Review of the contributions

It is not our intention in this section to summarize the contributions we have received as much as to explore the structure and logic of the book and how that has evolved as it has been written.

We start with two largely historical chapters outlining first the genesis of the term and the underlying model and principles (contributed by Granfield and Cloud); and second the subsequent translation of the concept into operationalization and measurement. One of the fascinating aspects of the chapter from Granfield and Cloud (Chapter 2) is the lack of traction resulting from the original presentation of the ideas. We discover in this chapter that it was not until around ten years later, with the initial involvement of William White – as recovery capital was linked to emerging ideas of Recovery-Oriented Systems of Care (ROSC) – that momentum began to build around the potential of the recovery capital concept.

This transition helped to elevate the term into both academic and policy domains. The input from William White also helped to transition the term into the consciousness of much of the US recovery community itself, an essential process particularly for a movement that is characterized by self-determination and empowerment. This expansion, however, was accelerated by the process of operationalization and the emergence of several instruments, starting with the Recovery Capital Scale (White, 2009), the Recovery Group Participation Scale (Groshkova, Best, and White, 2013, and the Assessment of Recovery Capital (Groshkova, Best, and White, 2012).