This study examines perceived neighborhood characteristics associated with successful outcome among mothers 10 years after being treated for substance use disorders. decreasing the odds of success among mothers who reported more versus less neighborhood social involvement. Perceived neighborhood climate is associated with long-term outcomes among mothers with substance use disorders independent of individual-level characteristics underscoring the need for further efforts to understand its interaction with recovery capital in ways that promote and impede health. and also assesses problem severity in seven areas: alcohol and drug use employment family and social relationships legal psychological and medical status (McLellan et al. 1980 1992 Bovasso et al. 2001 A composite score can be computed for each scale to indicate severity in that area; scores range from 0 to 1 1 with higher scores indicating greater severity. Distinguished by excellent inter-rater and test-retest reliability as well as high discriminant and concurrent validity (Bovasso et al. 2001 Kosten et al. 1983 DNQX the ASI is widely used in the addictions field (McLellan et al. 2006 Type and amount was also collected at baseline as part of the main study. The primary is successful outcome DNQX constructed as a dichotomous variable and defined by the following self-reported factors as measured in the 30 days prior to the 10-year follow-up interview: (1) no use of any illicit drugs and (2) not involved with the criminal justice system (no arrests incarcerations or illegal activity). Recent consensus statements propose that recovery from drug use should be more broadly defined to embrace recovery as a process of change through which an individual achieves abstinence from drug use but also improved health wellness and quality of life (Laudet 2007 White 2007 The Betty Ford Institute Consensus Panel 2007 Consistent with this conceptualization we focus on drug abstinence and criminal involvement as the primary outcome indicator. The primary is perception of neighborhood safety which was assessed at the 10-year follow-up interview by a 4 subscale from the Neighborhood Questionnaire (Greenberg et al. 1999 The subscale encompasses DNQX three DNQX constructs. Collective efficacy was measured on a 0-3 scale (very bad-very good) in response to the question “In general how do you feel about your neighborhood?” Informal social control was measured on a 0-3 scale (very dissatisfied-very satisfied) in response to “How satisfied are you with the police protection around there?” and on a 0-4 scale (never-very often; reversed scored) in response to “How often are there problems with muggings burglaries assaults or anything else like that around there?” Drug availability was measured on a 0-3 scale (not serious-very serious; reversed scored) in response to “How much of a problem is the selling and using of drugs around there?” The neighborhood safety subscale has demonstrated acceptable reliability (Cronbach’s alpha .74 to .77; Greenberg et al. 1995 1999 and validity (Vandell and Pierce 1998 The range of possible scores on this subscale was from 0 to 4 with higher scores indicating greater neighborhood safety (alpha = .77). The mean score was 2.23±.71. The of interest was recovery capital as indicated by two constructs – satisfaction with community resources and neighborhood social involvement – which were assessed at the 10-year follow-up interview by subscales from the Neighborhood Questionnaire (Greenberg et al. 1999 was measured on a 0-3 scale (very satisfied-very dissatisfied) in response to three questions: “How satisfied are you Rabbit polyclonal to ZBTB26. with garbage collection/schools/public transportation in your neighborhood?” (alpha=.40). This subscale was scored DNQX so that higher scores indicate greater satisfaction with neighborhood public resources. The mean score was 2.18 was measured by 4 items asking respondents to describe their neighborhood as ranging from one in which most people keep to themselves or one in which most people talk or visit a lot with the other people in the neighborhood; number of neighbors the respondent knows well enough to visit or call on; how frequently the respondent gets together with any of their neighbors; and level of involvement in the neighborhood (alpha =.67). This subscale was scored so that higher scores indicate.