User:Gopumps/Social Model of Recovery

The Social Model of Recovery has two major facets: an environmental perspective and an experiential learning process. The model is based on these assumptions:
 * the primary forces that shape and sustain individual behavior, including the use and non-use of alcohol or other drugs, are to be found in the sociocultural environment in which the individual lives; and
 * an individual learns and sustains new behavior, including recovery, by "living it" and "sharing it."

The first assumption implies that why a person is addicted is not as important to recovery as where the person is. The second assumption can be characterized by the Eastern proverb: "I hear, I forget; I see, I remember; I do, I learn; I teach, I believe."

History
The first two uses of the term "social model" in the field of alcoholism both occurred in 1973. In a paper which detailed the operating principles of alcoholic recovery homes the authors described the recovery home environment and process of behavioral change as the "social model of recovery." The term "social model" originated from Bob O'Briant, who published "Recovery from Alcoholism: a Social Treatment Model." This book was based on the observation that the "social model" of AA was uniquely more effective in supporting recovery from alcoholism than the then-current clinical practices which, according to the authors, were based on a "man-as-machine" model.

Influence of AA
Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) developed as a consequence of the failure of the medical model to treat successfully what AA calls “real” alcoholics or alcoholics “of our type”3 (Alcoholics Anonymous 1939). The social model of recovery, as exemplified by the AA "way of life," is a learning-by-living process within a culture of values, language, rituals, and traditions which supports abstinence-based recovery Alcoholic recovery homes, such as the Minnesota Model (Hazelden), and Synanon, the forerunner of American therapeutic communities, all grew out of the subculture of AA. Each of these offshoots has developed its own unique features Of them, only alcoholic recovery homes tend to make extensive use of social model principles to describe their processes and environments. O'Briant, one of the principal authors of, became involved with the California Association of Alcoholic Recovery Homes (CAARH). Ken Schonlau was president and Martin H. Dodd was vice president. The three were members of the State Alcoholism Advisory Board, which was the policy forum for the California Alcoholism Program At the time, there were over 200 alcoholic recovery homes in California. These programs formed the backbone of the publicly funded alcoholism recovery system.

Two major objectives prompted the developers of these recovery homes to organize and write down what they were doing and why. These objectives were to avoid the necessity of being licensed by the state as care facilities or of obtaining accreditation as medical facilities. Both of these program designations were considered threats to the self-help foundation of social model recovery programs.

With the support of Loren Archer,6 recovery homes achieved unique licensing and certification standards based on social model principles. In addition to recovery home certification, the state program developed certification standards for all other modalities of alcoholism services. This self-determination was in lieu of accepting the standards of the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Hospitals (JCAH).7 These, and other significant policies,8 were formulated with the active support of the State Alcoholism Advisory Board. By 1978, the California Alcoholism Program, to a great extent, was based on social model principles.

Key Players

 * 1) Martin H. Dodd
 * 2) Robert O'Briant, M.D.
 * 3) Thomasina Borkman, Ph.D.
 * 4) Lee Kaskutas, Dr.,P.H.