The role of social relationships in recovery court programs.

Background: Recovery courts offer an empirically supported alternative to incarceration for legally involved individuals struggling with addiction. While studies suggest that graduation from recovery courts leads to a lower likelihood of recidivism as compared to incarceration, attrition rates among recovery court participants are high. Relatively little is known about how court participants' social and family interactions affect progression through recovery court programs - information that could facilitate development of interventions to decrease court program attrition.

Methods: We used in-depth, semi-structured qualitative interviews with recovery court participants (N = 68) across nine recovery courts in one northeastern state to explore the role of social relationships on recovery court program progress.

Results: We found the following relationships can serve as barriers or facilitators through the recovery court program: relationship with one's self, minor children, other family, twelve-step peer support group members, court program peers, sober living home residents, and court staff. Participants described how recovery courts favored increased focus on one's self, which was not practical for those with family roles, and study participants felt recovery courts hindered relationships with minor children. Although other family relationships could be motivational, participants also faced misunderstanding and stigma from family members. Furthermore, overreliance on family members and friends for logistical needs (e.g., housing, transportation) could stress fragile relationships and lead to missed court requirements. Court programming facilitated supportive relationships with peers in recovery through required twelve-step peer support group involvement and interaction with court peers. However, ongoing substance use among these peer groups could be distressing for participants, especially in residential facilities. Recovery court staff were further sources of new relationships that were validating of participant progress.

Conclusion: Our findings indicate that the impact of social relationships on recovery court participants is complex and could influence court program progress. We suggest that recovery courts serving legally involved populations consider borrowing approaches from the family treatment court model to strengthen pre-existing relationships and support navigation of parenting roles. Connection to wrap-around services could further alleviate stress on family dynamics. Additional incorporation of previous program graduates or those with substance use histories into recovery court programming could also be explored.