Evidence-Based Outcomes

WE BELIEVE THAT OUTCOMES MATTER

Ethos Recovery believes that outcomes matter. We proudly use Petree Consulting to track ours. Scroll to view the 2020 Impact Data on this page or download the full report below.

2020 Impact Report

PROGRAM EVALUATION

ETHOS SOBER LIVING RESIDENCE

Ethos structured sober living is an all-male recovery community in West Los Angeles. Long- term sobriety is fostered by peer encouragement and expectations of accountability, camaraderie, and character development. House members eat and live as a family and meet regularly to support each other and process their new ways of living. The resulting cohesive unity helps men walk and work together through the challenges of sobriety.

EVALUATION

In keeping with their accountability standards, Ethos is dedicated to understanding and sharing the impact of their unique approach to address addiction and related relationship, mental, and social health issues. As such, this report summarizes an evaluation of outcomes for house members served 2016-2019.

WHAT ARE OUTCOMES?

Outcomes are the health, relationship, and behavioral changes experienced during and after some intervention.

Outcomes should relate to the reason for seeking help. For Ethos, addictive behavior is the primary reason, but most people with addictions also experience problems with mental, behavioral, relationship, or physical health. Indeed, these issues often underly addictive behavior.

This report provides a summary of an analysis of house members addictive behavior, mental health symptoms, interpersonal relations, and social behavior before, during, and after Ethos.

EVALUATION MEASUREMENT

Our sample consists of house members who lived one year or more at Ethos. Surveys are given at ADMISSION, about every three months after admission, departure, and post-departure. Not all house members complete surveys at every survey timepoint, so our analyses show group averages at each timepoint rather than ‘matched’ sets.

OQ45.2

Ethos adopts a widely used, validated, reliable instrument to assess the mental, behavioral, and social health of their clients, the Outcome Questionnaire 45.2. This is a 45-question instrument that measures mental health symptoms, relationships, and social behavior. The OQ45.2 is administered every 30 days at Ethos during and after treatment.

PFS

Ethos uses an instrument called the Patient Follow- Up Survey, which is not validated but asks clinically relevant questions specifically about sobriety and daily functioning. The PFS is administered after house members depart from Ethos.

Mental Health Outcomes

PROGRAM EVALUATION

The Symptom Distress Scale of the OQ45.2 measures depression and anxiety. Scores can range from 0-100; any score of 36 or higher indicates clinically problematic symptoms. House members at Ethos, on average, admit to treatment with scores in the clinically problematic range. The scores in the later timepoints are healthier than those in the earlier times, suggesting that time at Ethos is associated with reduced mental health symptomsi and that these gains are sustained after Ethos.

Reading The Chart

  1. Numbers going ‘up’ the Y axis are the Scores; a long the bottom are time ranges.
  2. Lower scores = better health, so in this case, the shorter blocks at
    each time-point tell us that scores are better at each block of time
  3. Scores above the red line = clinically problematic, so men admit as
    problematic, but their depression and anxiety symptoms are healthier
    at later timepoints.
  4. The last block is AFTER Ethos, and that block is about the same as
    the one at discharge. This suggests that men maintain healthy status after departure from Ethos.

Relationships Outcomes

PROGRAM EVALUATION

Scores on the Interpersonal Relations scale of the OQ45.2 can range from 0- 44; any score of 15 or higher indicates clinically problematic symptoms. House members at Ethos, on average, admit to treatment with scores in the clinically problematic range. The scores in the later timepoints are healthier than those in the earlier times, suggesting that time at Ethos is associated with improved relationshipsii and these gains are sustained after Ethos.

Here again, we see improved scores on Relationships, with maintained gains post-Ethos.

Social Behavior Outcomes

PROGRAM EVALUATION

The Social Role Scale of the OQ45.2 measures social functioning such as respect for the law and ability to meet responsibilities. Scores can range from 0- 36; any score of 12 or higher indicates clinically problematic symptoms. Members at Ethos, on average, admit to treatment with scores below the clinically problematic range, and they stay non-problematic. There is no significant difference in scores between the measurement time-pointsiii.

There isn’t much difference across timepoints on Social Behavior, but it is consistently non-problematic.

Overall Functioning Outcomes

PROGRAM EVALUATION

The Total Score of the OQ45.2 measures overall well-being. Scores range from 0-180; 63 or higher indicates problematic functioning. House members at Ethos admit to treatment with average scores in the clinically problematic range. The scores in the later timepoints are healthier than those in the earlier, suggesting that Ethos is associated with improved and sustained well-being.

At Ethos, case managers also complete the OQ survey to report observations of the house members. Scores given by case managers align well with those of the members, as seen below.

Ethos measures health of each house member by asking his case manager to complete surveys about every month.
This is a great way to see if the scores seem about right, and whether the case managers are attuned to the health of the men.
At Ethos, for these men who stayed at least a year, case manager scores are really close to scores given by house members.

Sobriety Outcomes

PROGRAM EVALUATION

Ten house members who attended Ethos for a year completed a survey afterwards and typically they did the survey about six months after leaving. Of those 10, every respondent reported that he was still abstinent from drugs and alcohol. In other words, 100% of the respondents reported post- Ethos sobriety.

When asked about other areas of life, most house members report that they have ‘Greatly Improved’, as seen by the charts below.

FAMILY RELATIONS

  • Improved Greatly
  • Improved a little

EMPLOYMENT

  • Improved Greatly
  • Improved a little

EDUCATION

  • Improved Greatly
  • Improved a little
  • About the Same

LIFE SATISFACTION

  • Improved Greatly
  • Improved a little

EMOTIONAL HEALTH

  • Improved Greatly

Summary

PROGRAM EVALUATION

This report summarizes the evaluation of outcomes for house members of Ethos Sober Living House. The evaluation found that as men live at Ethos, their mental health and relationships improve and that these gains are maintained after departure. Further, men report sustained sobriety after Ethos, along with improved functioning in several domains of daily living.

In other words, Ethos works. Men get better and stay better. Their mental well-being and relationships are healthier, and functional living is improved.

Limitations

There are a few things we cannot tell from this report. First, we can’t say that the different scores are caused by Ethos. That would require a ‘control’ group. Control groups are not recommended solely for the sake of data collection. We can thus say that the score differences we see are associated with Ethos, not ‘caused by’ the sober living house.
Second, this was not a measure of individual trajectories of change over time, but rather snapshots of men’s health at different points along their journey. With Ethos’ commitment to measuring outcomes, this can be a realized goal within a few years and will allow researchers to look beyond impact to explore the types of things that influence outcomes (e.g., age at admission).

i) Symptom Distress average scores were different at each timepoint (F(6,107)=5.3, p<.001, η2=.23 – large effect)

ii) Relations average scores were different at each timepoint (F(6,107)=7.3, p<.001, η2=.29 – large effect)

iii) Social Role average scores were no different at each timepoint (F(6,107)=0.6, p=.7, η2=.03)