market study for recovery high schools · daytop preparatory school – mendhan, nj 8. hope academy...

Market Study for Recovery High Schools September, 2013

Market Study for Recovery High Schools

Funded by:The Stacie Mathewson FoundationP.O. Box 6448Reno, Nevada 89513858-259-0382

Recommended citation: The Stacie Mathewson Foundation. (2013). The 2013 Market Study for Recovery Schools. Reno, NV.

Retrieved from http://transformingyouthrecovery.org/resources/market-study-recovery-high-schools

Publication design by Start Interaction, Inc.

Permission to reproduce, in whole or in part, for use in educational and other not-for-profit groups is granted with the acknowledgment of The Association of Recovery Schools and The Stacie Mathewson Foundation as the source on all copies.

The contents of this publication are based on work by sr4 Partners LLC and Dr. Andrew Finch, Associate Professor of the Practice of Human & Organizational Development, Vanderbilt University under con-tract, and is sponsored by The Stacie Mathewson Foundation.

© The Association of Recovery Schools and The Stacie Mathewson Foundation: September, 2013

Market Study for Recovery High Schools 3

ContentsSummary of Study .............................................................................................. 4

Part 1: Convergence of Forces for Change ....................................................... 13

Part 2: Definitions of School-Based Recovery Support Services ...................... 17

Part 3: Presence of Recovery Schools Across the U.S. ..................................... 25

Part 4: State-by-State Favorability Analysis ...................................................... 36

Part 5: Recommendations ................................................................................ 55

Acknowledgments ........................................................................................... 57

Bibliography ..................................................................................................... 57

Appendix A: Call Study Phone Guide ............................................................... 58

Appendix B: Explanation of Study .................................................................... 62

Appendix C: Recovery School Survey ............................................................... 65


Summary of Study The 2013 Market Study for Recovery High Schools supported by The Stacie Mathewson Foundation presents the landscape of recovery schools (recovery high schools) in the U.S. and offers an analysis of the conditions that will promote or hinder the future expansion of this type of school-based recovery support. The intention is to help existing schools operate at their best while aiding in the expansion of a collabora-tive network of recovery schools across the U.S. This work was done to benefit the Association of Recovery Schools (ARS), which has been identified by The Stacie Mathewson Foundation as the national leader in advocacy for the initiation and sustainability of recovery high schools.

This five part study illustrated the present landscape for recovery schools. The five parts include the following:

1. An examination and discussion of the political, social and economic trends that are thought to influence and impact the advancement of adolescent recovery support services.

2. The definitions and operating characteristics for recovery schools and other school-based recovery support services. These include therapeutic boarding schools, therapeutic board-ing schools with a substance abuse recovery emphasis, alcohol and drug treatment center schools, non-traditional schools of choice with targeted substance abuse programming and traditional schools.


3. The identification of all operating and closed recovery schools in the U.S. as defined by the operating characteristics outlined in the definitions of school-based recovery support services.

4. The identification and establishment of indicators in state regulatory and policy environ-ments that are favorable to the initiation and expansion of recovery schools; which then allowed for a state-by-state analysis to determine which environments are the most favor-able to recovery schools.

5. The observations and recommendations that emerged during this study that should be considered by ARS, operating recovery schools, legislators and future researchers.

To undertake the study, initial work was done to describe the political, social and economic trends that are expected to impact school-based recovery support services within the next five years. This is reflected in the first part of the study. The second part of the study offers definitions for school-based recovery support services known to currently exist in the U.S. that clearly define recovery schools as:

Recovery schools (recovery high schools also known as “sober schools”) are secondary schools designed specifically for students recovering from substance use or co-occurring disorders. They have the following definitional characteristics:

A. Primary purpose is to educate students in recovery from substance use or co-occurring disorders.

B. Meet state requirements for awarding a secondary school diploma, i.e. school offers credits leading to a state-recognized high school diploma and students are not just getting tutored or completing work from another school while there.

C. Intend that all students enrolled be in recovery and working a program of recovery for substance use or co-occurring disorders, as determined by the student and the school.

D. Available to any student in recovery from substance use or co-occurring disorders who meets state or district eligibility requirements for attendance, i.e., students do not have to go through a particular treatment program to enroll, and the school is not simply the academic component of a primary or extended-care treatment facility or therapeutic boarding school.

The third and fourth parts of the study use this definitional understanding to uncover the present landscape of recovery schools in the U.S. and discuss the laws, policies and practices that may have contributed to their start and success. This was initiated through a comprehensive call study, an ex-ploration of recovery schools that have closed for historical perspective, a series of interviews with subject matter experts and a thorough literature review.


The 2013 Market Study for Recovery High Schools identified 25 recovery schools currently operating in the U.S.

The findings were verified with Dr. Andrew Finch and the Association of Recovery Schools. The schools on this list only include schools that were successfully contacted during this study. It is the understanding of ARS that, at a minimum, there are additional recovery schools operating in Texas (Courage Program) and in Montgomery County, Maryland (Phoenix schools).The schools include:

1. Anchor Learning Academy – Providence, RI

2. Archway Academy – Houston, TX

3. The Bridge Way School – Philadelphia, PA

4. Central Freedom School (Mankato Area Public Schools, District 77 Area Learning Center) – Mankato, MN

5. Children’s Cabinet - The School of Life – Reno, NV

6. Circle of Health Recovery School (NDNS4 Wellness) – Phoenix, AZ

7. Daytop Preparatory School – Mendhan, NJ

8. Hope Academy – Indianapolis, IN

9. Horizon High School – Madison, WI

10. Independence Academy – Brockton, MA

11. INSIGHT Program: White Bear Lake ALC – White Bear Lake, MN

12. Jose A. Valdez High School – Laredo, TX

13. Lakes Recovery School – Detroit Lakes, MN

14. Newport Academy Day School (Newport Beach Campus) – Costa Mesa, CA

15. Newport Academy Day School (North Shore Campus) – Lake Bluff, IL

16. Northshore Recovery High School – Beverly, MA

17. Ostiguy High School – Boston, MA

18. P.E.A.S.E. Academy – Minneapolis, MN

19. Project Change – Waukesha, WI (scheduled to close in 2013)

20. REACH High – Casper, WY

21. Serenity High School – McKinney, TX

22. SLO Sober Community School – San Luis Obispo, CA

23. Springfield Recovery High School – Springfield, MA

24. Teen Recovery Solutions: Mission Academy (formerly Oklahoma Outreach Sober School) – Oklahoma City, OK

25. Three Oaks Academy – Houston, TX


A current map of recovery schools as well as other school-based recovery support services can be found at http://recoveryschools.capacitype.com.

There appear to be many factors contributing to an increasing demand for school-based recovery support services and the prospect of meeting such demands at a state level. The state-level analysis allowed for the isolation of conditions that help start and sustain recovery schools.

The state-by-state favorability analysis included interviews with policy and subject matter experts and recovery high school administrators.

The high school administrators interviewed during Part 4 of this study included Sasha McLean from Archway Academy, Rachelle Gardner from HOPE Academy, Roger Oser from William J. Ostiguy High School, Traci Bowermaster from Insight, Juli Ferraro from Serenity High School and Michael Durschlag from P.E.A.S.E Academy. The intent of these interviews was to uncov-er the laws, rules, policies and practices that had assisted or hindered the start or growth of their recovery high schools. Additional interviews were conducted with policy and subject matter experts including Devin Fox from Young People in Recovery, Pat Taylor and Tom Hill from Faces & Voice of Recovery and Nancy Marcus Newman from The Bridge Foundation.

http://recoveryschools.capacitype.com/


These interviews, in combination with a literature review, uncovered 25 indicators of a favorable environment for the initiation and sustainability of recovery high schools. The indicators include:

Legislative Environment

• State law allows for charter schools.• State funding is available for charter school facilities.• State has strong charter school laws.• State legislation regarding alternative schools exists.• State legislation regarding alternative school funding exists.• Recovery high school specific legislation exists in the state.• State legislature has a mental health caucus.

Operating Environment

• State allows students unlimited access to transfer to a public school of his/her choice.• State funding is available for transportation costs related to open enrollment/

school choice.• State does not use single count date for school funding.• State uses measures of individual student growth for ratings.

State and Community Environment

• A statewide recovery support organization exists.• Young People in Recovery (YPR) chapter exists in the state.• State alcohol and drug abuse agency has a formal process for representation of youth

recovery support.• State alcohol and drug abuse agency has earmarked funding for recovery support services

for adolescents.• State has a relatively low number of legal barriers facing people with criminal records.• Treatment services for adolescents are widely available in the state.• Treatment services for adolescents have payment assistance.• Juvenile and family drug courts exist in the state.• State-level charter school association exists in the state.

Implementation Record

• Recovery high school(s) exists and operate in the state.• Charter schools exist and operate in the state.• Students attend charter schools in the state.• State funding is available for categorical programs.

• Per-pupil education expenditure adjusted for regional differences.


Complete data was gathered for 41 states. When favorability indicators were applied to each state, the study found that 14.63% (6 out of 41) of states had low favorability for starting or sustaining recovery schools, 78.05% (32 out of 41) had neutral favorability for starting or sustaining recovery schools and 7.32% (3 out of 41) had high favorability for starting or sustaining recovery schools. States that received a low favorability rating scored 16.66 or fewer points out of 50. States that received a neutral favorability rating scored 16.67-33.33 points. States that received a high favorability rating scored 33.34-50 points. Scores within the data set ranged from 12 at the low end to 36 at the high end. It should be noted that there is a large range within each of these categories. The actual score received by each state has been included in the map below to allow for comparison.

Low (0-16.66)

Certain indicators not yet scored

Neutral (16.67-33.33)

High (33.34-50)

Incomplete Data

Recovery High Schools

17

29

24

2330

31

30

31

22

Recovery School Favorability ReportA State-by-State Look at the Favorability for Starting and Sustaining Recovery Schools

The data was gathered by The Stacie Mathewson Foundation with the support of sr4 Partners as part of the 2013 Market Study for Recovery High Schools.

Scores were assigned based on 25 indicators identi�ed during the Market Study. For each indicator a score of 2=High, a score of 1=Neutral and a score of 0=Low resulting in a total possible score of 50.

1923

3033

24

21

30

20

27

36

27

31 29

28

25

2015

3430

16

3119

29

12

12

18

13

21

18

2417

3625

28

3030

23

32

16

17

25


Additional indicators were identified and found to be potentially important to assessing a state’s favorability to recovery schools; however, direct applicability could not be determined, nor could a 50-state measurement source be identified at this time. Below is a supplemental list of indicators that should be evaluated prior to any future state-by-state analysis to determine if any measure-ment sources have emerged.

• Recovery schools models are free from limitations.

• Substance Use Disorder (SUD) qualifies as Special Education under Individuals with Dis-abilities Education Act (IDEA) as “Other Health Impairment.”

• The state has an alternative education accountability policy.

• The state promotes in-school suspension and follow-up care for expulsions (relatively low rate of overall suspensions).

• The state has an implemented recovery oriented system of care that includes recovery support for adolescents.

• A state level association for alternative education exists.

• Non-profit funding for adolescent recovery is available in the state.

• Inter-agency cooperation exists at the state level (inter-agency committee, working group or agreement exists between public health and education agencies).

• Existence of one or more charter school organizations with multiple schools operating under the larger organization.

• Number of students served by alternative schools in the state.

In future research, further refinement to this rubric is recommended. Possible refinement may include running a factor analysis to determine whether any of the indicators should be combined, research around how these indicators correlate to the existence of schools in each state, as well as research on how weighting the indicators based on significance may influence these findings.

The fifth and final part of the study presents findings and observations as they relate to the potential efforts of the Association of Recovery Schools (ARS) and their partners.

• Further refinement of the rubric used for the state-by-state analysis is needed. Refinement should include statistical analysis including running a factor analysis to determine whether any of the indicators should be combined, correlation analysis on how these indicators are related to the existence of schools in each state, as well as research into how weighting the indicators might alter the findings.


• Based on the convergence of factors discussed in Part 1, recovery schools need to be hiring staff that credentialed in the areas of mental health and substance abuse/chemical dependency as this will likely help them to better meet the needs of their population as well as possibly open new funding streams.

• Based on the convergence of factors discussed in Part 1, especially the anticipated increase in access to treatment, recovery schools must prepare to host a more diverse population in the future.

• ARS should keep the list of operating recovery high schools and closed high schools current as well as make this information public on a regular basis.

• ARS should repeat the state-by-state favorability analysis on an annual basis to ensure that the information, scorecards and maps created as part of this study remain current. In particular, the indicators regarding each SSA’s funding should be evaluated as many of the single state agencies receive funding for adolescent recovery support service through the Access to Recovery (ATR) grant. It is unknown how long this funding will be available; as such, there is concern among the SSA’s as to the sustainability of these offerings. Additionally, laws, funding and programs change often and therefore should be reassessed annually.Data for the nine states with incomplete data in the state-by-state analysis should be collected.

• Further research should be undertaken to understand operational economies of scale and mini-mum school size recommendations.

• Many of the single state agency’s (SSA’s) identified by SAMHSA for substance abuse services do not provide services to people under the age of 18. In those states, individuals under the age of 18 with substance use or co-occurring disorders receive services from the agency that supports families and children. As such, it would be useful to have a clear understanding of which SSA’s identified by SAMHSA offer substance abuse, treatment and recovery services for individuals under 18 and which SSA’s defer those services to another agency.

• Further research should be undertaken to better understand how per-pupil allocations work in each state. In Minnesota, the allocation is linked to students rather than schools or districts, which means that funding follows a student who transfers. This is one of the reasons that so many schools have opened in Minnesota. A comprehensive study of how this works across the country is recommended.

• ARS should investigate and determine policy recommendations on inclusion of substance use or co-occurring disorders as a disability covered by the ADA or acknowledgment as an under served population.

• ARS should seek to define and promote funding streams available for recovery support services including health insurance, federal/state block grants and the Affordable Care Act. For example – what’s in the essential health benefit package in each state that could benefit young people in recovery?


• Individual recovery schools could benefit from legal expertise when starting a school to deter-mine the local legislative and policy environment. Legal experts could assist in interfacing with legislators in the area as well as understanding school district and zoning requirements.

• ARS should consider creating a library of legislative examples that are supportive of recovery schools and adolescent recovery support services, including the legislation passed in Massa-chusetts that supports the recovery schools there, as well as the legislation passed in Indiana to increased funding for Hope Academy.

• Legal representation may be needed on a case-by-case basis to secure services for students in re-covery; similar to legal action taken by families seeking IEPs on behalf of a child with disabilities. ARS should consider building a network of legal representatives to help students in recovery.

• ARS should consider establishing a national legal/advocacy network that are accessible to start-up schools, so that they can consult on the laws and policies in their locality, as well as provide recovery-specific discrimination legal advice.

• ARS should investigate employing legal research to find relevant legislation in all 50 states. Legal counsel could advise on the optimal legislative environment to support recovery high schools in each state.


Part 1: At the convergence of forces for change in recovery schoolsBy Dr. Andrew Finch A landscape examination requires recognition of the political, social and economic trends that may in-fluence and impact the advancement of adolescent recovery support services. By looking at these trends through a policy lens, the outlook for recovery high schools begins to take shape.

Policy movements benefit greatly from policy windows that expose the need for those policies. Recent events have flung open wide just such a policy window for recovery high schools. Addiction and treat-ment research, health care laws, high profile shootings and revised diagnostic criteria have set the stage for growth in school-based mental health and substance abuse services. One or two of these issues could have expanded the demand for recovery high schools, but the convergence of all of them in such a short period of time makes now an opportune time for recovery schools to expand. This sections will highlight four trends that provide opportunities for the expansion of recovery high schools and suggestions for what recovery schools must do to be ready for these changes. The trends include research findings, high profile incidents in schools, the release of the DSM-V, the Affordable Care Act and more access to treatment leading to a growing need for continuing care.

Research findings in adolescent addiction, treatment and recovery point to the importance of addressing substance use disorders.

Research over the last decade has confirmed:

• Adolescents can develop substance use and addictive disorders. Believe it or not, many used to doubt this was possible. And while they may present different than adults, adolescents do become addicted (Deas, Riggs, Langenbucher, Goldman, & Brown, 2000; Johnston, O’Malley, Bachman, & Schulenberg, 2009; Weinberg, Rahdert, Colliver, & Glantz, 1998.)

• The risk of addiction is worse the younger a person starts using, but the prognosis for recovery improves the younger a person stops using. This is a classic good news/bad news scenario, and the key to a positive outcome is intervening earlier in the process (Hardin and Ernst, 2009; NIDA, 2010.)

• Addiction is a chronic disease and recovery is not a linear process. This means it can take years – or a lifetime – to recover, and recovery is often marked by multiple relapses and treatment episodes (Dennis & Scott, 2007.)


Part 1: At the convergence of forces for change in recovery high schools

• Co-occurring mental health and substance abuse disorders are more prevalent than substance use disorders alone (Davidson & White, 2007.) At one time, it was thought a minority of adolescents with an addiction might have a co-occurring mental health disorder. Now we know it is a majori-ty, and many young people in recovery are trauma survivors as well (Dennis, 2004.)

• Treatment with a continuing care component has better outcomes than treatment with no con-tinuing care component (Burleson, Kaminer, & Burke, 2012.) While this appears to be common sense, there are now empirical studies to support the importance of continuing care – though the outcomes vary according to program quality and implementation (Godley, Garner, Passetti, Funk, Dennis, & Godley, 2010; McKay et al, 2009.)

High profile incidents have generated an interest in school mental health.

In the wake of disasters such as the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut and the growth of bully-ing both in person and in cyberspace, schools have been called to address mental health issues. The value of social emotional learning and character development in schools has grown as studies have shown how these traits enhance student learning and improve a student’s chance of earning a high school diploma (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011; Taylor & Dymnicki, 2007.) Many states have begun reviewing their school mental health policies, and in some cases authorizing funding to expand them. In January 2013, Sen. Al Franken introduced federal legislation, the Mental Health in Schools Act of 2013, to address school mental health. While passage is not imminent, even the posting of such a law is affirmation from Congress of the importance this issue holds. In fact, the most recent Race to the Top federal funding legislation offered incentives for schools to offer programs in social emotional learning.

Revised Diagnostic & Statistical Manual (DSM-V) increases the number of qualifying youth.

The DSM-V was released in May 2013, and while it may take awhile to blanket the treatment community, some feel the new manual (and its revised “Substance Use & Addictive Disorders” label) will increase the number of youth who will receive a diagnosis and thus qualify for services. This is in part due to expansion of the list of recognized symptoms for addiction and the reduction in the number of symptoms needed for a diagnosis of substance use or addictive disorder.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) will bring change to the field.

The ACA will alter the way mental-health and substance abuse services are provided and expand the base of adolescents with resources to access treatment. While many elements of the ACA have already been implemented, three major milestones will occur in the next 12 months:



• Starting January 1, 2013, the law established a national pilot program to pay hospitals, doctors and other providers a flat rate for an episode of care rather than billing for each service separately. The idea is to coordinate services, and ultimately providers will be paid for an episode and need to find the most efficient way to service the problem.

• On October 1, 2013, states will receive two more years of funding to continue coverage for chil-dren not eligible for Medicaid. This will keep children in the pipeline for services.

• Then, on January 1, 2014, most individuals who can afford it will be required to obtain basic health insurance coverage and people can start buying insurance in the Health Insurance Market-place instead of through employer plans.

All of these items from the ACA will increase the number of people with access to health care, though none require growth in the number of service providers or programs. Thus, there will likely be more people eligible for and able to pay for services than there are programs to serve them. This is a golden opportunity for innovation in mental health and substance use disorder programming – especially at access points like school-based clinics.

As access to and demand for treatment grows, so will need for continuing care.

As more students access services in schools, districts will be compelled to offer continuing care services, and for many students, these services will require more than the traditional school can offer. The types of school-housed approaches that can address continuing care include:

• After-school/after-care programs

• Assertive Continuing Care community-based programs

• Recovery Classrooms (including school-day support group meetings)

• Student Assistance Programs and counselors

• Recovery High Schools (both schools-within-schools and stand-alone programs)

Will recovery schools be ready?

From this list, recovery schools are the only approach that involves changing the environment for students. Evidence suggests peer influences and social environments play a role in sustained recovery for many young people (Teunissen et al, 2012; Tome et al, 2012; Dennis, Foss, and Scott, 2007.)

While these issues will generate opportunity, recovery high schools need to be ready for this change. The demand for more startups will necessitate data to substantiate the investment of funds to serve a



relatively small number of students – typical enrollment is 30-60 students. New funding mechanisms may pay for co-occurring disorders services, but to access that funding, schools will need to hire staff trained and licensed in clinical mental health – having staff with only chemical dependency licenses will no longer be sufficient either to access funds or to ethically support the students enrolling. Schools will also need to provide evidence of improved outcomes. And finally, recovery high schools need to address multicultural diversity that has been lacking throughout the field of adolescent recovery. Students who have traditional-ly not had the funds, ability or desire to access addiction treatment will be doing so, and recovery schools need to be prepared to enroll them.

All of this reflects a nexus of events that will generate awareness and calls for more recovery schools. The landscape question is, will recovery schools be available and ready to heed that call?


Part 2: Definitions of school-based recovery support servicesBy Dr. Andrew Finch and Christopher Hart The act of discovering and mapping recovery schools is a core activity of this study. Of importance is the ability to distinguish between recovery schools and other school-based recovery support services based on definable operating characteristics. This definitional work is presented in order to provide criteria for evaluating the presence of recovery schools within the U.S.

For students with a substance use or co-occurring disorders, schools offer a variety of programs to assist with the continuum of care, from prevention to identification, treatment and recovery support. In most cases, programs are embedded within the overall school program and are essentially adjunct to the ac-ademic curriculum. In the case of recovery schools, recovery support is an essential component of the framework, and students are typically expected to work programs of recovery. Due to the expansive nature of school options that exist today, delineating what is and what is not a “recovery school” can be confusing.

While some recovery schools call themselves “programs” rather than “schools”, most identify as schools. A “school” is distinguished from a “program” essentially by its level of autonomy. Programs are components of a school that share students, schedules and an academic curriculum both for students who utilize the program and those that do not. In most cases, students access a program for part of a day, whether it is located in the school or not. Typical programs include:

• After-school/after-care programs.

• Assertive Continuing Care community-based program.

• Recovery classrooms (including school-day support group meetings).

• Student Assistance Programs and counselors.

Contrastingly, schools (both schools-within-schools and stand-alone schools) may share resources, such as faculty or physical space, but typically have separate students, schedules and curricula from the larger school. The following guide is intended to assist with understanding the extant differences between school choices for students in recovery from a substance use or co-occurring disorders. It is organized with the schools closest in type, from recovery schools through those having the least in common with a recovery school.


Part 2: Definitions of school-based recovery support services

Recovery Schools

Recovery schools (recovery high schools also known as “sober schools”) are secondary schools designed specifically for students recovering from substance use or co-occurring disorders. They have the following definitional characteristics:

A. Primary purpose is to educate students in recovery from substance use or co-occurring disorders.

B. Meet state requirements for awarding a secondary school diploma, i.e. school offers credits leading to a state-recognized high school diploma and students are not just getting tutored or completing work from another school while there.

C. Intend that all students enrolled be in recovery and working a program of recovery for substance use or co-occurring disorders, as determined by the student and the school.

D. Available to any student in recovery from substance use or co-occurring disorders who meets state or district eligibility requirements for attendance, i.e., students do not have to go through a particular treatment program to enroll, and the school is not simply the academic component of a primary or extended-care treatment facility or therapeutic boarding school.

Therapeutic Boarding School with a Recovery Emphasis

The National Association of Therapeutic Schools and Programs (NATSAP) define “therapeutic boarding schools” as schools that have the following components:

• Curriculum integrating “physical, emotional, behavioral, familial, social, intellectual and aca-demic development”

• Grant high school diplomas or award credits that lead to admission to a diploma granting secondary school

• Typically incorporate therapy at the individual, group and/or family levels

• Enrollment usually ranges from 1 to 2 years (NATSAP, n.d.)

NATSAP includes a variety of names and categories of therapeutic schools and programs, including emotional growth, therapeutic, outdoor behavioral health, wilderness programs and outdoor therapeutic programs.

Therapeutic boarding schools may include a substance abuse element, but this is not typically the prima-ry purpose of such schools. As such, the schools attended by residents would differ significantly from a recovery school with regards to recovery support. Therapeutic boarding schools with a substance abuse recovery



emphasis have each of the elements noted above, but also have an explicit substance abuse treatment em-phasis. Due to the extended length of stay typical of such programs (usually 1-2 years), students will likely receive primary or extended care treatment while participating in the program.

Therapeutic boarding schools with a substance abuse recovery emphasis will more closely resemble recov-ery schools than therapeutic boarding schools without an explicit substance abuse recovery continuum of care, especially around characteristic B in the recovery school definition above. Characteristics A, C and D will likely have apparent differences, in that:

• The primary purpose is not to educate students in recovery from substance use or co-occur-ring disorders (A).

• The school likely will not have the intent that all students enrolled be in recovery and work-ing a program of recovery as determined by the student and the school. In fact, students will usually be co-mingled with many students not in active recovery from a substance use or co-occurring disorders (C).

• The school is usually only available to students who have participated in that particular treat-ment program, and is essentially the academic component of a primary or extended-care treatment/therapeutic program (D).

Alcohol & Drug Treatment Center Schools

Alcohol and drug treatment centers often provide a certain level of schooling for their patients. In many cases, these are residential programs in which minors are admitted for ten days or more (states have dif-ferent regulations concerning how long a student may be out of school before officially withdrawing). In some cases, the treatment facility will simply request homework from the student’s school to keep the stu-dent on-track academically. In the instance of long-term treatment or extended care, the treatment center may have a school on-site that provides academic instruction leading to credits awarded by the school, a local district or the student’s home district.

As described by NATSAP’s definition of “residential treatment centers”:

The focus of these programs is clinical treatment with both academic and behavioral support included. Medication management and medical monitoring is generally available on-site. These facilities treat ado-lescents with serious psychological and behavior issues. Most are Joint Commission accredited. These facili-ties provide individual, group and family therapy sessions. They are highly structured and offer recreational activities and academics. Specialty residential treatment centers will include psychiatric and behavioral hospitals that will provide a description of their special services. (NATSAP, n.d.)



Treatment center schools and recovery schools are similar in many respects, including characteristics B and C in the recovery school definition above. The key difference between treatment center schools and recov-ery schools is in characteristics A and D:

• While the primary purpose of the school may be to educate students in recovery from sub-stance use or co-occurring disorders, the purpose of the overall program is primary treat-ment and/or extended care (A).

• The school is not available to any student in recovery who meets state or district eligibility requirements for attendance, i.e., students must go through a particular treatment program to enroll, and the school is the academic component of a primary or extended-care treat-ment facility (D).

Non-Traditional Schools of Choice with Targeted Substance Abuse Programming

According to the Encyclopedia of Education, there are about a dozen varieties of non-traditional public and private educational options for parents desiring an alternative to their school-of-zone (Guthrie, 2003). These options may include a therapeutic component, which may or may not emphasize substance abuse recovery support. The modalities most likely to include a therapeutic component are described below (definitions are from Guthrie, 2003, pp. 83-84). It is important to note that many schools include more than one of these facets; and it can be rare today to see a school that fits cleanly into any one model. Still, most schools will describe themselves as most closely aligning with one specific modality.

• Alternative schools –Traditionally set up for disciplinary purposes, most blend a variety of student populations and are time-limited rather than open-ended. Usually serve a range of students, including at-risk, expelled, violent or gifted and talented.

• Charter schools – These schools are granted a charter by the state or local district that exempts them from certain rules and regulations (such as teacher credentials or facility re-quirements). They are usually required to enroll students who meet qualifications for atten-dance, though most may expel students for not meeting the school’s academic benchmarks.

• Contract schools – States or districts “contract” with an organization or private group to pro-vide education and/or therapeutic services, often within the framework of an “alternative” or “charter” school.

• Home schools – Students receive academic instruction at home. Some families choose to form “cooperatives” with other home-school families to pool services, often under the umbrella of an independent school. Home-schooled students are usually eligible for services such as psychological and educational testing from their home districts.

• Virtual/Online schools – This consists of academic course work, usually accredited through



regional accrediting bodies, available through the Internet. Students may take individual courses, or multiple courses leading to a diploma. Some alternative schools offer online classes in lieu of teacher-led instruction during their school day.

• Area Learning Centers – Also known as “Alternative Education Programs”, Area Learning Centers (ALCs) were first established in Minnesota to offer individualized programs focusing on academics and workforce preparation, rather than traditional disciplinary alternatives. These centers offer year-round, flexible scheduling and programming; individualized instruc-tion; training; and work experience opportunities on a full-time or part-time basis. ALCs serve both high school students at-risk of dropping out as well as residents over 21 years old who had not received a high school diploma (Boyd, Hare, & Nathan, 2002.)

Non-traditional schools of choice with targeted substance abuse programming have an explicit substance use prevention or recovery support programs/curricula. These schools will more closely resemble recovery schools than schools without explicit programs, especially with regard to characteristics B and D. In fact, recovery schools usually exist within one of these frameworks, either as a stand-alone school or as a dis-tinct “school within a school.”

For the most part, though, non-traditional schools of choice with targeted substance abuse programming will have apparent differences from recovery schools, in that:

• These options may include a therapeutic component, which may or may not emphasize sub-stance use or co-occurring disorders recovery support. However, the primary purpose, is to provide options for parents desiring an alternative to their school-of-zone (A).

• Most of these schools will not have the intent that all students enrolled be in recovery and working a program of recovery as determined by the student and the School (C).

Traditional Secondary SchoolsTraditional schools are categorized here as public or independent schools providing academic curriculum, most commonly in grades 9-12, leading to a regular education diploma. Most traditional schools offer some level of substance abuse programming, including:

• General, targeted and indicated prevention.

• Early identification and intervention for substance abuse.

• Low-intensity, brief intervention/treatment for substance use or co-occurring disorders.

• Recovery support through individual and/or group counseling for students in recovery.

• School staff (such as counselors, chemical health specialists and social workers), community agencies with school contracts and peers provide these programs.



Obviously, traditional public schools are open to any student who qualifies for enrollment at that school, and most traditional independent/private schools are not exclusive to students in recovery. Thus, while the intensity of recovery support may vary (and might even include a recovery classroom or homeroom or dedicated chemical dependency counselor), students in recovery will be blended with students who may be actively using and/or not in recovery for most, if not all of the school day.

School-Based Recovery Support: Characteristics

This analysis is intended to assist families, professionals, researchers and policymakers with understanding the differences between school choices for students in recovery from substance use or co-occurring disorders.

A. Primary Purpose

B. Educational Focus C. Recovery Focus D. Student Eligibility

Recovery Schools

To educate students in recovery from substance use or co-occurring disorders.

Meet state requirements for awarding a secondary school diploma, i.e. school offers credits leading to a state- recognized high school diploma, and student is not just getting tutored or completing work from another school while there.

Intend that all students enrolled be in recovery and working a program of re-covery for substance use or co-occurring disorders, as determined by the student and the school.

Available to any student in recovery from substance use or co-occurring disorders who meets state or district eligibility requirements for attendance, i.e., students do not have to go through a particular treatment program to enroll and the school is not simply the academic component of a primary or extended-care treatment facility or therapeutic boarding school.

Thera-peutic Boarding Schools

To provide emotional growth through designated therapeutic programs.

Grant high school diplomas or award credits that lead to a secondary school diploma.

Therapeutic boarding schools with a substance abuse recovery emphasis typically provide primary or extended care treatment and have specific services avail-able for substance use and co-occurring disorders. The school likely will not intend that all students enrolled be in recovery and working a program of recovery for substance use or co-occurring disorders. Students will usually be co-mingled with many students not in active recovery from a substance use disorder.

The school is usually only available to students who have participated in a particular treatment program, and the school is essentially the academic component of a primary or extended-care treatment/therapeutic program.



Alcohol and Drug Treatment Center Schools

To provide clinical treatment and/or extended care with included academic and behavioral support.

May request homework from the student’s school to keep the student on-track academically or, in the instance of long-term treatment or extended care, the treatment center may have a school on-site that provides academic instruction leading to credits awarded by the school, a local district or the student’s home district. Some on-site schools may have authority to grant diplomas as well.

Facilities provide individual, group and family therapy sessions. Specialty residential treatment centers can include psychiatric and behavioral hospitals that will provide a description of their services.

The school is not available to any student in recovery from substance use or co-occurring disorders who meets state or district eligibility requirements for attendance, as students must go through a partic-ular treatment program to enroll, and the school is the academic component of a primary or extended-care treatment facility.

Non-Tra-ditional Schools of Choice

To provide options for parents desiring an alternative to their school-of-zone.

Meet state requirements for awarding a secondary school diploma, i.e. school offers credits leading to a state-recognized high school diploma.

Non-traditional schools may include a therapeutic component, which may or may not emphasize substance abuse recovery support. Most of these schools will not require that all students enrolled be in recovery from substance use or co-occurring disorders. Working a program of recovery as determined by the student and the school is likely not the intention for all students.

The school is open to any student who qualifies for enrollment at that school, and most non-traditional schools are not exclusive to students in recovery from substance use or co-occurring disorders.

Traditional Secondary Schools

To prepare students for post-secondary careers and education.

Meet state requirements for awarding a secondary school diploma, i.e. school offers credits leading to a state-recognized high school diploma.

School staff (such as counselors, chemical health specialists and social workers), community agencies with school contracts and peers provide recovery support services. The intensity of recovery support may vary and might include a recovery classroom or home-room or dedicated chemical dependency counselor. Students in recovery are blended with students actively using and/or not in recovery for most, if not all, of the school-day.

The school is open to any student who qualifies for enrollment at that school, and most non-traditional schools are not exclusive to students in recovery from substance use or co-occur-ring disorders.


The Landscape for Recovery Schools


Part 3: The presence of recovery schools across the U.S. By Melissa Zangerle and Erin Jones

Using the definition of a recovery school discussed in Part 2, a call study was undertaken with the intent of generating an accurate census of the recovery schools that are currently operating and those that have closed in the U.S. This call study also identified additional school-based recovery support services in-cluding a number of treatment center schools, therapeutic boarding schools, non-traditional schools and programs within traditional schools. Initially, a list of 51 possible school-based recovery support locations was generated through combining the ARS member list along with a list provided by Dr. Andrew Finch. Throughout the call study this number constantly changed; some new locations were discovered and added to the list while other locations were removed from the list when it was determined that, by defi-nition, they did not qualify as a school-based recovery support service. In total, the call study contacted and mapped 54 unique programs (some with multiple locations) that are currently offering school-based recovery support services. (To view the School-Based Recovery Support Asset Map, go to: http://recoveryschools.capacitype.com)

Over the course of four months, The Stacie Mathewson Foundation called, emailed and conducted interviews with:

1. Anchor Learning Academy

2. Archway Academy

3. Carlbrook School

4. Central Freedom School

5. Children’s Cabinet – The School of Life

6. Circle of Health Recovery School (NDNS4 Wellness)

7. Daytop Preparatory School

8. The Family Foundation School

9. Fulshear Ranch Academy

10. Fusion Academy (17 Campuses)

11. The Gate House School

12. Great Lakes Academic Center: Recovery High Program

13. Hardin Community School

14. Hazel Street Recovery Center : A+ Program

15. Hope Academy

16. Horizon High School

http://recoveryschools.capacitype.com/


Part 3: The presence of recovery schools across the U.S.

17. Hutchinson High School: REACH Program

18. In Balance Ranch Academy (San Pedro Valley Academy)

19. Independence Academy

20. INSIGHT Program: White Bear Lake ALC

21. Jose A. Valdez High School

22. Lakes Recovery School

23. Liberty Preparatory Academy (formerly Springfield Recovery High School)

24. Liahona Academy

25. Muir Wood Adolescent and Family Services

26. Newport Academy’s Sober High School (2 Campuses)

27. North High School: REACH Program

28. Northshore Recovery High School

29. Northwest Academy

30. Oliverian School

31. Ostiguy High School

32. P.E.A.S.E. Academy

33. Phoenix House Academy of San Diego (12 Campuses)

34. Project Change (scheduled to close in 2013)

35. REACH High

36. Re-Creation Retreat

37. Red Rock Canyon School

38. River Road Academy (Cumberland Heights)

39. (SAP) Substance Abuse Intervention Program in Washoe School District

40. San Dieguito READI Program (part of La Cost Canyon High School)

41. Serenity High School

42. Serna Academy

43. Sober Community School (San Luis Obispo Community Sober Program)

44. Spring Ridge Academy

45. Sunshine Alternative Education Center

46. Teen Challenge: Twin Cities Girls Academy

47. Teen Recovery Solutions: Mission Academy (formerly Oklahoma Outreach Sober School)

48. The Bridgeway School



49. Three Oaks Academy

50. Turn-About Ranch

51. Visions Scholastic Academy (Day School)

52. Vista Academy Sober High School

53. William Floyd High School (Daytop Program)

54. Winfree Academy Courage Program (3 Campuses)

To date, the Foundation has been unable to contact the following schools that are believed to be currently open and offering school-based recovery support services. Due to an inability to contact a representative from these schools, the study has not categorized their programs.

1. Arch Academy (formerly Recovery Education Substance Abuse Counseling Unlimited [RESCU] Academy)

2. Phoenix Academy

3. Phoenix at Needwood Academy (formerly Phoenix II)

4. Thoreau High School

During the call study, respondents were asked a series of questions with the intent of determining whether or not the school qualified as a recovery school by the definitional characteristics listed in Part 2 of the study, or if the school qualified as a different type of school-based recovery support service such as a thera-peutic boarding school, a treatment center school, etc. The questions posed included the following (see Appendix A for the complete interview instrument that was used):

• What is your school’s organizational structure?

• Is your school part of a higher-level organization (school district or other group of schools)?

• What is the school’s physical structure? Is it standalone, or is it a school within a school, school within a treatment center?

• Is your school designed specifically for students recovering from substance abuse or dependency?

• Does your school have open enrollment?

• Does your school offer credits leading to a state-recognized high school diploma?

• What is the balance of academics and therapeutics in the school?

• Do you require that all students be working a recovery program? If so, how is that program selected?

• Do students receive assistance to transition to another high school, college or career while enrolled?



• Does your school have procedures and policies that you employ when a student is in crisis or relapses?

Based on call study interviews, the Foundation identified 25 recovery high schools operating in the U.S. This list of schools, along with the rationale for qualification as a recovery school was then verified with Dr. Andrew Finch as a representative of ARS. The schools identified as recovery schools through this call study include the following:

1. Anchor Learning Academy – Providence, RI

2. Archway Academy – Houston, TX

3. The Bridge Way School – Philadelphia, PA

4. Central Freedom School (Mankato Area Public Schools, District 77 Area Learning Center) – Mankato, MN

5. Children’s Cabinet - The School of Life – Reno, NV

6. Circle of Health Recovery School (NDNS4 Wellness) – Phoenix, AZ

7. Daytop Preparatory School – Mendhan, NJ

8. Hope Academy – Indianapolis, IN

9. Horizon High School – Madison, WI

10. Independence Academy – Brockton, MA

11. INSIGHT Program: White Bear Lake ALC – White Bear Lake, MN

12. Jose A. Valdez High School – Laredo, TX

13. Lakes Recovery School – Detroit Lakes, MN

14. Newport Academy Day School (Newport Beach Campus) – Costa Mesa, CA

15. Newport Academy Day School (North Shore Campus) – Lake Bluff, IL

16. Northshore Recovery High School – Beverly, MA

17. Ostiguy High School – Boston, MA

18. P.E.A.S.E. Academy – Minneapolis, MN

19. Project Change – Waukesha, WI (scheduled to close in 2013)

20. REACH High – Casper, WY

21. Serenity High School – McKinney, TX

22. SLO Sober Community School – San Luis Obispo, CA

23. Springfield Recovery High School – Springfield, MA

24. Teen Recovery Solutions: Mission Academy (formerly Oklahoma Outreach Sober School) – Oklahoma City, OK

25. Three Oaks Academy – Houston, TX



A complete list of the program contacted during the call study can be found below. This list includes both open and closed locations. The table includes the name and location as well as the classification assigned based on the definitions described in Part 2 of this study and the responses provided by the representative of the school that the Foundation spoke with during the call study. All of these locations offer varying types of recovery support services.

Name of School Location Map Classification

Anchor Learning Academy Providence, RI Recovery High School Operating

Archway Academy Houston, TX Recovery High School Operating

The Bridge Way School Philadelphia, PA Recovery High School Operating

Carlbrook School Halifax, VA Therapeutic Boarding School

Central Freedom School (Mankato Area Public Schools, District 77 Area Learning Center) Mankato, MN Recovery High School Operating

Children’s Cabinet- The School of Life Reno, NV Recovery High School Operating for Children’s Cabinet

Circle of Health Recovery School (NDNS4 Wellness) Phoenix, AZ Recovery High School Operating

Daytop Preparatory School Mendham, NJ Recovery High School Operating

The Family Foundation School Hancock, NY Therapeutic Boarding School

Fulshear Ranch Academy Needville, TX Treatment Center School

Fusion Academy Locations all across the United States, 17 campuses in all Non-Traditional School

The Gate House School Chesterland, OH Recovery School Planned

Great Lakes Academic Center: Recovery High Program Boyne Falls, MI Non-Traditional School

Hardin Community School Kenton, OH Non-Traditional School

Hazel Street Recovery Center- A+ Program Texarkana, TX Treatment Center School

Hope Academy Indianapolis, IN Recovery High School Operating

Horizon High School Madison, WI Recovery High School Operating



Hutchinson High School REACH Program Hutchinson, MN Traditional School

In Balance Ranch Academy (San Pedro Valley Academy) Tombstone, AZ Therapeutic Boarding School

Independence Academy Brockton, MA Recovery High School Operating

INSIGHT Program: White Bear Lake ALC White Bear Lake, MN Recovery High School Operating

Jose A.Valdez High School Laredo, TX Recovery High School Operating

Lakes Recovery School Detroit Lakes, MN Recovery High School Operating

Liahona Academy Hurricane, UT Treatment Center School

Newport Academy 2 Campuses: Costa Mesa, CA & Lake Bluff, IL Recovery High School Operating

North High School: REACH program North St. Paul, MN Traditional School

Northshore Recovery High School Beverly, MA Recovery High School Operating

Northwest Academy Naples, ID Therapeutic Boarding School

Oliverian School Pike, NH Therapeutic Boarding School

Ostiguy High School Boston, MA Recovery High School Operating

P.E.A.S.E. Academy Minneapolis, MN Recovery High School Operating

Phoenix House 13 Campuses Nationwide Treatment Center School

Project Change (scheduled to close in 2013) Waukesha, WI Recovery High School Operating

REACH High Casper, WY Recovery High School Operating

Re-Creation Retreat (Girl’s only) Fredonia, AZ Therapeutic Boarding School

Red Rock Canyon School St. George, UT Therapeutic Boarding School

River Road Academy (Cumberland Heights) Nashville, TN Treatment Center School

SAP (Substance Abuse Intervention Program... in Washoe School district) Reno, NV Recovery Support Program

San Dieguito READI Program (part of La Costa Canyon High School) Carlsbad, CA Traditional School

Serenity High School McKinney, TX Recovery High School Operating



Serna Academy Orange County, CA Recovery School Planned

SLO Sober Community School San Luis Obispo, CA Recovery High School Operating

Spring Ridge Academy Mayer, AZ Treatment Center School

Springfield Recovery High School Springfield, MA Recovery High School Operating

Sunshine Alternative Education Center Port Jefferson Station, NY Non-Traditional School

Teen Challenge: Twin Cities Girls Academy Fitchburg, MA Non-Traditional School

Teen Recovery Solutions: Mission Academy (formerly Oklahoma Outreach Sober School) Oklahoma City, OK Recovery High School Operating

Three Oaks Academy Houston, TX Recovery High School Operating

Turn-About Ranch Escalante, UT Therapeutic Boarding School

Visions Scholastic Academy (Day School) Los Angeles, CA Non-Traditional School

Vista Academy Sober High School Woodland Hills, CA Treatment Center School

William Floyd High School (Daytop Program- outpatient substance abuse clinic on campus) Mastic Beach, NY Traditional School

Winfree Academy – The Courage Program 3 Locations in Texas Non-Traditional School

Additionally, the Foundation interviewed as many administrators of closed recovery schools as possible in order to better understand contributing factors to the closure of recovery high schools. Representatives of closed schools were asked the following questions:

• What year did your school open?

• What year did your school close?

• In your opinion, what were the reasons for the school’s closure?

Those recovery schools determined to be closed through the call study and a companion literature review included the following:

1. Aateshing Program – Cass Lake, MN

2. Bemidji Area Sober School - Bemidji, MN

3. Chicago Preparatory Charter High School – Chicago, IL



4. City West Academy – Eden Prairie, MN

5. Clay County Recovery School – Fergus Falls, MN

6. Community High School (formerly Oasis Academy) - Nashville, TN

7. Community Recovery Education Service (CRES) Academy – Janesville, WI

8. D. Seth Mason High School - Charleston, SC

9. The DeSisto School at Stockbridge – Stockbridge, MA

10. The DeSisto School at Howey – Howey In The Hills, FL

11. ExCEL Sober School – Crystal, MN

12. The Gateway Program – St. Paul, MN

13. Henderson Bay Alternative School - Gig Harbor, WA (note: this school is still operating but no longer operates a recovery program)

14. Moorhead Recovery Campus – Baker, MN

15. Oak Land ALC Sober School - Cambridge, MN

16. Odyssey NH Academy – Dover, NH

17. Phoenix Academy, San Mateo, CA

18. Recovery Alternative School - Mount Gilead, OH

19. Recovery High School, Albuquerque, NM

20. Recovery High School of Southern MN – South Owatonna, MN

21. Recovery Pathway - Lindstrom, MN

22. Safe Harbor Recovery School – Spring Lake Park, MN

23. Santa Rosa/South County Clean & Sober - Petaluma, CA

24. Serenity High School - San Diego, CA

25. Serento Academy – Hazelton, PA

26. SOAR High School – Broomfield, CO

27. Sobriety High Alliance Academy (formerly Sobriety High South Campus) - Burnsville, MN

28. Sobriety High Arona Academy (formerly Moundsview) - Coon Rapids, MN

29. Sobriety High North Summit Academy (formerly Sobriety High East Campus) - Maplewood, MN

30. Sobriety High West Campus (formerly L’Ecole Nouvelle) - Edina, MN

31. Sobriety High Libre Academy - Litchfield, MN

32. Solace Academy (formerly Dry High) – Chaska, MN

33. South County Clean & Sober - Petaluma, CA

34. Summit School - Spokane, WA

35. Summit High School - Santa Barbara, CA



36. Transitions High School – Butler, PA

37. United South Central (USC) Sober School – Wells, MN

38. Unity High School - Phoenix, AZ

39. YES (Youth Education Sobriety) – Hopkins, MN

A list of closed schools that were successfully contacted during the call study is listed below along with their locations, their years of operation and the reason for closure.

Name of School Location Years of Operation Reason for Closure

Bemidji Area Sober School Bemidji, MN Closed 2005 Associated treatment center closed resulting in school closure

Chicago Preparatory Charter High School

Chicago, IL Open 1997-1999 Political issues, low performance, lack of clarity on primary goal

City West Academy Eden Prairie, MN Open 2006-2013 Lack of students

Community High School (formerly Oasis Academy)

Nashville, TN Open 1997-2008 Funding issues

Community Recovery Education Service (CRES) Academy

Janesville, WI Open 2008-2011 Funding issues and lack of students

Oak Land ALC Sober School Cambridge, MN Open 2003-2006 Funding issues

Odyssey NH Academy Dover, NH Open 2006-2009 Funding issues

Recovery High School of Southern MN

Owatonna, MN Open 2005-2010 Funding issues and difference of opinions on types of students served

Santa Rosa/South County Clean & Sober

Petaluma, CA Closed 2010 Funding issues and lack of students

Sobriety High School Alliance Academy

Burnsville, MN Open 2004-2013 Funding issues and lower enrollment

Solace Academy (formerly Dry High) Chaska, MN Open 2001-2010 Funding issues and lack of administrative support

Transitions High School Butler, PA Open 2003-2011 Funding issues

United South Central Sober School Wells, MN Open 1996-2005 Funding issues and new superintendent



Finally, an additional online follow-up survey was sent to administrators at recovery schools identified during the call study. The follow-up survey included the following questions (see Appendix B for the complete survey instrument):

• When did your school open?

• In the space below, please provide a description of how your school started.

• Is your school operated and governed by a nonprofit organization with other services besides this school, a nonprofit organization established to run this school, a public entity, other private organization or company, other ______?

• Is your school part of a higher-level organization (school district or other group of schools)?

• If yes, what is the name of the organization?

• What is the nature of the school’s physical facilities? (Check all that apply)

• How many students do you currently serve?

• What is your maximum capacity for students?

• What is the (ethnicity origin) racial breakdown of your population?

• What are your admission criteria?

• Is there a minimum abstinence duration required for enrollment?

• If yes, what is the minimum abstinence duration required for enrollment?

• What is the catchment area for your school (student residence boundaries)?

• Where do most of your students get referred from?

• How many full-time staff are employed by the school?

• How many part-time staff are employed by the school?

• How many academic staff work at the school?

• How many counseling staff work at the school?

• Below, please list all of the titles held by the staff in your school.

• Below, please describe a typical day at your school.

• What types of recovery support and therapeutic support do you provide?

• Below check any of the following support services offered by your school.

• On-site 12-step, Life skills, Peer mentoring, Sober social events, On-site counseling, Off-site coun-seling, Case management, Family engagement, Community service

• How long does a student typically stay enrolled in the school?

• How much are recovery students co-mingled with traditional students in the school?

• Do you conduct urine sample monitoring?



• If yes, what triggers a urine test?

• What else are you doing to make sure that your school is drug and alcohol free?

• Please describe how your school handles student relapse.

• What metrics does your school regularly track?

• What is your annual budget?

• Please estimate the percentage of this school’s funding that comes from each of the following sources.

% Tuition Payments, % Public Education (Tax) Allocations, % Juvenile Justice/Corrections, % Donations, % Endowments, % Grant funding, % Other: specify_____________

• How would you characterize your program’s stability on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 meaning always worried about closing to 5 meaning fully stable with limited concerns on closing?

• What are the major challenges faced by your school?

• How do you plan to resolve those challenges?

• Is your school a member of the Association of Recovery Schools?

• If not, why? If yes, what are the benefits or services you gain through your membership?

• The Association of Recovery Schools is dedicated to furthering the success and growth of recov-ery high schools in the U.S. What resources would your school find most helpful?

• What is the job title of the person completing this questionnaire?

• Review the list of recovery high schools below. Are there any other schools that you are aware of?

• Are there any other schools or programs in your area that support students in recovery/offer recovery support services but may not qualify as a recovery high school? Please record those schools or programs below.

The recovery high school survey will remain open through the summer of 2013 to allow additional schools the opportunity to respond and participate. This survey will then be utilized as an ongoing data collection tool for the Association of Recovery Schools. Each year, when representatives of recovery high schools renew their association membership, they will also be asked to update their survey data. No data from this follow-up survey has been included in this market study.


Part 4: State-by-state favorability analysis By Erin Jones and Kay Israelite

Background

The federal government, through the 2013 National Drug Control Strategy, supports the expansion of community-based recovery support programs inclusive of recovery schools.

Given the developmental nature of substance use disorders and the benefits of intervening early, ONDCP [Office of National Drug Control Policy] is giving special attention to substance use disorders among adolescents and young adults. Data from NSDUH [National Survey of Drug Use and Health] (2011) bear out the need for such a focus. Among young adults aged 18 to 25, rates of substance use disorders are nearly three times those found in adults over the age of 25 (21.4% versus 6.3%), while 6.9 percent of young people ages 12 to 17 were estimated to have substance use disorders.

Very often laws, rules, policies, and practices create barriers to sustained recovery. This is why modifying or eliminating laws, rules, policies, and practices that create barriers to recovery remains one of the Adminis-tration’s priorities. We must also support the development of a robust recovery research agenda to improve our understanding of what policies, services, and approaches best support recovery.

-2013 National Drug Control Strategy (p.20)

The 2012 National Drug Control Strategy included a strategy action item intended to, “Foster the ex-pansion of community-based recovery support programs, including recovery schools, peer-led programs, mutual help groups, and recovery support centers.” -2012 National Drug Control Strategy (p. 3)

Recovery schools are seen as an integral part of community-based recovery support programs. To en-courage needed expansion and adoption of recovery support services, the federal government is working with states, local governments and recovery support service providers to develop systems and services that support sustained recovery.

The state-by-state favorability analysis within the market study sought to discover state regulatory and policy environments that are conducive to the initiation and expansion of recovery schools. From this analysis a scorecard was developed. The intent of the scorecard is to provide easily digestible indicators of each state’s ability to handle the expected increase in demand for recovery schools. It is expected that the scorecard will drive the adoption of laws, rules, policies and practices that are favorable to the formation and maintenance of recovery schools, ultimately providing more young people with the opportunity to access one of these schools as part of their individual recovery program.


Part 4: State-by-state favorability analysis

Methodology

This state-by-state analysis of the laws, rules, policies and practices that best support recovery schools began with a series of interviews of recovery high school administrators. The intent of these interviews was to gain an understanding of potential laws, rules, policies and practices that impact the environment required to start or sustain recovery schools.

In order to gain a national perspective, researchers selected experts based on geography and included recovery school administrators from the South, the Midwest and the East Coast to ensure that regional variables were taken into account.

Administrative experts included:

• Sasha McLean, Archway Academy, Texas

• Rachelle Gardner, HOPE Academy, Indianapolis

• Roger Oser, William J. Ostiguy High School, Massachusetts

• Traci Bowermaster, Insight, Minnesota

• Juli Ferraro, Serenity High, Texas

• Michael Durschlag, P.E.A.S.E. Academy, Minnesota

Interview questions included the following:

• Initially, what conditions existed that allowed your recovery school or other recovery schools in your area to open?

• What state or local laws, rules, policies and practices help start and sustain recovery schools?

• What legislative or policy barriers exist to starting or sustaining recovery schools?

• If you could change any laws, rules, policies or practices that regulate your operations or funding, what would you change?

• Is there specific federal legislation that you have leveraged OR are looking to leverage in order to start, grow or sustain a recovery school?

• Who are your greatest advocates at the state and local level? What organizations do they work for?



• What state or local departments/offices do you report to?

• Are there any other schools like yours in your state or regional area?

• Are you associated with a public schools system and if so, how do you interact with it?

• What are your governance requirements (i.e. local school board-appointed or elected)?

• What funding sources are available to you now or anticipated in the near-term?

• Do you know how (the formula) your state determines the per student allocation of funds? What are the triggers for increases or adjustments in this figure?

• Do you know the cost of service per student at your school?

• Is there another school administrator in your state that runs a recovery school under a different model that you think we should speak with?

Initially, (Step 1) researchers interviewed two allies of the study effort, Sasha McLean and Rachelle Gardner. Through the initial interviews with Ms. McLean and Ms. Gardner, researchers refined the line of questioning to ensure the research questions were relevant to those being interviewed.

Following the initial interviews, an invitation to participate was provided to the remaining identified ad-ministrative experts (Step 2). Researchers conducted interviews. All interviews were transcribed and favorability indicators were created based on expert responses. Additional research was conducted to en-sure researchers had a comprehensive understanding of indicators identified by administrative experts.

The end product of these interviews was a hypothesized scorecard that contained key favorability indica-tors and conditions. Once the hypothesized scorecard was completed, researchers worked to validate the hypothesis through interviews with identified policy and subject matter experts (Step 3).

Identified policy and subject matter experts included:

• Devin Fox, Young People in Recovery

• Pat Taylor and Tom Hill, Faces & Voices of Recovery

• Nancy Marcus Newman, The Bridge Foundation

Once these policy and subject matter experts provided feedback on the possible favorability indicators, researchers had what was necessary to evaluate each state’s potential support for recovery schools. This evaluation took place in the final step (Step 4) of the state-by-state analysis wherein researchers collected



the data necessary to assign a score to each of the 50 states. These scores were then mapped to illustrate a favorable rating for each state.

Analysis Arc Outcome Of Each Step*

STEP 1 – Initial Interviews Feedback on relevancy and ability of experts to answer questions; revised interview questions

STEP 2 – Geographic Expert Interviews and Research Relevant Disciplines

Potential favorability indicators; hypothesized scorecard; data-base of nationally recognized publications regarding favorability indicators and related topics

STEP 3 – Policy and Subject Matter Expert Interviews Validate hypothesized indicators and scorecard

STEP 4 – Evaluate Indicators For Each State Favorability scorecard and map

*Note: List of potential favorability indicators is updated after each step of research

Step 1During Step 1, interviews were conducted with Sasha McLean of Archway Academy and Rachelle Gard-ner of Hope Academy. During this step, the only question that was added to questions initially drafted was, “If you could change any laws, rules, policies or practices that regulate your operations or fund-ing, what would you change?” This question was added to the line of questioning in order to tap into the aspirations and hopes of these administrators.

Step 2During Step 2, interviews were conducted with Roger Oser of William J. Ostiguy High School, Traci Bowermaster of Insight Program, Juli Ferraro of Serenity High and Michael Durschlag of P.E.A.S.E. Academy. These interviews were transcribed and reviewed for potential favorability indicators.

These interviews uncovered a series of contributing disciplines and key terms that required additional research in order to ascertain applicability of potential indicators to this research as well as measurability of the potential indicators. Those contributing disciplines/key terms included the following:

• Education policy by state

• Open enrollment/school choice laws

• Allowance of non-traditional schools and types of non-traditional schools



• Alternative accountability laws

• Charter school laws

• Expulsion and suspension policies

• School transportation funding

• Whole child approach to education (including Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and other special education laws such as The Stay Put Rule, The Americans With Disabilities Act, The Safe Schools-Healthy Students Initiative, DSM-V, Minnesota Model)

• Treatment and recovery from substance abuse disorders

By the end of Step 2, the following favorability indicators had been uncovered. Indicators were grouped into four categories for ease of comprehension. The four categories are legislative environment, operating environment, state and community environment and implementation record.

Step 3In Step 3, policy and subject matter experts were provided with a description of this study along with a list of potential favorability indicators and their measurement sources. Policy and subject matter experts were asked to review the indicators and in semi-structured phone interviews, they were asked to answer the following questions:

• Overall, how do these indicators look to you?

• For the indicators for which we have not identified measures, do you have any thoughts on how we might measure these?

• Are there any indicators that we are missing?

The interviews were transcribed and reviewed. The favorability indicators were updated and revised to reflect the input of the policy and subject matter experts. Throughout the process, the idea of measurability was top of mind. In order to determine a favorability score for every state, each indicator had to be mea-surable on a repeating basis with a reasonable amount of effort. While sources were found for many of the indicators, some could not be discovered or do not exist. The indicators for which a measurement could not be located are not less important, but have not been included in the scorecard since the intent is to create a sustainable tool that will drive improvements to the recovery high school environment and reflect changes over time. In the tables, for each indicator, the name of the indicator, the source, the scoring mechanism, the link to the source and the measurement for the scoring are listed. Scoring possibilities include high favorability, neutral and low favorability.



Overview of Indicators By Category


The most common recovery school models identified were charter schools and alternative schools. The ex-istence of legislation supporting the creation and funding of charter and alternative schools, as well as any legislation specifically governing recovery schools, were identified as indicators of a favorable environment for the creation and sustainability of recovery schools in a given state. Finally, the existence of a mental health caucus was identified as a favorability indicator.

Indicator Source Favorability Score

Link Measurement

State law allows for charter schools.

Education Commission of the States (ECS), 2010

High: Yes

Neutral: Not Reported

Low: No

http://ecs.force.com/mbdata/uestU?SID=a0i70000000X-kHm&rep=CS03&Q=Q2238

Measurement: Yes/No

State funding is available for charter school facilities.

Education Commission of the States (ECS), 2010

High : Yes


Low: No

http://ecs.force.com/mbdata/uestU?SID=a0i70000000X-kHm&rep=CS24&Q=Q2224

Measurement: Yes/No

State has comprehensive charter school law.

The Center for Education Reform, 2013

High: A or B

Neutral: C

Low: D or F

http://www.edreform.com/2013/01/2013-char-ter-law-ranking-chart/

Measurement: Grades A through F

State legislation regarding alternative schools exists.

University of Minnesota, 2003

High: 4 – 6

Neutral: 2 - 3

Low: 0 – 1

http://ici.umn.edu/prod-ucts/docs/Alternative_Schools_Report_1.pdf

Measurement: Number of top-ics included in legislation from the following list: enrollment criteria, definition, funding, curriculum, staffing, students w/disabilities

State legislation regarding alter-native school funding exists.

University of Minnesota, 2003

High: Yes


Low: No

http://ici.umn.edu/prod-ucts/docs/Alternative_Schools_Report_1.pdf

Measurement: Yes/No

Recovery high school specific legislation exists in the state.

SMF Interviews, 2013 High: Yes


Low: No

Measurement: Yes/No

State legislature has a mental health caucus.

The Council of State Governments, 2010

High: Formal caucus or legislative committee

Neutral: Informal caucus

Low: None

http://knowledgecenter.csg.org/drupal/content/state-legislative-men-tal-health-caucuses

Measurement: Type of caucus

http://ecs.force.com/mbdata/mbquestU?SID=a0i70000000XkHm&rep=CS03&Q=Q2238








http://www.edreform.com/2013/01/2013-charter-law-ranking-chart/



http://ici.umn.edu/products/docs/Alternative_Schools_Report_1.pdf






http://knowledgecenter.csg.org/drupal/content/state-legislative-mental-health-caucuses







The operating characteristics of a recovery high school are unique due to the specialized nature of its stu-dent population. The following operating requirements were found in the selected regions:

Recovery school students tend to matriculate and depart schools throughout the year, instead of at tradi-tional times. If a state utilizes a single count date for public per-pupil school funding calculations, recov-ery schools are unlikely to receive appropriate funding for the number of students served. Utilization of methods other than a single count mechanism, such as multiple count dates and average daily attendance was therefore added as an indicator of a state’s favorability to recovery schools.

The current demand for recovery schools per capita is typically low enough that a school needs to pull from a wide geographic area to reach a student population required for economies of scale. For public funding to follow a student from their home district to their recovery school, open enrollment policies are required. A state mandate that districts allow intra-district (between districts) open enrollment was there-fore added as an indicator of a state’s favorability to recovery schools.

Recovery school students frequently experience co-occurring disorders and while they may have high academic potential, they are more likely to have academic, attendance or behavior difficulties compared to a general population. When recovery schools are held to the same standards as traditional schools, the recovery school often suffers in comparison. Even though recovery school students may be experiencing impressive individual improvements, the overall perceived failure of the school hurts fundraising efforts and general reputation. As such, having an alternative education evaluation policy was added as an indica-tor of a state’s favorability to recovery schools.

When intra-district enrollment is permitted, the issue of transportation arises. Most states and districts do not provide free or subsidized transportation outside of a given area even when open enrollment is permitted. Ease of transportation is critical in supporting the student populations at recovery schools. As such, intra-district transportation funding was added as an indicator of a state’s favorability to starting or sustaining recovery schools.



Indicator Source Favorability Score Links MeasurementState allows students unlimited access to transfer to a public school of his/her choice.

Education Commission of the States (ECS), September 2011

High: Inter-district / manda-tory

Neutral: Intra-district and/or voluntary

Low: No policy defined

http://ecs.force.com/ mbdata/MB Tab2E?SID= a0i70000000Xk5v&Rep= OE01&Q=Q2181&Q1= Q2184

Measurement: Type of open enrollment. Definitions at http://www.ecs.org/html/ed-ucationissues/OpenEn-rollment/OEDB_intro.asp

State funding is avail-able for transportation costs related to open enrollment/school choice.

Education Commission of the States (ECS), September 2011

High: Public funding

Neutral: Public funding with limitations

Low: Parent or not addressed

http://ecs.force.com/mb-data/mbquestU?SID=a0i-70000006fu14&rep=OE13207&Q=Q3654

Measurement: Who is responsible for stu-dent transportation?

State does not use single count date for school funding.

Colorado Children’s Campaign, 2010

High: Average daily atten-dance or membership

Neutral: Multiple count dates, single or multiple count periods

Low: Single count date

www.coloradokids.org

Student Enrollment Count Mechanisms for School Funding: A Survey of State Policies (PDF)

Measurement: Type of counting mechanism

State uses measures of individual student growth for ratings.

Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Education Counts database, 2012

High: Yes

Neutral: Not reported

Low: No

http://www.edcounts.org/createtable/step1.php

Accountability > School Ratings > State uses measures of individual growth for state ratings

Measurement: Yes/No

State & Community Environment

All interviewees reported the existence of organizations, associations and communities that helped start and sustain their recovery school. These entities advocate for recovery schools on a local and state lev-el, provide referrals and offer visibility to the wider community of the need for and benefits of recovery schools. As such, the following were added as indicators of a state’s favorability to recovery schools:

• Existence of a statewide recovery support organization

• Existence of a Young People in Recovery (YPR) chapter

• Existence of state alcohol and drug abuse agency with a formal process for representation of youth recovery support

http://ecs.force.com/mbdata/MBTab2E?SID=a0i70000000Xk5v&Rep=OE01&Q=Q2181&Q1=Q2184





http://www.ecs.org/html/educationissues/OpenEnrollment/OEDB_intro.asp





http://ecs.force.com/mbdata/mbquestU?SID=a0i70000006fu14&rep=OE13207&Q=Q3654




http://www.coloradokids.org





• Existence of a state alcohol and drug abuse agency that has earmarked funds for recovery sup-port services for adolescents

• Existence of a relatively low number of legal barriers facing people with criminal records

• Existence of widely available treatment services for adolescents in the state

• Existence of treatment services for adolescents with payment assistance

• Existence of juvenile and family drug courts in the state

• Existence of a state-level charter school association

Indicator Source Favorability Score Links Measurement

A statewide recovery support organization exists.

Faces & Voices of Recovery High: Yes


Low: No

http://www.facesandvoic-esofrecovery.org/resourc-es/organizations.php

Measurement: Statewide Recovery Community Organization exists, Yes/No

Young People in Recovery (YPR) chapter exists in the state.

Devin Fox High: Yes


Low: No

Measurement: Yes/No

State alcohol and drug abuse agency has a formal process for representation of youth recovery support.

Phone interview or email with each single state agency (SSA)

High: Yes


Low: No

Agency directory http://www.samhsa.gov/grants/ssadirectory.pdf

Measurement: Yes/No

State alcohol and drug abuse agency has earmarked funding for recovery support services for adolescents.

Phone interview or email with each single state agency (SSA)

High: Yes


Low: No

Agency directory http://www.samhsa.gov/grants/ssadirectory.pdf

Measurement: Yes/No

State has relatively low number of legal barriers facing people with criminal records.

Legal Action Center, 2009 High: Best

Neutral: Average

Low: Worst

http://www.lac.org/road-blocks-to-reentry/map.php

Definitions: http://www.lac.org/roadblocks-to-re-entry/main.php?view=-criteria

Measurement: States are ranked and grouped in categories of Best, Average, and Worst. The fewer the barriers facing people with criminal records, the better the rank.

http://www.facesandvoicesofrecovery.org/resources/organizations.php



http://www.samhsa.gov/grants/ssadirectory.pdf






http://www.lac.org/roadblocks-to-reentry/map.php

http://www.lac.org/roadblocks-to-reentry/map.php

http://www.lac.org/roadblocks-to-reentry/main.php?view=criteria






Treatment services for adolescents are widely available in the state.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA)

High: High

Neutral: Medium

Low: Low

http://findtreatment.sam-hsa.gov/TreatmentLocator/faces/quickSearch.jspx

By State, City, County or Zip > Find facilities in one or more states .

Select state Click “Select services”. Primary Focus of Provider, “Substance abuse treatment ser-vices” and “Mix of mental health and substance abuse services” , optional. Special Programs/Groups Offered, “Adolescents” required.

Measurement: Per capita number of treatment services for adolescents, states ranked in thirds (low, medium, high)

Treatment services for ad-olescents have payment assistance.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA)

High: High

Neutral: Medium

Low: Low

Same as above, plus: Payment Assistance Available, “Sliding fee scale” or “Payment assistance” optional.

Measurement: Per capita number of treatment services for adolescents with payment assistance, states ranked in thirds (low, medium, high)

Juvenile and family drug courts exist in the state.

American University School of Public Affairs, 2012

High: High

Neutral: Medium

Low: Low

http://www1.spa.american.edu/justice/doc-uments/2153.pdf

Measurement: Per capita number of active Juvenile and Family Drug Courts, states ranked in thirds (low, medium, high)

State-level charter school association exists in the state.

The National Alliance of Public Charter Schools

High: Yes


Low: No

http://www.publicchar-ters.org/inyourstate/State.aspx?name=IL

Measurement: Yes/No – At least one organization is listed under “Contact Organizations” for each state


An objective measure of a state’s favorability to recovery schools is the extent to which the laws, rules, policies and practices discussed above have been implemented. There may be a case in which a state has favorable laws, rules, policies and practices as discovered in this study, but for unidentified reasons has failed to deliver adequate schools or education funding to students seeking recovery services. High levels of implementation of the school models and funding related to recovery schools are indicators of a state’s

http://findtreatment.samhsa.gov/TreatmentLocator/faces/quickSearch.jspx



http://www1.spa.american.edu/justice/documents/2153.pdf



http://www.publiccharters.org/inyourstate/State.aspx?name=IL





favorability to recovery schools. As such, the following were added as indicators of a state’s favorability to recovery schools:

• Recovery schools exist and operate in the state.

• Charter schools exist and operate in the state.

• Students attend charter schools in the state.

• State funding is available for categorical programs.

• Relative per-pupil education expenditure adjusted for regional differences.

Indicator Source Favorability Score Links Measurement

Recovery high schools exist and operate in the state.

SMF/ARS High: Yes

Neutral: Not Re-ported

Low: No

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AiiR7D-j8HXAodHhFZnJkZjR3bGVtWn-pBWFI3M3N5Y0E&usp=shar-ing

Measurement: Yes/No

Charter schools exist and operate in the state.

National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, 2012

High: High

Neutral: Medium

Low: Low

http://dashboard.publiccha-rters.org/dashboard/select/year/2012

Measurement: The num-ber of schools, per total number of students, states ranked in thirds (low, medium, high)

Students attend charter schools in the state.

National Alliance for Public Charter Schools

High: High

Neutral: Medium

Low: Low

http://www.publiccharters.org/inyourstate/

Measurement: Percent of charter school students to all public school students, states ranked in thirds (low, medium, high)

State funding is available for categorical programs.

Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Education Counts database, 2004

High: High

Neutral: Medium

Low: Low


Finance > Distribution of state aid > Total number of state categorical programs

Measurement: Total number of state cate-gorical programs, states ranked in thirds (low, medium, high)

Per-pupil education expen-diture adjusted for regional differences.

The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2010

High: High

Neutral: Medium

Low: Low

http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/acrossstates/Default.aspx

Education > Other Education > Per pupil educational expenditures adjusted for regional cost differences

Measurement: Per-pupil educational expen-ditures adjusted for regional cost differences, states ranked in thirds (low, medium, high)

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AiiR7Dj8HXAodHhFZnJkZjR3bGVtWnpBWFI3M3N5Y0E&usp=sharing





http://dashboard.publiccharters.org/dashboard/select/year/2012












In total, seven indicators are associated with the presence of charter and alternative school laws/policies in each state. This is due to the fact that the vast majority majority, if not all operating recovery schools oper-ate as an alternative or charter school. As such, the presence of these indicators are likely very indicative of a state’s favorability.

Indicators For Future Scorecards

The indicators listed below were found to be potentially important to assessing a state’s favorability to recovery schools; however, a 50-state measurement source could not be identified at this time or direct ap-plicability could not be determined. These indicators should be evaluated in future scorecard assessments to discover if any measurement sources have emerged.


Possible future indicator: Recovery school models are free from limitations.

Currently, many states allow charter schools; however, their operations have limitations. For example, in many states charter schools are allowed to exist; however, the state does not provide funding for buildings or transportation of students. In some cases, states have begun to lift charter school restrictions (Chaker 2009). In the future, an indicator for a state’s favorability to recovery schools could be a state where opera-tional limitations such as building and transportation funding have been eliminated.


Possible future indicator: Substance Use Disorder (SUD) qualifies as Special Education under Indi-viduals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) as “Other Health Impairment”

Special education is an established mechanism for treating students with special needs, both in terms of man-agement of a student’s individual needs through Individual Education Plans (IEPs) and also through funding streams, with special education students receiving earmarked funding through the state. While inclusion of a diagnosis of a Substance Use Disorder (SUD) in special education would dramatically change the environment, there may be other mechanisms to address funding needs for students requiring recovery support services. The inclusion of substance use or co-occurring disorders in education-related legislation covering under-served pop-ulations, alternative schools, additional per-pupil funding or requirements to provide required services to effect-ed populations (such as providing for LACD, social workers and mental health professionals) could potentially be an indicator of a state’s favorability to recovery schools.



Possible future indicator: The state has an alternative education accountability policy

In recent years, some states, including Texas and Kentucky have begun to have alternative education accountability policies. In Kentucky, the increasing number of alternative education programs/schools, that is ‘a district-operated and district controlled facility with no definable attendance boundaries that is designed to provide services to at-risk populations with unique needs. Its population composition and characteristics change frequently and are controlled by the school district student assignment practices and policies’ (Swarts N.D.), has driven the importance of clearly documenting the measures of effectiveness and student success in alternative schools. Student progress and improved outcomes often look different at alternative schools than at traditional schools and therefore, accountability reporting should be adjusted to reflect this reality. Texas has also moved in this direction in recent years. In Texas, ‘under the state account-ability system, alternative education campuses (AECs) have the option to request to be evaluated under alternative education accountability (AEA) procedures. If they qualify, they receive accountability ratings based on different performance standards than those used for regular campuses’ (Texas Education Agen-cy 2013). Therefore, a state with an alternative education accountability policy or a recovery education accountability policy may be an indicator of a state’s favorability to recovery schools in the future.

Possible future indicator: The state promotes in-school suspension and follow-up care for expulsions (relatively low rate of overall suspensions)

Although suspension policies often are determined at the district or school level, should this policy ever rise to the state level, it should then be considered an indicator of the favorability for starting or sustaining recovery schools in a given state. In a policy statement, “Out-of-School Suspension and Expulsion,” pub-lished in the March 2013 issue of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) does not support zero tolerance policies and recommends that student suspension or expulsion should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Research has demonstrated that students who experience out-of-school suspension and expulsion are ten times more likely to drop out of high school than those who do not. Also, suspension and expulsion can often place the student back into the environment that led to the behavior problems (Council on School Health 2013).

State Environment

Possible future indicator: The state has an implemented recovery oriented system of care that includes recovery support for adolescents

As more and more states work toward recovery oriented systems of care, those states that create ROSC’s that specifically support adolescent recovery will likely be places that are supportive of recovery schools. Therefore, this indicator should be evaluated for inclusion in future scorecards.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/02/20/peds.2012-3932.full.pdf+html



Possible future indicator: A state level association for alternative education exists

State level associations can act as advocates for individual schools. Should more and more recovery schools open under the alternative education model, a state level association for alternative education would be able to advocate for recovery schools at the state level. Therefore, the existence of a state level association of alternative education should be evaluated for inclusion in future scorecards.

Possible future indicator: Non-profit funding for adolescent recovery is available in the state

Some existing recovery schools receive funding from non-profit agencies. The existence of non-profits whose missions align with supporting adolescent recovery indicate that private donors as well as non-prof-its may have an appetite to fund and support the recovery efforts of adolescents in any given state. At the present time, a resource the specified non-profit area of interest as well as funds available by state could not be located. Therefore, the existence of non-profits supporting youth and adolescent recovery support as well as an analysis of available non-profit funds should be evaluated for inclusion in future scorecards.

Possible future indicator: Inter-agency cooperation exists at the state level (inter-agency committee, working group or agreement exists between public health and education agencies)

Some existing recovery schools, in particular, some schools in the Boston area, have been funded through the cooperation of public health and education agencies. Recovery schools have been a multi-stakeholder collaboration in the past and could certainly benefit from increased collaboration in the future. Therefore, inter-agency cooperation between public health and education agencies at the state level should be evalu-ated for inclusion in future scorecards.


Possible future indicator: Existence of one or more charter school organizations with multiple schools operating under the larger organization

Some existing recovery schools have achieved demonstrated sustainability operating under a larger charter organization; a charter organization under which multiple charter schools operate. This model allows the risk and variance associated with these schools to be spread across multiple schools and insulates recovery schools from the financial risk associated with their varying enrollment. The existence of these organiza-tions, especially these organizations with a mission of serving under-served populations, should be evalu-ated and considered for inclusion in future scorecards.



Possible future indicator: Number of students served by alternative schools in the state

The National Center for Education Statistics currently offers this information; however, it is presented by region rather than by state. This indicator should be evaluated and included in future scorecards due to the fact that many recovery schools operate under the alternative school model. Therefore, the combination of this indicator, along with the indicator relative to the number of students attending charter schools in the state, would give a clear picture around the implementation of alternative education and charter schools in any given state.

Step 4In Step 4, the favorability indicators were applied to each of the 50 states. The results can be found in the scorecard below. For each indicator, a state could receive the score of H for high favorability, N for neutral or L for low favorability. Where data could not be located or an indicator did not apply to a particular state the designation, ND (No Data) was used. Where data could not be collected from a particular state due to no response, the indicators was left blank.

Indicator

ALAK

AZAR

CACO

CTDE

FLGA

HIID

ILIN

IAKS

KYLA

MEMDMAMIMNMSMOMTNE

NVNH

NJNM

NYNC

NDOH

OKOR

PARI

SCSD

TNTX

UTVT

VAWAWVWIWY

Stat

e law

allow

s for

char

ter s

choo

lsL

HH

HH

HH

HH

HH

HH

HL

HL

HH

HH

HH

LH

LL

HH

HH

HH

LH

HH

HH

HL

HH

LL

HH

LH

H

Stat

e fun

ding i

s ava

ilable

for

char

ter s

choo

l facil

ities

NL

HH

HH

HH

HH

HH

HH

LL

NH

NL

HL

HL

HN

NL

HL

HH

HN

HH

LH

HH

NH

HH

NH

NN

LH

Stat

e has

stro

ng ch

arte

r sch

ool la

wsL

LH

LH

HL

NH

NN

HN

HL

LL

NN

LN

HH

LH

LL

NL

NN

HN

LN

NN

NL

HL

NN

HL

LN

LN

L

Stat

e leg

islat

ion re

gard

ing

alter

nativ

e sch

ools

exist

sH

LH

HH

HN

HH

HN

HH

HN

HH

HH

HH

NH

HH

LH

HN

HN

HH

HH

HH

HN

HH

HH

NH

LH

HH

N

Stat

e leg

islat

ion re

gard

ing al

tern

a-tiv

e sch

ool fu

nding

exist

sH

LH

HH

HL

HH

HL

HH

HL

LH

HH

LH

HH

HH

LL

HL

LL

HH

HH

HH

HH

HL

HH

LL

HH

LH

L

Reco

very

high

scho

ol sp

ecifi

c leg

islat

ion ex

ists i

n the

stat

eL

LL

LL

LL

LL

LL

LL

HL

LL

LL

LH

LL

LL

LL

LL

LL

LL

LL

LL

LL

LL

LL

LL

LL

LL

L

Stat

e leg

islat

ure h

as a

men

tal

healt

h cau

cus

LL

LL

LH

LN

LH

LL

HL

NL

LH

LH

LL

HL

HN

LL

LL

HH

HL

HL

HL

LL

LL

LL

LL

LL

LL

Stat

e allo

ws st

uden

ts un

limite

d ac

cess

to tr

ansfe

r to a

publi

c sch

ool o

f his/

her c

hoice

LN

HH

NH

HH

NH

NH

NN

HN

HH

NL

NN

HH

HH

HN

NN

HN

LN

NH

NN

NN

HN

NH

HN

HN

HN

Stat

e fun

ding i

s ava

ilable

for

trans

porta

tion c

osts

relat

ed to

open

en

rollm

ent/s

choo

l cho

iceL

NL

NL

NN

LL

LL

NL

LN

HL

LL

LL

LN

LN

NL

HL

LL

LL

NN

LL

LH

LL

LL

LN

LL

LL

L

Stat

e doe

s not

use s

ingle

coun

t da

te fo

r sch

ool fu

nding

NN

NH

HL

LH

HL

NDH

NL

LL

HN

NL

LN

HH

HN

HL

LL

NH

HH

NH

HH

HH

HH

HL

HH

NDL

NN

Stat

e use

s mea

sure

s of in

dividu

al stu

dent

grow

th fo

r rat

ings

NN

HH

LH

NN

HN

NN

NL

NL

HH

NN

HL

LH

NN

NN

NN

HL

HL

HL

HL

NH

NH

NH

NL

NL

NN

A sta

tewi

de re

cove

ry su

ppor

t or

ganiz

ation

exist

sH

LH

LH

HH

HH

HH

LH

HH

LH

LH

HL

HH

LH

LH

LH

LL

HH

LH

LH

HH

HL

LH

HH

HH

LH

H

Youn

g Peo

ple in

Reco

very

(YPR

) ch

apte

r exis

ts in

the s

tate

LL

LL

LL

LL

LL

LL

LL

LL

LL

LL

LL

LL

LL

LL

LH

LL

HL

HL

LH

LL

LL

LL

LL

LL

HL

Stat

e alco

hol a

nd dr

ug ab

use a

genc

y ha

s a fo

rmal

proc

ess f

or re

pres

enta

-tio

n of y

outh

reco

very

supp

ort

LL

HH

HH

HH

HH

HH

LH

HL

LL

LL

LH

HH

LL

HH

HL

LL

HL

LL

LL

HL

L

Stat

e alco

hol a

nd dr

ug ab

use a

genc

y ha

s ear

mar

ked f

undin

g for

reco

very

su

ppor

t ser

vices

for a

doles

cent

sL

LH

HH

HH

LH

HH

LL

LH

LH

HL

LL

HH

LL

LH

LND

HL

LH

LL

LL

LH

NL

Reco

very

Sch

ool F

avor

abili

ty S

core

card

A S

tate

-by-

Stat

e Lo

ok a

t the

Fav

orab

ility

for S

tart

ing

and

Sust

aini

ng R

ecov

ery

Scho

ols

H =

Hig

h Fa

vora

bilit

y

N

= N

eutr

al F

avor

abili

ty

L

= L

ow F

avor

abili

ty

I

ncom

plet

e D

ata

Indicator

ALAK

AZAR

CACO

CTDE

FLGA

HIID

ILIN

IAKS

KYLA

MEMDMAMIMNMSMOMTNE

NVNH

NJNM

NYNC

NDOH

OKOR

PARI

SCSD

TNTX

UTVT

VAWAWVWIWY

Stat

e has

relat

ively

low nu

mbe

r of

lega

l bar

riers

facing

peop

le wi

th cr

imina

l reco

rds

LL

NN

HL

NL

NL

HN

HL

LN

HN

HL

HH

NL

LN

NH

HL

HH

NN

HH

HN

HL

LH

LH

HL

HN

NL

Treat

men

t ser

vices

for a

doles

cent

s ar

e wide

ly av

ailab

le in

the s

tate

HL

LN

LH

LN

LL

HN

HN

NH

HL

LN

HN

HL

LH

LH

NL

NH

LN

LN

HN

NL

HL

LN

LH

HL

NH

Treat

men

t ser

vices

for a

doles

cent

s ha

ve pa

ymen

t assi

stanc

eH

LL

NN

HL

NL

LH

NH

HN

HN

NL

NH

NL

LL

HL

HN

LN

HL

NN

HH

LN

LH

LL

NL

HH

LN

H

Juve

nile a

nd fa

mily

drug

cour

ts ex

ist in

the s

tate

HH

NN

LH

LN

NL

HN

HL

LL

LN

LN

NN

NH

NH

LH

HN

LH

NH

NH

LL

HN

HL

LH

LN

HL

LH

Stat

e-lev

el ch

arte

r sch

ool

asso

ciatio

n exis

tsL

HH

HH

HH

HH

HH

HH

HL

LL

HH

HH

HH

LH

LL

HH

HH

HH

LH

HH

HH

HH

HH

HL

HL

LH

H

Reco

very

high

scho

ols ex

ist

and o

pera

te in

the s

tate

LL

HL

HL

LL

LL

LL

LH

LL

LL

LL

HL

HL

LL

LH

LH

LL

LL

LH

LH

HL

LL

HL

LL

LL

HH

Char

ter s

choo

ls ex

ist an

d ope

rate

in

the s

tate

LH

HN

HH

LH

HN

HH

LN

LL

LH

LN

NH

HL

NL

LN

NN

HN

NL

HL

HN

NN

LN

NH

LL

LL

HN

Stud

ents

atte

nd ch

arte

r sch

ools

in th

e sta

te

LH

HN

HH

NH

HN

HH

NN

LL

LH

LN

NH

HL

NL

LN

LN

HN

NL

HN

NH

NN

LL

NH

LL

LL

HL

Stat

e fun

ding i

s ava

ilable

for

cate

goric

al pr

ogra

ms

NL

NN

HN

HH

LL

LH

HN

NL

HN

HH

LH

HL

NN

NN

LN

NH

NL

HH

LH

NH

LL

LH

LN

NN

HN

Per-p

upil e

duca

tion e

xpen

ditur

e ad

juste

d for

regio

nal d

iff er

ence

sN

HL

NL

LH

NL

LN

LN

NN

NL

NH

HH

NN

LN

HH

LH

HN

HL

HN

LN

HH

LN

LL

LH

LL

HN

H

Over

all Sc

ore

LN

NN

NH

NN

NN

NN

NN

LL

NN

NH

LN

NN

NN

NN

HN

NN

NN

NL

NN

LN

N

The d

ata w

as ga

ther

ed by

The S

tacie

Mat

hews

on Fo

unda

tion w

ith th

e sup

port

of

sr4 Pa

rtner

s as p

art o

f the

2013

Mar

ket S

tudy

for R

ecov

ery H

igh Sc

hools

.

Reco

very

Sch

ool F

avor

abili

ty S

core

card

cont

inue

d



The scores were then converted to numerical values. H’s were given a value of 2, N’s were given a value of 1 and L’s were given a value of 0. Where an indicator did not apply to a given state (a ND in the scorecard), a value of 1 was assigned. Where data could not be collected from a particular state due to no response, the indicators was left blank. The minimum score possible is 0 and the maximum score possible is 50.

Complete data was gathered for 41 states.

When favorability indicators were applied to each state with complete data, the study found that 14.63% (6 out of 41) of states had low favorability for starting or sustaining recovery schools, 78.05% (32 out of 41) had neutral favorability for starting or sustaining recovery schools and 7.32% (3 out of 41) had high favorability for starting or sustaining recovery schools.

States that received a low favorability rating scored 16.66 or fewer points out of 50. States that received a neutral favorability rating scored 16.67-33.33 points. And states that received a high favorability rating scored 33.34-50 points. Scores within the data set ranged from 12 at the low end to 36 at the high end. The mean score was 24.56 and the median score was 25.

It should be noted that there is a large range within each of these categories. In particular, 11 states scored between 30 and 33, which left them at then high end of the neutral category. With just a few adjustment in states such as Arizona, California, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Massachusetts, Missouri, North Carolina, Oregon and Wisconsin, a high favorability ranking could be achieved. As such, the actual score received by each state has been included in the map so that comparisons within the favorability levels can be made. The map below indicates each state’s favorability for starting or sustaining recovery schools.


The map below illustrates the total scores received by each state and the category that each state fell into.

Low (0-16.66)

Certain indicators not yet scored

Neutral (16.67-33.33)

High (33.34-50)

Incomplete Data

Recovery High Schools

17

29

24

2330

31

30

31

22

Recovery School Favorability ReportA State-by-State Look at the Favorability for Starting and Sustaining Recovery Schools

The data was gathered by The Stacie Mathewson Foundation with the support of sr4 Partners as part of the 2013 Market Study for Recovery High Schools.

Scores were assigned based on 25 indicators identi�ed during the Market Study. For each indicator a score of 2=High, a score of 1=Neutral and a score of 0=Low resulting in a total possible score of 50.

1923

3033

24

21

30

20

27

36

27

31 29

28

25

2015

3430

16

3119

29

12

12

18

13

21

18

2417

3625

28

3030

23

32

16

17

25


Part 5: Recommendations Based on the work conducted during this market study, the following recommendations should be considered by The Association of Recovery Schools, partners and advocates for youth and adolescents in recovery.

• Further refinement of the rubric used for the state-by-state analysis is needed. Refinement should include statistical analysis including running a factor analysis to determine whether any of the indicators should be combined, correlation analysis on how these indicators are related to the existence of schools in each state, as well as research into how weighting the indicators might alter the findings.

• Based on the convergence of factors discussed in Part 1, recovery schools need to be hiring staff that credentialed in the areas of mental health and substance abuse/chemical dependency as this will likely help them to better meet the needs of their population as well as possibly open new funding streams.

• Based on the convergence of factors discussed in Part 1, especially the anticipated increase in access to treatment, recovery schools must prepare to host a more diverse population in the future.

• ARS should keep the list of operating recovery high schools and closed high schools current as well as make this information public on a regular basis.

• ARS should repeat the state-by-state favorability analysis on an annual basis to ensure that the information, scorecards and maps created as part of this study remain current. In particular, the indicators regarding each SSA’s funding should be evaluated as many of the single state agencies receive funding for adolescent recovery support service through the Access to Recovery (ATR) grant. It is unknown how long this funding will be available; as such, there is concern among the SSA’s as to the sustainability of these offerings. Additionally, laws, funding and programs change often and therefore should be reassessed annually.Data for the nine states with incomplete data in the state-by-state analysis should be collected.

• Further research should be undertaken to understand operational economies of scale and mini-mum school size recommendations.

• Many of the single state agency’s (SSA’s) identified by SAMHSA for substance abuse services do not provide services to people under the age of 18. In those states, individuals under the age of 18 with substance use or co-occurring disorders receive services from the agency that supports families and children. As such, it would be useful to have a clear understanding of which SSA’s identified by SAMHSA offer substance abuse, treatment and recovery services for individuals under 18 and which SSA’s defer those services to another agency.


Part 5: Recommendations

• Further research should be undertaken to better understand how per-pupil allocations work in each state. In Minnesota, the allocation is linked to students rather than schools or districts, which means that funding follows a student who transfers. This is one of the reasons that so many schools have opened in Minnesota. A comprehensive study of how this works across the country is recommended.

• ARS should investigate and determine policy recommendations on inclusion of substance use or co-occurring disorders as a disability covered by the ADA or acknowledgment as an under served population.

• ARS should seek to define and promote funding streams available for recovery support services including health insurance, federal/state block grants and the Affordable Care Act. For example – what’s in the essential health benefit package in each state that could benefit young people in recovery?

• Individual recovery schools could benefit from legal expertise when starting a school to deter-mine the local legislative and policy environment. Legal experts could assist in interfacing with legislators in the area as well as understanding school district and zoning requirements.

• ARS should consider creating a library of legislative examples that are supportive of recovery schools and adolescent recovery support services, including the legislation passed in Massa-chusetts that supports the recovery schools there, as well as the legislation passed in Indiana to increased funding for Hope Academy.

• Legal representation may be needed on a case-by-case basis to secure services for students in re-covery; similar to legal action taken by families seeking IEPs on behalf of a child with disabilities. ARS should consider building a network of legal representatives to help students in recovery.

• ARS should consider establishing a national legal/advocacy network that are accessible to start-up schools, so that they can consult on the laws and policies in their locality, as well as provide recovery-specific discrimination legal advice.

• ARS should investigate employing legal research to find relevant legislation in all 50 states. Legal counsel could advise on the optimal legislative environment to support recovery high schools in each state.


Acknowledgments

Part 1: At the convergence of forces for change in recovery high schools. Authored by Dr. Andrew Finch, Associate Professor of the Practice of Human and Organizational Development, Vanderbilt University. July, 2013

Part 2: Categories of school-based recovery support. Authored by Dr. Andrew Finch, Associate Professor of the Prac-tice of Human and Organizational Development, Vanderbilt University. July, 2013

Bibliography

Boyd, W. L., Hare, D., & Nathan, J. (2002). What really happened? Minnesota’s experience with statewide public school choice programs. Retrieved from http://www.texastech.edu/news/CurrentNews/display_article.php?id=208.

Burleson, J. A., Kaminer, Y., & Burke, R. H. (2012). Twelve-month follow-up of aftercare for adolescents with alcohol use disorders. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 42(1), 78-86. doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2011.07.00

Chaker, Anne Marie. (2009). Expanding the charter option. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203863204574346500121979982.html.

Council on School Health. (2013). Out-of-school suspension and expulsion. Pediatrics, 131(3), e1000-e1007. Accessed from http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/02/20/peds.2012-3932.full.pdf+html.

Davidson, L., & White, W. (2007). The concept of recovery as an organizing principle for integrating mental health and addiction services. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services and Research, 34(2), 109-120. Retrieved from SpringerLink: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11414-007-9053-

Deas, D., Riggs, P., Langenbucher, J., Goldman, M., & Brown, S. (2000). Adolescents are not adults: Developmental considerations in alcohol users. Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research, 24(2), 232-237. doi:10.1111/j.1530-0277.2000.tb04596.

Dennis, M. (2004). Traumatic victimization among adolescents in substance abuse treatment. Counselor: The Magazine for Addiction Professionals, 5(2), 36-40. Retrieved from Google Scholar

Dennis, M., & Scott, C. K. (2007). Managing addiction as a chronic condition. Addiction Science & Clinical Practice, 4(1), 45-55.

Dennis, M. L., Foss, M. A., & Scott, C. K. (2007). An eight-year perspective on the relationship between the duration of abstinence and other aspects of recovery. Evaluation Review, 31(6), 585-612. doi:10.1177/0193841X0730777.

Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405-32. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.

http://www.texastech.edu/news/CurrentNews/display_article.php?id=208

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203863204574346500121979982.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203863204574346500121979982.html

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/02/20/peds.2012-3932.full.pdf+html


Godley, S. H., Garner, B. R., Passetti, L. L., Funk, R. R., Dennis, M. L., & Godley, M. D. (2010). Adolescent outpatient treatment and continuing care: Main findings from a randomized clinical trial. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 110(1-2), 44-54. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2010.02.00

Guthrie, J. W., Barr, R. D., & Parrett, W. H. (2003). Alternative schooling. In Encyclopedia of education (Vol. 1, pp. 82-86). New York: Macmillan Reference USA.

Hardin, M. G., & Ernst, M. (2009). Functional brain imaging of development-related risk and vulnerability for substance use in adolescents. J Addict Med, 3(2), 47-54. doi:10.1097/ADM.0b013e31819ca78

Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E. (2009). Monitoring the future: National survey results on drug use, 1975-2008. Volume I, secondary school students (Vol. NIH Publication No. 09-7402). Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.

McKay, J. R., Carise, D., Dennis, M. L., Dupont, R., Humphreys, K., Kemp, J., . . . Schwartzlose, J. (2009). Extending the benefits of addiction treatment: Practical strategies for continuing care and recovery. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 36(2), 127-30. doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2008.10.00

NATSAP Principles of Good Practice. (n.d.). [Web page]. Retrieved from natsap.org: http://natsap.org/principles-of-good-practice/principles.

National Institute on Drug Abuse [NIDA] (2010). Drugs, brains, and behavior: The science of addiction. Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Swarts, Leon. (N.D.). Alternative Education Accountability: Kentucky’s Approach. Retrieved from http://ici.umn.edu/products/impact/163/prof5.html

Taylor, R. D., & Dymnicki, A. B. (2007). Empirical evidence of social and emotional learning’s influence on school success: A commentary on Building academic success on social and emotional learning: What does the research say?, A book edited by Joseph E. Zins, Roger P. Weissberg, Margaret C. Wang, and Herbert J. Walberg. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 17(2-3), 225-231.

Teunissen, H. A., Spijkerman, R., Prinstein, M. J., Cohen, G. L., Engels, R. C., & Scholte, R. H. (2012). Adolescents’ conformity to their peers’ pro-alcohol and anti-alcohol norms: The power of popularity. Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research, 36(7), 1257-67. doi:10.1111/j.1530-0277.2011.01728.

Texas Education Agency. (2013). Alternative Education Accountability. Retrieved from http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/aea/.

Tomé, G., Matos, M., Simões, C., Diniz, J. A., & Camacho, I. (2012). How can peer group influence the behavior of adolescents: Explanatory model. Global Journal of Health Science, 4(2), 26-35.

Weinberg, N. Z., Rahdert, E., Colliver, J. D., & Glantz, M. D. (1998). Adolescent substance abuse: A review of the past 10 years. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 37(3), 252 - 261. doi:10.1097/00004583-199803000-0000

http://ici.umn.edu/products/impact/163/prof5.html

http://ici.umn.edu/products/impact/163/prof5.html

http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/aea/

http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/aea/


Appendix A: Call study phone guide

Fill-In Phone Guide for Recovery High School Survey

Date: _______________________________

Survey taken by: ______________________________________________________________________

School: ______________________________________________________________________________

ARS Member (Circle One): Yes or No

Say: Hi. My name is ______________. I am calling from The Stacie Mathewson Foundation.

Say: Our Foundation is focused on addiction recovery and prevention for young people; we’re committed to erasing the social stigma associated with addiction and alcoholism.

Say: We are conducting a market study of recovery high schools with the goal of documenting all of the schools in the U.S. We are working with the Association of Recovery Schools to help existing schools operate at their best and aid in the expansion of a collaborative network of recovery high schools across the U.S.

Ask: Who runs your school or is the best person to contact about it? What is their contact information?

Contact: __________________________________ Title: __________________________________

Phone: _______________________________ Email: _________________________________________

Mailing Address: ______________________________________________________________________

Say: We are doing research right now because there is currently no database that catalogs the descriptions of recovery high schools across the U.S. Your time today will help us to create a database so that we can better coordinate and develop among these programs. Do you have ten minutes to share some information with me about your school?

Ask: What is your school’s organizational structure?

a. Public: ☐ Traditional ☐ Charter ☐ Alternative

b. Private: ☐ Traditional ☐ Parochial ☐ Proprietary (for-profit)

Ask: Is your school part of a higher-level organization (school district or other group of schools)?

_____________________________________________________________________________________



Ask: What is the school’s physical structure? Is it standalone, a school within a school, or a school within a treatment center?

Ask: Is your school designed specifically for students recovering from substance abuse or dependency?

Ask: Does your school have open enrollment?

Ask: Does your school offer credits leading to a state-recognized high school diploma?

Ask: What is the balance of academics and therapeutics in the school?

Ask: Do you require that all students be working a recovery program? If so, how is that program selected?

Ask: Do students receive assistance to transition to another high school, college or career while enrolled?

Ask: Does your school have procedures and policies that you employ when a student is in crisis or relapses?

Ask: We want to thank you so much for your time. Is there anything else you would like to share with us?

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Note: For non-member schools ask and discuss the following:

Ask: Are you aware of the Association for Recovery Schools?

Say: Thanks again for your time. We will send you some follow up information in the coming weeks re-garding the Foundation and the work that we are doing. We hope that you will continue to support our efforts.

If we think they are a recovery school say, “In the coming weeks we will be sending out an additional, more thorough survey. Would you be willing contribute to this survey? Yes or No (Circle One)

Finally, we wanted to make you aware of the annual Association of Recovery Schools conference to be held in Del Mar, California in July. Are you interested in receiving more information on this conference? Yes or No (Circle One)



If a school has closed:

Date: _______________________________

Survey taken by: ______________________________________________________________________

School: ______________________________________________________________________________

Say: Hi. My name is ______________. I am calling from The Stacie Mathewson Foundation.

Say: Our Foundation is focused on addiction recovery and prevention for young people; we’re committed to erasing the social stigma associated with addiction and alcoholism.

Say: We are conducting a market study of recovery high schools with the goal of documenting all of the schools in the U.S. We are working with the Association of Recovery Schools to help existing schools op-erate at their best and aid in the expansion of a collaborative network of recovery high schools across the U.S. In this process, we have learned that you were associated with a recovery high school that has closed. We feel that there hasn’t been enough time or research on why recovery high schools close and would like your input so that we may begin to gather this information in a single location and leverage your past experience as we see more and more people looking to open recovery high schools.

Ask: Who ran your school or is the best person to contact about it?

Contact: __________________________________ Title: _________________________________

Phone: ________________________ Email: _______________________________________________

Mailing Address: ______________________________________________________________________

Ask: If you are talking to the right person, ask, “Do you have 15 minutes to share some information with me about your school?”

Ask: What year did your school open?

Ask: What year did your school close?

Ask: In your opinion, what were the reasons for the school’s closure?


Appendix B: Explanation of Study

This study, supported by The Stacie Mathewson Foundation, seeks to paint a picture of the present landscape for recovery high schools in the U.S., offer an analysis of conditions that will allow the recovery school network to expand in the future and uncover possible barriers to this expansion. The intention is to help existing schools operate at their best, aid in the expansion of a collaborative network of recovery high schools across the country and provide support to the Association of Recovery Schools (ARS), the only national organization specifi-cally dedicated to this cause.

This work is done for the benefit of the ARS, which has been identified by The Stacie Mathewson Foundation as the national leader in advocacy for the initiation, management and sustainability of recovery high schools. This study is funded by The Stacie Mathewson Foun-dation; it is a market research study and is not associated with any federally funded research initiatives or academic research.

The intent of this survey is to solicit responses in order to paint a picture of the present land-scape for recovery high schools in the U.S. and discuss the practices that have contributed to their start and success. One product of this study will be an upgraded map and data manage-ment system that will benefit related stakeholders.

Please advance to the next page to contribute to the study.

Your Contribution

Thank you for your willingness to contribute to this study.

Through this survey, we hope to receive input from every operating recovery high school in the U.S.

The survey will ask you, based on your experience, to respond to a series of questions regarding the struc-ture and offerings of the recovery high school that you are affiliated with.

Results of this survey will help researchers accurately paint the picture of the present landscape of recovery high schools across the country.

In participating in this survey, you will be asked to complete the following:

1. Complete an online informed consent form.

2. Answer a list of questions regarding the recovery high school you are affiliated with.

3. Provide a brief description of how your school started.

4. Review the list of recovery high schools identified by The Stacie Mathewson Foundation and advise as to any schools that are missing from the list.



Informed Consent

Principal Investigator Contact Information: Erin Jonessr4 Partners, LLC.222 N LaSalle, Suite 1450Chicago, IL 60601630-235-3193

[email protected]

Invitation to Participate

This is an invitation to participate in a voluntary research study. You may choose to participate or not, and you may discontinue your participation at anytime. There is no penalty for not participating. This consent form contains information you should consider in making your decision to participate in this research.

This information includes the purpose of the research as well as any potential risks associated with being a research participant. You may want to discuss your participation with family, friends or a doctor if you would like additional opinions. After reading this form you will be asked to confirm that you understand the information contained in this release form.

Purpose of Study

This qualitative research seeks to collect survey data from all existing recovery high schools in the U.S. in order to paint a picture of the present landscape of recovery high schools in the country and discuss the practices that have contributed to their start and success. The purpose of this study is to conduct market research; it is not an academic or university-sponsored effort and is not subject to IRB (Institutional Re-view Board) review.

Description of Study

Your participation will consist of providing responses to a series of questions asked through this online survey. The survey should take approximately 30 minutes to complete.

mailto:[email protected]



Potential Risks or Discomforts

There are no known health risks associated with this study. Participating in completing the survey is time consuming, but otherwise non-onerous. There are no costs associated with participation.

Benefits of Participation

There are no material benefits for participation; no payments or other bonuses. Participation is a way of sharing one’s experience and giving back to the larger recovery community.

Participant Rights

As a participant in this research you have a right to anonymity. If you choose, nothing you say or contrib-ute will in anyway be associated with your name, medical or school record.

☐ If you would like to remain anonymous, please check this box.

Please note, login information is required and researchers will be able to see your name tied to your re-sponses; however, should you choose to remain anonymous, your name and affiliation will remain anony-mous in all public documentation and results.

You have a right to discontinue your participation at anytime. You have a right to contact the principle investigator to inquire about the privacy of your information.

By clicking below you agree that you understand your rights and voluntarily agree to take part in this research. Clicking the box indicates you have read the consent form, that your questions have been satisfied and that you are permitting the research team to use information collected about you for the stated purposes of research only.

☐ I have read the consent form, understand my rights and voluntarily agree to take part in this research.


Appendix C: Recovery School Survey

Recovery High School Survey

Name of School: [Fill in Blank]

When did your school open? [Select Year]

In the space below, please provide a description of how your school started. [Blank box, no character limit]

Is your school operated and governed by:

[A nonprofit organization with other services besides this school, A nonprofit organization established to run this school, A public entity, Other private organization or company, Other ______]

Is your school part of a higher-level organization (school district or other group of schools)? [Yes or No]

If yes, what is the name of the organization? [Fill in blank]

What is the nature of the school’s physical facilities? (Check all that apply)

[Self-contained building with only THIS school, Space within another school, Self-contained building on another school campus, Space in some other shared building—not a school, Space in a treatment facility, Other______________________]

How many students do you currently serve? [Fill in blank]

What is your maximum capacity for students? [Fill in blank]

What is the (ethnicity origin) racial breakdown of your population?

[Fill in blank, %White, %Hispanic or Latino, %Black or African American, %Native American or Ameri-can Indian, %Asian/Pacific Islander, %Other]

What are your admission criteria? [Fill in blank]

Is there a minimum abstinence duration required for enrollment? [Yes or No]

If yes, what is the minimum abstinence duration required for enrollment? [Fill in blank]

What is the catchment area for your school (student residence boundaries)? [Fill in blank]



Where do most of your students get referred from?

☐ Treatment centers☐ Juvenile justice system☐ Self/family/friend☐ Other _________________________________

How many full-time staff are employed by the school? [Fill in blank]

How many part-time staff are employed by the school? [Fill in blank]

How many academic staff work at the school? [Number]

How many counseling staff work at the school? [Number]

Below, please list all of the titles held by the staff in your school. [Fill in blank]

Below, please describe a typical day at your school. [Fill in blank]

What types of recovery support and therapeutic support do you provide? [Fill in blank]

Below, check any of the following support services offered by your school.

☐ On site 12-step☐ Life skills☐ Peer mentoring☐ Sober social events☐ On site counseling☐ Off-site counseling☐ Case management☐ Family engagement☐ Community service

☐ Other______________________________________________________

How long does a student typically stay enrolled in the school? [Fill in blank, in semesters]

How much are recovery students comingled with traditional students in the school?

[Never, Daily, Weekly, By Class]

Do you conduct urine sample monitoring? [Yes or No]



If yes, what triggers a urine test? [For ‘cause’, Random, Regular requirement, Other __________]

What else are you doing to make sure that your school is drug and alcohol free? [Fill in blank]

Please describe how your school handles student relapse. [Fill in blank]

What metrics does your school regularly track? [Length of stay, Turnover, Demographics, Relapse rates, Academic indicators, Costs, Other].

What is your annual budget? [Fill in blank]

Please estimate the percentage of this school’s funding that comes from each of the following sources.

[% Tuition Payments, % Public Education (Tax) Allocations, % Juvenile Justice/Corrections, % Donations, % Endowments, % Grant funding, % Other: specify_____________]

How would you characterize your program’s stability on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 meaning always worried about closing to 5 meaning fully stable with limited concerns on closing?

[Drop down 1 to 5]

What are the major challenges faced by your school? [Fill in blank]

How do you plan to resolve those challenges? [Fill in blank]

Is your school a member of the Association of Recovery Schools? [Yes or No]

If not, why? If yes, what are the benefits or services you gain through your membership? [Fill in blank]

The Association of Recovery Schools is dedicated to furthering the success and growth of recovery high schools in the U.S. What resources would your school find most helpful?

☐ Database of schools and contact information

☐ Relevant research articles

☐ “How-to” guides for starting a school

☐ “How-to” guides for running a school

☐ Other – please list: _________________________________________________________________

What is the job title of the person completing this questionnaire? [Fill in blank]

Review the list of recovery high schools below. Are there any other schools that you are aware of?



[List of schools followed by fill in blank]1. Anchor Learning Academy2. Archway Academy3. Carlbrook School4. Circle of Health Recovery School (NDNS4 Wellness)5. Family Foundation6. Fusion Academy7. Hardin Community School8. Hope Academy9. Horizon High School10. In Balance Ranch Academy11. Independence Academy12. INSIGHT Program13. Lakes Recovery School14. Mission Academy15. NDNS4 Wellness16. Northshore Recovery High School17. Ostiguy High School18. PEASE Academy19. Project Change (scheduled to close in 2013)20. REACH High21. River Road Academy22. Serna Academy23. Serenity High School24. Sunshine Alternative Education Center25. The Bridge Way School26. The Gate House School27. Three Oaks Academy28. Visions Scholastic Academy

Are there any other schools or programs in your area that support students in recovery or offer recovery support services but may not qualify as a recovery high school? Please record those schools or programs below.

[Blank]

We support and inspire recovery high schools for optimum performance,

empowering hope and access to every student in recovery.

market study for recovery high schools · daytop preparatory school – mendhan, nj 8. hope academy...

Documents