The Volunteer Recovery Support for Adolescents (VRSA) experiment: Recruiting, retaining, training, and supervising volunteers to implement recovery monitoring and support services

Volunteer Recovery Support for Adolescents (VRSA) is a novel recovery monitoring and support service for youth after discharge from residential treatment for substance use disorders. Study methods and results of a randomized controlled study are presented in a companion paper and provide evidence that VRSA improves pro recovery peer and activity involvement, decreases substance use and related problems, and increases early full remission (Godley et al., under review). This paper describes the VRSA model, how fidelity was monitored, methods used to recruit, retain, train, and supervise volunteers, how well volunteers were able to implement the model, and how adolescents responded to VRSA. As evidenced by successful recruitment of volunteers to cover caseload needs, positive rates of volunteer retention, and favorable recovery support session completion rates, VRSA is a flexible, potentially low-cost model for providing extended recovery support services that is both feasible and acceptable to adolescents. Future research is needed to identify variables that predict volunteer commitment and to investigate if matching gender, race/ethnicity, or other variables affect results

Adolescent community reinforcement approach for adolescent cannabis use.

[Note. The Cannabis Youth Treatment Series is no longer available on the SAMHSA website. It is here as an archival record]. This manual is part of a series detailing a range of interventions for adolescents with cannabis use problems. They were developed for use in the US. This is Vol 4 of 5 and details a version of Community Reinforcement Approach (CRA) for adolescents with cannabis use problems. The intervention comprises:- •10 Individual sessions with the young person •2 sessions with a family member(s)/carer(s) •2 session with both the young person and the family member(s) The intervention can be carried out by drug workers with additional relevant competences and receiving specialist supervision. For other reports in the series, click on related publication links below

A randomized trial of Volunteer Recovery Support for Adolescents (VRSA) following residential treatment discharge

Research on continuing care treatment for adolescents following discharge from primary treatment has demonstrated benefit, yet treatment providers encounter multiple barriers in its implementation. Less formal recovery support following treatment is promising, but controlled trials of effectiveness are lacking. This study reports results of a randomized trial of recovery support provided by student volunteers via telephone to youth discharged from residential treatment. Both direct and indirect effects were predicted for proximal (pro-recovery peers, recovery management activities) and distal (AOD use and problems, AOD remission) outcomes

Comparing organization-focused and state-focused financing strategies on provider-level reach of a youth substance use treatment model: a mixed-method study.

BACKGROUND: Financial barriers in substance use disorder service systems have limited the widespread adoption-i.e., provider-level reach-of evidence-based practices (EBPs) for youth substance use disorders. Reach is essential to maximizing the population-level impact of EBPs. One promising, but rarely studied, type of implementation strategy for overcoming barriers to EBP reach is financing strategies, which direct financial resources in various ways to support implementation. We evaluated financing strategies for the Adolescent Community Reinforcement Approach (A-CRA) EBP by comparing two US federal grant mechanisms, organization-focused and state-focused grants, on organization-level A-CRA reach outcomes. METHOD: A-CRA implementation took place through organization-focused and state-focused grantee cohorts from 2006 to 2021. We used a quasi-experimental, mixed-method design to compare reach between treatment organizations funded by organization-focused versus state-focused grants (164 organizations, 35 states). Using administrative training records, we calculated reach as the per-organization proportion of trained individuals who received certification in A-CRA clinical delivery and/or supervision by the end of grant funding. We tested differences in certification rate by grant type using multivariable linear regression models that controlled for key covariates (e.g., time), and tested threats to internal validity from our quasi-experimental design through a series of sensitivity analyses. We also drew on interviews and surveys collected from the treatment organizations and (when relevant) interviews with state administrators to identify factors that influenced reach. RESULTS: The overall certification rates were 27 percentage points lower in state-focused versus organization-focused grants (p = .01). Sensitivity analyses suggested these findings were not explained by confounding temporal trends nor by organizational or state characteristics. We did not identify significant quantitative moderators of reach outcomes, but qualitative findings suggested certain facilitating factors were more influential for organization-focused grants (e.g., strategic planning) and certain barrier factors were more impactful for state-focused grants (e.g., states finding it difficult to execute grant activities). DISCUSSION: As the first published comparison of EBP reach outcomes between financing strategies, our findings can help guide state and federal policy related to financing strategies for implementing EBPs that reduce youth substance use. Future work should explore contextual conditions under which different financing strategies can support the widespread implementation of EBPs for substance use disorder treatment

Comparing organization-focused and state-focused financing strategies on provider-level reach of a youth substance use treatment model: a mixed-method study

Abstract Background Financial barriers in substance use disorder service systems have limited the widespread adoption—i.e., provider-level reach—of evidence-based practices (EBPs) for youth substance use disorders. Reach is essential to maximizing the population-level impact of EBPs. One promising, but rarely studied, type of implementation strategy for overcoming barriers to EBP reach is financing strategies, which direct financial resources in various ways to support implementation. We evaluated financing strategies for the Adolescent Community Reinforcement Approach (A-CRA) EBP by comparing two US federal grant mechanisms, organization-focused and state-focused grants, on organization-level A-CRA reach outcomes. Method A-CRA implementation took place through organization-focused and state-focused grantee cohorts from 2006 to 2021. We used a quasi-experimental, mixed-method design to compare reach between treatment organizations funded by organization-focused versus state-focused grants (164 organizations, 35 states). Using administrative training records, we calculated reach as the per-organization proportion of trained individuals who received certification in A-CRA clinical delivery and/or supervision by the end of grant funding. We tested differences in certification rate by grant type using multivariable linear regression models that controlled for key covariates (e.g., time), and tested threats to internal validity from our quasi-experimental design through a series of sensitivity analyses. We also drew on interviews and surveys collected from the treatment organizations and (when relevant) interviews with state administrators to identify factors that influenced reach. Results The overall certification rates were 27 percentage points lower in state-focused versus organization-focused grants (p = .01). Sensitivity analyses suggested these findings were not explained by confounding temporal trends nor by organizational or state characteristics. We did not identify significant quantitative moderators of reach outcomes, but qualitative findings suggested certain facilitating factors were more influential for organization-focused grants (e.g., strategic planning) and certain barrier factors were more impactful for state-focused grants (e.g., states finding it difficult to execute grant activities). Discussion As the first published comparison of EBP reach outcomes between financing strategies, our findings can help guide state and federal policy related to financing strategies for implementing EBPs that reduce youth substance use. Future work should explore contextual conditions under which different financing strategies can support the widespread implementation of EBPs for substance use disorder treatment