Background 

The United States is facing an unprecedented addiction and overdose epidemic. Drug overdoses have 

claimed over one million lives since 1999—with over 100,000 lives lost in 2021 alone—and increasing annual 

substance use-related deaths continue to devastate American families (Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, 2023). In 2017, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services declared a public health 

emergency in response to the increasing number of opioid-related overdoses and deaths.

One promising strategy to address the rising rates of SUDs and drug overdose is recovery coaching. Recovery 

coaching is the process in which a nonclinical professional (i.e., coaches) provides guidance to 

individuals with a substance use disorder (SUD) by helping them to access care and by supporting them 

in the removal of barriers to recovery (Zandniapour et al., 2020). Recovery coaches assist individuals seeking 

treatment by guiding the development of a personalized recovery plan that is tailored to the strengths, needs, 

and goals of each individual to promote long-term recovery. Peer recovery coaching is a form of recovery 

coaching and a type of peer support in which recovery coaches have lived experience with recovery from 

a SUD—either directly or through knowing someone with a SUD (Substance Abuse and Mental Health 

Services Administration [SAMHSA], 2017). 

RECOVERY COACHING BUNDLED EVALUATION AND CAPACITY BUILDING PROJECT

A Bundled Evaluation of AmeriCorps-Supported 

Recovery Coach Programs: Preliminary Findings

EVIDENCE SNAPSHOT
EVIDENCE SNAPSHOT

2 

President Biden has declared the administration’s commitment to 

addressing addiction and the overdose epidemic (The White House, 

2022), making the work of federal agencies such as AmeriCorps critical 

to successfully undertaking this national priority. Between fiscal year 

(FY)2017 and FY2022, AmeriCorps invested over $129 million to fund 

projects addressing opioid addiction and other SUDs. AmeriCorps’ 

mission to combat the complex issues around substance use prevention 

includes research and evaluation of promising treatment options. In 

2020, AmeriCorps contracted with an independent research firm, ICF, to 

provide a comprehensive evaluation of projects that use recovery 

coaching models to understand the best practices for effective recovery 

coaching programs. This evaluation included bundling projects with 

similar programs and outcomes across AmeriCorps funding streams as 

well as providing participating organizations with evaluation capacitybuilding sessions. AmeriCorps seeks to improve support for locallydriven and innovative solutions for communities seeking to address SUDs 

through this evaluation of the entire program life cycle and the 

incorporation of capacity-building and dissemination activities.

A mixed methods approach was used to examine the implementation of 

recovery coaching models across different organizations as well as 

outcomes for organizations, recovery coaches, and program participants. 

This study focused on three overarching research objectives: 1) to 

determine what recovery coaching models look like; 2) to describe 

promising practices and challenges in implementing recovery coaching 

models; and 3) to measure the effectiveness of the recovery coaching 

model in improving outcomes for the organizations, recovery coaches, 

and program participants (also referred to as “clients”).

The bundled evaluation and capacity building project collected data 

from 11 organizations between November 2021 and January 2024. This 

evidence snapshot provides preliminary highlights of the evaluation 

methods and findings from the November 2021 to January 2023 data 

collection period with organizations with FY2020 projects. A complete 

report of evaluation methods and findings from all 11 organizations will be included in the forthcoming final 

report.

Study Sites

Seventeen AmeriCorps project applications from FY2020 were reviewed to determine whether the programs 

used a recovery coaching model. Eight organizations initially agreed to participate but four organizations 

ultimately withdrew from the study in the months that followed. Loss of organizations’ participation posed a 

challenge for studying this population; while some organizations cited concern about maintaining the privacy 

of their program participants others dropped out without a stated reason. The coronavirus disease 2019 

(COVID-19) pandemic further hindered the ability of some organizations and individuals to fully participate in 

the evaluation process and capacity building sessions as they pivoted to adapt their programs to meet 

changing public health guidance. Ultimately, the study included the four organizations that use a recovery 
EVIDENCE SNAPSHOT

3 

coaching model and represent investment of financial and human resources from two different AmeriCorps 

programs: AmeriCorps State and National and VISTA (exhibit 1).

EXHIBIT 1.—Overview of participating organizations

Organization Project Mission and Target Population Role of AmeriCorps Members

Above and Beyond 

Family Recovery 

Center (AnB) – 

Chicago, Ill. & 

neighboring 

suburbs (with a 

focus on Chicago’s 

West Side)

Mission: Addiction recovery services and 

supportive services, such as housing and 

employment assistance, to all individuals, 

including those who are unable to pay

Focus population: Low-income individuals and 

communities including individuals and families 

experiencing homelessness, unemployed 

individuals, individuals with disabilities, formerly 

incarcerated adults, veterans, and military families 

(many participants are chronically homeless as 

defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development, 2015)

7 VISTAs: Provide project 

management and capacitybuilding services related to 

housing and employment, 

community outreach, and 

education (coaching services

were provided by paid staff, i.e., 

“certified recovery support 

specialists” with lived 

experience with recovery) 

Foundation for 

Recovery (FFR) – 

Nevada

Mission: Peer recovery support services for 

mental health and substance use disorder (SUD) 

recovery to vulnerable teenaged and adult 

populations

Focus population: Individuals in detention 

centers, jails, and emergency room departments, 

and in underserved areas with nonexistent or 

extremely limited services (such as rural and 

frontier communities)

10+ AmeriCorps State and 

National members: Serve as 

“recovery navigators,” 

delivering peer recovery 

support services (alongside 

paid employees who work as 

“peer recovery support 

specialists”)

Healing Action 

Network (Healing 

Action) – St. Louis, 

Mo. & surrounding 

areas

Mission: Preventative mental health services 

through case management, opioid education, 

therapeutic counseling, peer support, and 

community education 

Focus population: Adult survivors of commercial 

sexual exploitation, which includes sex trafficking, 

prostitution, survival sex, escorting, stripping, and 

pornography; most clients have experienced 

complex, multilayered trauma and have mental 

health-related diagnoses

11 AmeriCorps State and 

National members: Provide 

case management, opioid 

education, naloxone 

distribution, therapeutic 

counseling, and community 

education (they do not provide 

coaching services; those are 

delivered by “peer support 

specialists” with lived 

experience in SUDs and 

trafficking)

Recovery Corps – 

Minnesota 

& Illinois

Mission: Peer support to assist those in recovery 

with achieving their goals and increasing recovery 

capital 

Focus population: Teens and adults in recovery 

for various types of SUDs being served across 

multiple organization types, including recovery 

residence associations, recovery community 

organizations, treatment facilities, collegiate 

recovery organizations, and recovery high schools

58 AmeriCorps State and 

National members: Serve as 

either “recovery navigators,” 

delivering peer support and 

recovery coaching services, or 

opioid response project 

coordinators; members 

additionally help engage 

volunteers in service projects
EVIDENCE SNAPSHOT

4 

Data Sources and Data Collection

This study used a mix of quantitative and qualitative data sources: 

• Organization program documents, which included project applications, employee handbooks, 

marketing materials, and data analyses.

• Surveys of project directors, recovery coaches, program participants, and comparison group members 

to assess program models, strategies, and outcomes. Exhibit 2 provides an overview of what surveys 

assessed among each respondent group. 

• Interviews and focus groups were conducted during virtual site visits, including interviews with 

project directors, recovery coaches, partner organizations, and AmeriCorps members and focus groups 

with program participants.

Two waves of survey data collection were completed: a baseline survey from November 2021 to March 2022 

and a follow-up survey from November 2022 to January 2023. Comparison group survey respondents and 

program participant interviewees were given $25 Amazon gift cards to incentivize participation. Virtual site 

visits were conducted from May through June 2022 with all four participating organizations. Due to the 

difficulty of recruiting program participants for focus groups, 30-minute interviews with individual program 

participants were conducted.

EXHIBIT 2.—Overview of what surveys assessed in each respondent group

Survey Sample

Response rates were higher in the first wave of data collection versus the second wave amongst all 

respondent groups. Response rates and an overview of survey respondents by group are shown in exhibit 3.

Response rates could only be calculated for surveys that were sent directly by the evaluation team to the 

participants. 
EVIDENCE SNAPSHOT

5 

EXHIBIT 3.—Summary of survey respondents’ demographics and survey response rates

What Do the Recovery Coach Models Look Like?

All four organizations with FY2020 projects use a peer recovery coaching model, meaning that their recovery 

coaches have lived experience with recovery from an SUD. Accordingly, “peer recovery coach” is used in 

discussing findings from these organizations. 

Peer Recovery Coach Models, Services, and Activities

All participating organization peer recovery models incorporate the same core components to meet the 

needs of their participants related to lived experience, culturally responsive services, harm-reduction 

strategies,

1 and holistic care. 

• Lived experience is a crucial pillar of all participating organizations’ peer recovery coaching models 

because it affects relationship building between recovery coaches and program participants. Site visit 

participants discussed the loneliness of addiction and emphasized the importance of empathy and 

1 SAMHSA defines harm reduction as, “an approach that emphasizes engaging directly with people who use drugs to 

prevent overdose and infectious disease transmission, improve the physical, mental, and social well-being of those served, 

and offer low-threshold options for accessing substance use disorder treatment and other health care services.” For more 

information, please see SAMHSA's harm reduction webpage.
EVIDENCE SNAPSHOT

6 

having experienced similar challenges as the participant to 

support them in their journey through recovery. 

• All participating organizations strive to provide culturally 

appropriate services by hiring individuals representing the 

communities they serve and providing continuing education to 

develop culturally appropriate interactions with peers. 

• All participating organizations also use some form of harmreduction strategies—either themselves or through a partner—

such as providing Narcan, fentanyl test kits, or needle exchanges 

to program participants, to meet participants where they are 

rather than shaming them for use. 

• Holistic care is another common program component for all 

participating organizations. The participating organizations see 

their program’s purpose as more than just supporting recovery 

from SUDs and incorporate a care model that considers the 

whole person in recovery. Holistic care encompasses in-house 

services and referrals for personalized services. Programs also 

provide a range of services that are not directly recoveryrelated in the care model of a person in recovery, which may 

include supports for transportation, basic provisions (e.g., food, 

clothing), life skills, art therapy, and other classes (e.g., dance, 

yoga).

All participating organizations work with other organizations and 

providers in their area to facilitate client referrals for additional services. 

The types of services for referral varied but were mainly in the areas of 

medical services (e.g., detoxes, checkups, screenings, therapy) and 

supportive services (e.g., housing, financial support, meals, clothing, 

employment). Participating organizations developed partnerships 

through broader statewide coalitions, coordinating with local 

universities and employers, conducting online research, and posting on 

social media.

Peer Support 

All peer recovery coaches interviewed—from all four participating 

organization sites—provide emotional, informational, affiliational, 

instrumental, and mental health support to help participants navigate 

their recovery journey. 

• Emotional support involves listening to program participants, 

showing concern, and providing empathy.

• Informational support is essential to connect participants to 

community resources and share knowledge and information. 

• Instrumental support involves providing concrete support to 

accomplish a task. Peer recovery coaches provide referrals to 

outside services, such as employment services, food services, 
EVIDENCE SNAPSHOT

7 

emergency shelters, and physical or behavioral health providers, and provide tangible services, such as 

assisting participants with housing, food pantries, counseling services, legal services, and employment.

• Peer recovery coaches provide connections to recovery community supports, activities, and services 

(known as affiliational support), such as Narcotics Anonymous or Alcoholics Anonymous. 

• They also provide mental health support, assisting individuals with mental health diagnoses, such as 

post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, or anxiety. 

Adaptations During the COVID-19 Pandemic

During the COVID-19 pandemic, participating organizations faced challenges in providing in-person services 

and resources. Participating organizations implemented measures to protect against COVID-19, including 

masking, temperature checks, social distancing, and outdoor services. They provided resources such as food 

drop-offs, laundry money, and basic provision deliveries. Virtual services were made possible through special 

grants to provide program participants with computers, tablets, phones, or Wi-Fi hotspots. Technical support 

fell on organization staff, and some did not have the capacity to always assist.

Overall, the organizations found value in virtual services, increasing their capacity for them since the beginning 

of the pandemic, and plan to continue to offer the option of virtual or hybrid services. While recognizing the 

benefits and importance of virtual services, some participating organizations also question their efficacy, 

especially within the first few months of recovery. In-person services were highly preferable to almost all 

interviewees because peer recovery coaching draws its success from 

human connections and relationships.

Perceived Outcomes

Participating Organizations

Participating organizations reported improving organizational capacity to 

provide services, leveraging grant financial support, and collaborating with 

partners and community resources. 

• All participating organization directors reported in a survey that 

they agreed or strongly agreed that their programs have the 

organizational capacity to provide services. Interviews with 

project directors corroborated the survey results. 

• All project directors also reported in a survey that they agreed or 

strongly agreed that their programs can leverage grant financial 

support. 

• Project directors also agreed or strongly agreed that their 

programs collaborate with partners, organizations, and 

community resources.

Peer Recovery Coaches

Peer recovery coaches reported increased knowledge, improved 

attitudes, improved behaviors, and increased opportunities for 

maintaining their own recovery (exhibit 4). Overall, the majority of peer 

recovery coaches reported increased (i.e., increased or greatly increased) 

knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors since becoming a coach, including:
EVIDENCE SNAPSHOT

8 

• 100 percent reported increased confidence, self-esteem, or self-management.

• 97 percent reported increases in their own ability to stay in recovery. 

• 97 percent reported increases in their ability to help individuals with opioid addiction. 

• 93 percent reported increased skills like teamwork, communication, leadership, or technical skills.

• 93 percent reported an increased sense of community and belonging. 

Additionally, peer recovery coaching plays a critical role for coaches to maintain their recovery, and peer 

recovery coaches serve as role models for program participants.

EXHIBIT 4.—Recovery coach self-reported changes in knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors

Source: Recovery Coach Survey, question 24: “Please rate the following statements based on whether each factor has 

increased or decreased for you since becoming a recovery coach.” Note: Totals may not add up to 100 due to rounding. 

Not all survey respondents responded to each item in the survey, which accounts for an inconsistent number of responses 

to different items in the survey.

Program Participants

The short-term outcome of peer recovery coaching is increased recovery capital. Recovery capital includes 

an individual’s internal and external resources that help to enhance capacity for, and commitment to, living a 

sober life. There are three types of recovery capital:

• Family/Social – Resources related to intimate relationships with friends and family, relationships with 

people in recovery, and supportive partners.

• Personal – Includes an individual’s physical and human capital. Physical capital comprises the available 

resources to fulfil a person’s basic needs. Human capital relates to a person’s abilities, skills, and 

knowledge. 
EVIDENCE SNAPSHOT

9 

• Community/Cultural – Community capital includes attitudes, policies, and resources specifically 

related to helping individuals resolve SUDs. 

Survey items, adapted from the Brief Assessment of Recovery Capital (BARC-10; Vilsaint et al., 2017), 

measured the program participants’ self-reported recovery capital on a 5-point scale ranging from strongly 

disagree to strongly agree (exhibit 5). Program participants reported levels of agreement of 50 percent or 

higher for all items. The highest levels of reported recovery capital among program participants were with the 

items “Since entering recovery, I take full responsibility for my actions” (91 percent) and “I am making progress 

on my recovery journey” (91 percent). The lowest agreement was with the item “I get the support I need from 

friends” (55 percent).

EXHIBIT 5.—Program participant responses to recovery capital survey items

Source: Program Participant Survey. Notes: Sample includes 22 responses out of the 35 program participants who 

participated in the survey. Totals may not add up to 100 due to rounding.
EVIDENCE SNAPSHOT

10

During the interviews and focus groups, the program 

participants, like the participant quoted at right, shared the 

recovery capital they gained through peer recovery 

coaching, including reporting gaining employment, improved 

quality of life, improved health and housing, and feeling 

happy and hopeful again.

To understand what would happen in the absence of 

recovery coaching, the recovery capital outcomes of 

program participants were compared to comparison group 

members (exhibit 6). 

EXHIBIT 6.—Differences between program participants and comparison group on mean scores for recovery 

capital survey items

Source: Program Participant Survey and Comparison Group Survey. Notes: Scale ranges from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 

(strongly agree). The comparison group was restricted to survey respondents who did not report getting recovery coach 

services. *p < .10 from Mann-Whitney U test 

• Mean scores for each recovery capital survey item indicate that program participants had higher 

agreement with all 11 recovery capital items, generally indicating greater recovery capital among 

program participants. 

Recovery Capital Survey Items

Participant 

Group 

(n=22)

Comparison 

Group 

(n=18)

Difference

There are more important things to me in life than 

using substances. 4.38 3.94 0.44

In general, I am happy with my life. 3.77 3.50 0.27

I have enough energy to complete the tasks I set for 

myself. 4.00 3.67 0.33

I am proud of the community I live in and feel a part 

of it. 3.95 3.22 0.73*

I get the support I need from friends. 3.50 2.94 0.56

I get the support I need from family. 3.55 3.44 0.10

I regard my life as challenging and fulfilling without 

the need for using drugs or alcohol. 4.18 3.72 0.46

My living space has helped drive my recovery 

journey. 3.77 3.27 0.49

Since entering recovery, I take full responsibility for 

my actions. 4.50 3.78 0.72*

I am happy to deal with a range of professional 

people. 4.04 3.72 0.32

I am making progress on my recovery journey. 4.45 3.67 0.79*
EVIDENCE SNAPSHOT

11

• Larger percentages of program participants (45 percent) reported using services daily compared to 

comparison group members (28 percent). 

• Out of 22 program participants, 17 (77 percent) reported never using opioids in the last 30 days, while 

15 (83 percent) out of 18 comparison group members reported never using opioids in the last 30 days. 

However, participating organization programs may offer harm-reduction services that include taking 

opioids for pain management, which could account for reported use of opioids in the past 30 days.

The small sample sizes warrant caution in interpreting these findings, and a deeper dive with more 

participants may be helpful to confirm the findings of the potential recovery capital benefits of recovery 

coaching. 

Evaluation Capacity Building 

Evaluation capacity building was designed to complement the bundled evaluation in ways that support 

immediate and long-term evidence building for the peer recovery coaching model, as shown in exhibit 7.

Evaluation capacity building was provided to organizations participating in the bundled evaluation over the 

course of 12 one-hour-long technical assistance sessions delivered monthly. 

The evaluation capacity-building component was evaluated by a third party, BCT Partners, to assess 

participants’ satisfaction with the sessions and assess participants’ knowledge of and attitudes toward 

evaluation at the beginning and conclusion of the entire curriculum. A session-specific post-session survey 

was administered at the conclusion of each session, and survey results were used to calculate a composite 

satisfaction rating and assess participants’ knowledge of session content.

EXHIBIT 7.—Overview of intended short- and long-term outcomes of the evaluation capacity building

Findings from the evaluation of the evaluation capacity building are as follows:

Participants liked the pairing of evaluation capacity building with the bundled evaluation, especially for 

the opportunities it provided to discuss their program challenges as well as opportunities for building 

evidence. They also liked the opportunities to interact with others working in this space, especially to discuss 

challenges and opportunities for building evidence in this space.

Participants increased their knowledge of evaluation topics and had more positive attitudes toward 

evaluation. Participants’ perceived knowledge of evaluation topics increased across 7 out of 13 topics as 
EVIDENCE SNAPSHOT

12

measured on the pre-post survey. On 8 of the 10 items measuring attitudes toward evaluation, changes from 

pre to post indicated more positive attitudes toward evaluation.

Participants reported greater confidence in evaluation-related topics after the sessions. Specifically, 

participants reported improved ability to know which questions to ask and how to write about evaluation 

findings.

Discussion

The preliminary implementation findings from this study corroborated the existing literature on peer recovery 

programs. The current study found that lived experience is a crucial pillar of all peer recovery coach models 

and can improve participant outcomes. This finding supports the growing research literature on successful 

traits of peer recovery coaches (Kawasaki et al., 2019; Zandniapour et al., 2020). Program models and activities 

had common elements; however, the participating organizations provided individualized activities and 

services that were geared to the populations served and their respective settings. Treatment programs that 

are tailored to the individual are common among recovery coach programs, which aligns with literature that 

notes services vary due to the program setting and target populations (Eddie et al., 2019). The current study 

provides new information on how peer recovery coach programs implement culturally appropriate services

into the organization and treatment plans for individuals. 

This study found that participating organizations implemented peer recovery coach programs designed to

meet the needs of the populations served and that participants had favorable perceptions of the peer 

recovery coach services. In addition, participating organizations, peer recovery coaches, and program 

participants reported favorable outcomes. 

This study faced many challenges and limitations, including:

• Collecting data from a vulnerable, hidden population (individuals with an SUD). 

• Inability to calculate survey response rates due to multiple survey administration formats. Additionally, 

the response rates for the recovery coach and program participant surveys were low. 

• Necessity of recruiting participating organizations’ help at the time of specific data collection 

procedures. 

• COVID-19, which hindered the ability of some organizations and individuals to fully participate in the 

evaluation process as they focused on delivering core services.

• The pandemic also affected data collection by the study team. In-person interviews and focus groups 

were planned at each site, but virtual interviews and focus groups were ultimately conducted.

• A lack of robust and/or statistically matched comparison group data, which stemmed from 

participating organizations’ concerns with confidentiality as well as limited data tracking for individuals 

who were not receiving recovery coaching services. For these reasons, an impact study was not 

possible in the current evaluation. 

The findings from the analysis suggested promising positive trends regarding the role of peer recovery 

coaching in increasing recovery capital for program participants. Future study involving a larger sample size to 

explore these findings more rigorously is therefore warranted. Considerations for further study are as follows: 

• A key priority to further this work is rigorous measurement of program impact through recruitment of a 

valid comparison group (i.e., a subpopulation not receiving recovery coaching services). Wellestablished high attrition rates among study participants in substance use research, the intensive and 

acute nature of many recovery programs, and the high variability in treatment services provided across 

individuals and contexts all pose systematic barriers to rigorous research with comparison groups. 
EVIDENCE SNAPSHOT

13

Future studies seeking to evaluate impact will require direct access to potential participant 

populations, enabling timely tracking of recruitment pools. 

• When assembling a comparison group for recovery coaching, access to individual-level data is 

important to maximize the potential for a rigorous comparison group that is engaged with substance 

use treatment but not with peer recovery coaching. To reduce confounding, researchers and 

participating organizations can work together to ensure data include covariates based on 

theory/literature, such as demographic characteristics and other treatment services received. Biases, 

such as self-selection bias or non-response bias can be considered with sampling approaches such as 

waitlist control or stratified random sampling. Alternately, analytical methodologies, such as doseresponse modeling, may allow a more flexible approach when a strict comparison group is not possible.

Next Steps

• Data collection from January 2023 to January 2024, including seven participating organizations that 

received AmeriCorps funding in FY2021 or FY2022, will be analyzed and detailed. These organizations 

have greater diversity in terms of the use of lived experience among recovery coaches, which may help 

uncover the role of lived experience in supporting recovery outcomes.

• The results from the forthcoming analyses will be aggregated with the current study, with the goal of 

generating more conclusive findings from a larger sample size. The final report will be disseminated 

in summer 2024. 

• AmeriCorps will continue to build evidence on best practices for recovery programs and explore how 

the agency mitigates SUDs and supports recovery through AmeriCorps projects.
EVIDENCE SNAPSHOT

14

References

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2023). Drug overdose deaths. 

https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/deaths/index.html

Eddie, D., Hoffman, L., Vilsaint, C., Abry, A., Bergman, B., Hoeppner, B., Weinstein, C., & Kelly, J. F. (2019). Lived 

experience in new models of care for substance use disorder: A systematic review of peer recovery 

support services and recovery coaching. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1–12. 

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01052 

Kawasaki, S., Francis, E., Mills, S., Buchberger, G., Hogentogler, R., & Kraschnewski, J. (2019). Multi-model 

implementation of evidence-based care in the treatment of opioid use disorder in Pennsylvania. 

Journal of Substance Use & Addiction Treatment, 106, 58–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2019.08.016 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2017). Peers supporting recovery from 

substance use disorders [Infographic]. 

https://www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/programs_campaigns/brss_tacs/peers-supportingrecovery-substance-use-disorders-2017.pdf 

The White House. (2022, March 1). FACT SHEET: Addressing addiction and the overdose epidemic. 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/03/01/fact-sheet-addressingaddiction-and-the-overdose-epidemic/

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (2015). Definition of chronic homelessness. HUD 

Exchange. https://www.hudexchange.info/homelessness-assistance/coc-esg-virtual-binders/cocesg-homeless-eligibility/definition-of-chronichomelessness/#:~:text=The%20definition%20of%20chronically%20homeless%20is%3A,in%20an%20e

mergency%20shelter%2C%20and

Vilsaint, C. L., Kelly, J. F., Bergman, B. G., Groshkova, T., Best, D., & White, W. (2017). Development and validation 

of a Brief Assessment of Recovery Capital (BARC-10) for alcohol and drug use disorder. Drug and 

Alcohol Dependence, 177, 71–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.03.022 

Zandniapour, L., Menon, R., Renier, T., & Dermanjian, S. (2020). A promising response to the opioid crisis: CNCSsupported recovery coach programs. Corporation for National and Community Service, Office of 

Research and Evaluation. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/23419_CNCS_ORE_Opioid_Report_v03

_RELEASE_508_1.pdf 
EVIDENCE SNAPSHOT

Produced and published at U.S. taxpayer expense.

Acknowledgements 

The ICF evaluation team would like to acknowledge the many members of the AmeriCorps Office of Research and 

Evaluation (ORE) and the participating AmeriCorps-supported organizations, as well as the AmeriCorps members and 

VISTAs and program beneficiaries who contributed to this study. They provided valuable information and feedback to 

ensure the evaluation team was able to fully capture the unique peer recovery coaching programs supported by 

AmeriCorps and how those programs were able to leverage AmeriCorps national service models to tackle a critical priority. 

The evaluation team looks forward to continued collaboration with ORE on high-quality evaluation work that can inform 

policy and practice regarding how national service may be used to address national priorities. We also want to thank BCT 

Partners for their external evaluation of the evaluation capacity building component of the project and contributions to 

this report on this topic. Their outside perspective was vital in supporting the outcomes of the work. Finally, we would like 

to thank the esteemed members of the technical working group—Rachel Bruns, Dr. Leslie Goodyear, Dr. Kathryn Newcomer, 

Gabriel Rhoads, Dr. Herbert Turner, and Dr. Abraham Wandersman—who advised and provided feedback to improve the 

quality and clarity of this evaluation. 

About AmeriCorps 

AmeriCorps, the federal agency for national service and volunteerism, provides opportunities for Americans to serve their 

country domestically, address the nation’s most pressing challenges, improve lives and communities, and strengthen civic 

engagement. Each year, the agency places more than 200,000 AmeriCorps members and AmeriCorps Seniors volunteers 

in intensive service roles and empowers millions more to serve as long-term, short-term, or one-time volunteers. Learn 

more at AmeriCorps.gov. 

About the Office of Research and Evaluation 

The AmeriCorps Office of Research and Evaluation assists AmeriCorps and its partners in collecting, analyzing, and 

disseminating data and insights about AmeriCorps programs and civic life in America. 

This report was commissioned by AmeriCorps’ Office of Research and Evaluation under Contract #GS00Q14OADU209 

and Order #95332A20F0075. Information in this report is in the public domain.

Suggested Citation

O’Connor, R., Perrins, S., Spinney, S., Holbrook, B., Shepard-Moore, H., Rakes, E., MacDonald, A., Fitzgerald, K., & Sarwana, M. 

(2023). A bundled evaluation of AmeriCorps-supported recovery coach programs: Preliminary findings. ICF.

Photo Credit

Stock images

About ICF 

ICF (NASDAQ:ICFI) is a global consulting and digital services company with over 7,000 full- and part-time employees, but 

we are not your typical consultants. At ICF, business analysts and policy specialists work together with digital strategists,

data scientists and creatives. We combine unmatched industry expertise with cutting-edge engagement capabilities to 

help organizations solve their most complex challenges. Since 1969, public and private sector clients have worked with ICF 

to navigate change and shape the future. Learn more at icf.com. For additional information about ICF, please contact: 

ICF 

1902 Reston Metro Plaza, Reston, VA 20190 

Phone: 703-934-3603 or 1-800-532-4783 

Fax: 703-934-3740 Email: info@icf.com 

icf.com

linkedin.com/company/icf-international

facebook.com/ThisIsICF

#thisisicf