Collegiate Recovery Programs (CRPs) serve a critical function within higher education, providing structured support systems for students in recovery from substance use disorders (SUDs) and behavioral addictions. These programs offer vital resources, including mutual-help meetings, drop-in centers, and designated recovery housing, fostering environments that support both academic and personal growth. Despite their importance, there remains a notable lack of comprehensive characterization of CRP organizational structures, funding mechanisms, and director demographics. This study, addressing these gaps, surveyed CRP directors across the United States and Canada, aiming to elucidate the variations in CRP features and funding sustainability, thereby informing strategic development in higher education contexts.
This study conducted a cross-sectional survey of 70 CRP directors across the United States and Canada from July to December 2023. The survey collected quantitative and qualitative data on program structures, policies, funding sources, and the availability of mutual-help meetings. Survey items included details specific to each CRP, such as the provision of recovery housing, peer support activities, and abstinence policies, alongside demographic information on the directors. For funding sources, programs supported by two or more sources were defined as having “sustainable funding.” Descriptive and inferential statistical analyses using SPSS were applied to compare CRP characteristics and resources between programs with single-source funding and those with multiple funding sources, focusing on service sustainability and director tenure.
The study revealed that CRPs with multiple funding sources demonstrated greater organizational capacity and sustainability compared to those with single-source funding. Multi-source-funded CRPs generally supported twice as many students, with larger physical spaces, more comprehensive relapse management policies, and enhanced service offerings. Directors from these programs reported positive perceptions of mutual-help group effectiveness and adherence to harm reduction principles, as evidenced by their provision of diverse support options such as All Recovery and SMART Recovery meetings. Additionally, CRPs with diversified funding were more likely to offer recovery housing and robust drop-in centers, underscoring that multiple funding streams contribute to the sustainability and resilience of CRP services. These findings suggest that diversified funding not only expands student reach and facility offerings but also strengthens CRPs’ mission to create supportive, recovery-focused environments, underscoring the need for sustained, multi-source funding to enhance CRP capacities, student well-being, and inclusive, recovery-oriented cultures within academic institutions.
Takeaway: Diversified funding is essential for enhancing the capacity, sustainability, and inclusive recovery support of CRPs, enabling them to serve more students effectively and foster resilient, recovery-oriented environments in higher education.