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.