Introduction

As understandings and definitions of addiction recovery have evolved over the years, themes of improved health and well-being, strengthened social outcomes (Betty Ford Institute Consensus Panel, 2007; Timpson et al, 2016; Martinelli et al, 2020), and work and citizenship (Best et al, 2015) have become increasingly important. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA, 2012) defined recovery as ‘a process of change through which individuals improve their health and wellness, live a self-directed life, and strive to reach their full potential’. A recent definition of recovery synthesizing the ten most common definitions of recovery framed the concept as ‘an individualized, intentional, dynamic, and relational process involving sustained efforts to improve wellness’ (Ashford et al, 2019). Yet, despite the necessity of an individualized recovery process, the factors identified as contributing to recovery do not sit within a vacuum. In fact, most of them are either situated within, or must be supported by, the community, and the networks, groups, and institutions that make up that community; therefore, this is an important area of emerging theory and measurement in considering recovery capital.

More than a decade ago, William White stated that the ‘invitation for social inclusion’ often lies within the community (2009, 155), yet we have continued to focus insufficient attention in this direction. The concept (and subsequent operationalization) of recovery capital affords us that opportunity.