Distribution and Neighborhood Correlates of Sober Living House Locations in Los Angeles

Abstract

Sober living houses (SLHs) are alcohol and drug-free living environments for individuals in recovery. The goal of this study was to map the distribution of SLHs in Los Angeles (LA) County, California (N=260) and examine neighborhood correlates of SLH density. Locations of SLHs were geocoded and linked to tract-level Census data as well as to publicly available information on alcohol outlets and recovery resources. Neighborhoods with SLHs differed from neighborhoods without them on measures of socioeconomic disadvantage and accessibility of recovery resources. In multivariate, spatially-lagged hurdle models stratified by monthly fees charged (less than $1400/month vs. $1400/month or greater), minority composition and accessibility of treatment were associated with the presence of affordable SLHs. Accessibility of treatment was also associated with the number of affordable SLHs in those neighborhoods. Higher median housing value and accessibility of treatment were associated with whether a neighborhood had high-cost SLHs, and lower population density was associated with the number of high-cost SLHs in those neighborhoods. Neighborhood factors are associated with the availability of SLHs, and research is needed to better understand how these factors affect resident outcomes, as well as how SLHs may affect neighborhoods over time.

Sober living house characteristics: A multilevel analyses of factors associated with improved outcomes

“…This study was conducted in Los Angeles (LA) County between 2013 and 2017. LA County is an ideal location to study SLHs due to its large and diverse geographic and population characteristics as well as the large number of SLHs located in LA (Mericle et al, 2016). SLHs for this study were selected from those who were members of the Sober Living Network.…”

“…With respect to residence and operational characteristics, we anticipated that there may be differences by geographic location based on prior work finding significant clustering of SLHs and variation in density by neighborhood characteristics (Mericle, Karriker-Jaffe, Gupta, Sheridan, & Polcin, 2016). However, our measure of location (Sober Living Network Chapter) could reflect multiple neighborhoods, so we refrained from putting forth a priori hypotheses with respect to location.…”

Independent and Interactive Effects of Neighborhood Disadvantage and Social Network Characteristics on Problem Drinking After Treatment

“…Future analyses should consider broader definitions of neighborhood disadvantage (Buu et al, 2009) as well as other indicators of financial strain, such as the proportion of residents with incomes below 50% of the state’s median income (Krieger et al, 2002), which would be more inclusive of conditions of near-poverty that also may negatively impact recovery from alcohol problems, particularly in states such as California that have a high cost of living. Additionally, disadvantaged neighborhoods in Northern California might be different from disadvantaged neighborhoods in other parts of the country in that individuals living in low-income neighborhoods in the study area may have had access to additional recovery resources (Mericle, Karriker-Jaffe, Gupta, Sheridan, & Polcin, 2016). For example, at the one-year follow-up, participants in disadvantaged neighborhoods had significantly greater access to both outpatient and inpatient treatment, with higher densities of programs within 10 miles of their homes (13.3 vs 10.1 outpatient programs), as well as shorter distances to the nearest program (average distance of 1.5 vs. 3.4 miles to the nearest inpatient program).…”

The recovery movement and its implications for policy, commissioning and practice

“…The switch to a recovery approach has also been associated with a significant increase in research activity around improving the evidence base on recovery housing (e.g., Jason, Olson, Ferrari, & Lo Sasso, 2006;Mericle, Karrikar-Jaffe, Gupta, Sheridan, & Polcin, 2016), on the mechanisms of action of mutual aid groups (Kelly, 2016) and overall models of what is known to be supportive of long-term recovery pathways -recovery housing, peerdelivered interventions and mutual aid (Humphreys & Lembke, 2013).…”