping organizations.
*The basic unit of service within addiction treatment programs and recovery community organizations is reconceptualized from the addicted individual to the family unit.
*Family education and support programs are integrated within all organizations offering opioid addiction treatment and recovery support services. Family education includes (at a minimum) information on the neurobiology of opioid addiction, the very real prospects of long-term recovery from opioid addiction, treatment and recovery support options, the diversity of pathways of recovery from opioid addiction, the effects of opioid addiction on the family and family members (including children), and the commonly experienced stages of family recovery.
*Affected family members (adults and children), including those who have experienced addiction-related losses within their families, are provided safe venues to share their stories and experience mutual support with others similarly affected.
*Family-oriented care within treatment programs spans the functions of assessment, treatment and recovery planning, service delivery, and post-treatment monitoring (recovery checkups), support, and, if and when needed, early re-intervention. Periodic recovery check-ups are continued for a minimum of five years following initial recovery stabilization.
*Every family involved in addiction treatment and/or peer-based recovery support services is exposed to individuals and families in long-term recovery from opioid addiction.
*Affected families are given opportunities to use their experiences as vehicles for community education and policy advocacy.
Of the above actions, none is more important than bringing affected family members into policy development and service planning venues and listening–really listening–to their stories and letting the experiences and needs reflected in those stories shape a family-focused policy agenda. Put simply, national and local responses to opioid addiction are most effective when they begin with the lost art of listening—listening to the raw urgency of unmet needs.
Selected References
Daley, D.C., & Ward, J. (2015). The impact of substance use disorders on parents, Part I. Counselor, 16(2), 28-31.
Daley, D.C., & Ward, J. (2015). The impact of substance use disorders on parents, Part II. Counselor, 16(3), 25-28.
Kirby, K.C., Dugosh, K.L., Benishek, L.A., & Harrington, V.M. (2005). The Significant Other Checklist: Measuring the problems experienced by family members of drug users. Addictive Behaviors, 30(1), 29-47.
Lander. L., Howsare, J., & Byrne, M. (2013). The impact of substance use disorders on families and children: From theory to practice. Social Work and Public Health, 28(0), 194-205.
Nunes, E.V., Weissman, M.M., Goldstein, R., McAvay, G., Beckford, C., Seracini, A., Verdeli, H., & Wickramaratne, P. (2000). Psychiatric disorders and impairment in the children of opiate addicts: Prevalences and distribution by ethnicity. The American Journal on Addictions, 9, 232-241.
Velleman, R., Bennett, G., Miller, T., Orford, J., Rigby, & Tod, A. (1993). The families of problem drug users: A study of 50 close relatives. Addiction, 88, 1281-1289.
White, W., & Savage, B. (2005). All in the family: Alcohol and other drug problems, recovery, advocacy. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly, 23(4), 3-37.

Post Date July 13, 2016 by Bill White