Pubdate: Sat, 01 Mar 2003
Source: Wilmington Morning Star (NC)
Copyright: 2003 Wilmington Morning Star
Contact:  http://www.wilmingtonstar.com
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/500
Author: Darrell Irwin
Note: Darrel Irwin is an assistant professor of criminal justice at the 
University of North Carolina at Wilmington.

HOUSES THAT MAKE PEOPLE WELL

Proponents of the halfway house movement consider its experimental and 
innovative nature as one of its strengths. On Tuesday night, Wilmington 
City Council members will hear about the community's concerns with special 
use permits allowing halfway houses in residentially zoned areas. Many 
homeowners subscribe to the NIMBY (Not in my backyard) viewpoint and would 
like to restrict halfway houses in residential neighborhoods. The 
homeowners' viewpoint is understandable but not a fair answer to the 
problems faced by people living in halfway houses.

Halfway house residents include alcoholics, addicts, or ex-offenders and 
also the blind, the physically handicapped and mentally ill; all of whom 
are involved with rehabilitation (or in some cases habilitation). Halfway 
houses provide security in the lives of these individuals where previously 
they had little.

There is research to support the need to shelter alcoholics and addicts in 
halfway houses. A one-day census in 1994 in the United States showed nearly 
one million people in drug treatment and found that 24,348 were in halfway 
or recovery houses. The halfway house is rated by the American Society of 
Addictive Medicine as suitable for a population of clinically managed low 
intensity patients who have unsafe living environments, need time to 
develop their recovery skills and have manageable medical or psychological 
problems.

Events in our community have shown the difficulty in dealing with halfway 
houses. Earlier this year, an elderly man was murdered near a local halfway 
house, and some nearby residents wanted the investigation to focus on the 
recovering addicts. The actual suspect arrested in connection with this 
crime was not living in the halfway house.

Suspicions about halfway house residents generally arise from an 
unwillingness to discuss addiction openly. Certainly addicts feel deep 
guilt and shame over their addictions. Addicts fear being exposed, not 
being good enough or doing enough about their addiction. We have 
unrealistic expectations when we demand recovery while an addict or 
alcoholic is still living in a family setting where they may have caused 
conflict, stolen from or deserted their families. For addicts to put the 
past behind them, they will require space outside their conflicted living 
situation.

Following sobriety, many alcoholics are referred to alcohol abuse halfway 
houses. Halfway houses are bridges between inpatient hospitalization and 
the outside world. The idea of "halfway in" and "halfway out" is common 
whether the purpose of the program is alcoholic or psychiatric treatment or 
offender rehabilitation. Proponents of the halfway house movement consider 
its experimental and innovative nature as one of its strengths.

After referral to a halfway house, alcoholics are expected to perform the 
daily tasks of living and working, sometimes for the first time in their 
lives. We need to recognize this structured living situation benefits the 
homeless or those who come from a home that contributed to their 
alcoholism. A halfway house can also provide a surrogate family and support 
system for recovery.

Much of the push towards halfway houses came after the decriminalization of 
public drunkenness that followed the adoption of the Uniform Alcoholism and 
Intoxication Treatment Act of 1971. It removed legal sanctions for public 
drunkenness and replaced them with an alternative health care system 
designed to deal with public inebriates. In effect, the Uniform Act and the 
decriminalization of public drunkenness made all treatment for alcoholism 
voluntary. For the alcoholic who may be lacking social support and not yet 
assured of recovery, the halfway house became a valuable option.

Wilmington's Oxford Houses represent a typical concept in self-run, 
self-supported recovery houses. The first Oxford House was started in 
Washington, D.C. in 1975 and has spread to 39 states and 263 cities. 
Currently, there are 630 Oxford Houses that are chartered to a group of 
individuals who are recovering alcoholics and drug addicts. People living 
in Oxford Houses must follow three conditions to keep their charter. These 
conditions are:

THE HOUSE must operate using democratic principles.

THE GROUP must be financially self-supporting and;

ANY RESIDENT who relapses into using drugs or alcohol must be immediately 
expelled.

Expulsion is the penalty once a majority of residents (51 percent) believe 
that any member has relapsed into using alcohol or drugs. However, there is 
no pressure on anyone in good standing to leave.

Community pressure often is not conducive to recovery from addiction. Peer 
pressure is often a more effective substitute and therefore utilized by 
these self-run recovery houses. When that brutal crime occurred near one of 
the Oxford Houses, community pressure built against its residents.

One sympathetic neighbor told me that he never suspected Oxford House 
residents of committing the crime. Instead, he mentioned seeing them in the 
joyous activity of building a snowman on their property recently. In this 
quiet neighborhood, these residents are inside slowly rebuilding their 
lives. Let Wilmington and its City Council continue their support for those 
who have begun to help themselves.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Keith Brilhart