Recovery Capital and Assessment: A Scoping Review and Implications for Community-Based Programming

Background: Recovery capital is a concept that has been growing in the addiction literature for the past 20 years; however there has been a fragmented approach in its definition, operationalization, and measurement. In 2012, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) published a working definition of recovery along with four key domains (home, health, purpose, and community) yet, to date, there has not been clear guidance on how providers and researchers can utilize this information. This scoping review aims to fill a gap in knowledge by documenting the Recovery Capital measures found in the peer-reviewed literature base and understand 1) how existing measurement and survey align with SAMSHA’s four key recovery domains and 2) the sample characteristics of the extant recovery capital studies.

Methods: A scoping review was conducted to identify any peer-reviewed articles published through February 2022 among PubMed and EbscoHost databases using Boolean search terms related to assessment and recovery capital. The search centered on peer-reviewed publications, written in English; any document other than a peer-reviewed manuscript were considered outside of the scope of this research. The primary outcomes of this review include assessment type, measurement domains, and population characteristics of the applicable literature.

Results: A total of 76 articles were produced from the search terms and databases with publication years ranging from 2008 through 2022. The most common exclusion criteria included wrong population (i.e. populations not reporting drug and alcohol misuse) and no intentional measurement of recovery capital, yielding a total of 45 articles for review. A total of 11 different validated assessments were found in the literature, with the most utilized assessments being the Assessment of Recovery Capital (ARC; n=11) and the Brief Assessment of Recovery Capital (BARC; n=11). However, 14 studies utilized a combination of other validated measure(s) (n=8; i.e. non-Recovery Capital specific) or used qualitative methodologies to conceptualize recovery capital (n=7). Recovery capital measurement ranged from two to ten domains across the literature with only one study referencing the four SAMSHA recovery capital domains. Of the 45 articles reviewed, 55.5% (n=25) of the studies included largely white and/or male identifying populations with most studies taken place within the United States (n=35) with at least a mean age of 35 years.

Conclusion and Implications: Results confirm the vast measurement of recovery capital were based on predominantly white male identifying population which aligns with most addiction models of treatment. This review highlights the opportunity to explore how the existing recovery capital assessments represent the lived experiences and recovery needs among historically marginalized and oppressed populations including (but not limited to) women, Black, Indigenous, and other populations of color, and formerly incarcerated populations; this line of research and/or measurement has been referenced as cultural capital among this review’s literature base. Suggestions for future recovery capital research and practice include more interdisciplinary collaboration between correctional and community-based treatment providers.