alcohol

College Shouldn’t Be a Relapse Risk: Why Collegiate Recovery Programs Deserve Sustainable Funding

Colleges and universities that are committed to fostering inclusive and supportive educational environments must prioritize sustainable funding for collegiate recovery programs, writes Noel Vest in a new commentary.

Viewpoint articles are written by members of the SPH community from a wide diversity of perspectives. The views expressed are solely those of the authors and are not intended to represent the views of Boston University or the School of Public Health. We aspire to a culture where all can express views in a context of civility and respect. Our guidance on the values that guide our commitment can be found at Revisiting the Principles of Free and Inclusive Academic Speech.

For many students in addiction recovery, college is not just about education—it is about survival. The transition to higher education presents immense challenges for students recovering from substance use disorders (SUDs), as campus cultures often normalize drinking and drug use while offering limited support for those seeking to maintain sobriety or reduce substance use. 

Collegiate Recovery Programs (CRPs) provide a lifeline, offering safe spaces, peer support, and resources tailored to the needs of students in recovery. Despite their undeniable benefits, CRPs remain critically underfunded, leaving many students without the support they need to succeed. If we are serious about fostering inclusive and supportive educational environments, sustainable funding for CRPs must become a national priority.

Our recent study, published in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, surveyed 70 CRP directors across the U.S. and Canada, providing the most comprehensive picture to date of these programs. The findings were clear: CRPs with multiple funding sources served nearly twice as many students as those relying on a single source. They were more likely to offer dedicated spaces, provide structured relapse management policies, and integrate diverse recovery pathways, including harm reduction and mutual-aid meetings. Simply put, well-funded CRPs are more effective at supporting students in recovery and helping them thrive academically and personally.

Yet, the reality is that many CRPs operate on precarious financial footing. Over half of the programs we surveyed rely on school-level funding, often leaving them vulnerable to budget cuts. Only a small fraction receives federal or state support, despite mounting evidence that these programs are cost-effective interventions that reduce dropout rates, improve student well-being, and contribute to long-term recovery success. The lack of stable funding threatens not only the existence of CRPs but also the students who depend on them.

The benefits of CRPs extend far beyond individual students. When students in recovery are supported, they contribute to a healthier campus environment, shifting the narrative around substance use and fostering cultures of well-being. Moreover, investing in recovery support aligns with national efforts to combat the addiction crisis, reinforcing higher education’s role as a partner in public health.

Policymakers, university administrators, and funding agencies must recognize the urgency of this issue. State and federal grants should be expanded to include CRPs as essential student services, and universities must prioritize long-term institutional support. Additionally, philanthropic organizations committed to health and education should view CRPs as high-impact investments in student success.

Massachusetts Senate Bill S.951 represents a critical step toward institutionalizing recovery support in higher education. The bill would require public colleges to provide recovery-focused housing with on-site counseling and peer support, as well as overdose training and naloxone access campus-wide. This legislation not only meets the moment of the addiction crisis but sets a precedent for other states to follow in prioritizing student wellness and safety.

The future of students in recovery—and the broader health of our academic communities—depends on our willingness to act. The time to act is now. We must prioritize long-term diversified funding solutions for CRPs nationwide. No student should have to choose between their education and their recovery.