







































Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(1), Summer 2024  

 
   

   

Paltzer, Jonker, Reinemann, and Benfer, A Pilot Study of an Integrated Faith-Based Recovery …      23 
   

 

 

A Pilot Study of an Integrated Faith-Based 

Recovery and Financial Literacy Program 

among Recovery Home Participants 

 
Jason Paltzer, Jason Jonker, Anna Reinemann, Jessica Benfer 

 

 
Background: Faith-based recovery models are available for individuals seeking help with substance use. 

Combining a Christian recovery program with financial goal setting is a novel approach to enhancing 

recovery support. This pilot study investigated the effectiveness of a combined faith-based recovery 

plus financial literacy program.  

Methods: Participants (n=33) were recruited from residential recovery homes in Phoenix, Arizona, to 

participate in one of two groups: a Resilient Recovery alone group or a Resilient Recovery plus Faith 

& Finances group. Recovery, spiritual well-being, forgiveness, perceptions of God, religious coping, 

and financial behaviors were measured at three points to assess change over time.  

Results: Resilient Recovery + Faith & Finances program participants showed some decrease in problems 

associated with their substance use. Individuals receiving Resilient Recovery alone had positive 

feelings of spiritual well-being. The correlations were weak to moderate among both groups.  

Discussion and Conclusion: A combined recovery with financial literacy was feasible, but the short 

duration of the intervention was a limitation. The results did not determine effectiveness in the 

recovery, spiritual, and financial outcomes measured. Still, the study provides lessons for future 

research and implementation of an integrated approach, including the use of a single facilitator, 

consistent meeting schedule, and conducting both programs concurrently rather than consecutively. 

More extensive and longer studies are needed to account for additional confounding and socio-

demographic factors related to recovery and spiritual outcomes. Alignment between Christian 

health and development programs and research measures related to the content is needed to better 

understand effectiveness and causal mechanisms.  

 

 
Background 

For decades, religious or spiritual belief systems 

have provided internal and external support essential 

for recovery (DiClemente 2013). Religious or spiritual 

programs have contributed significantly to Substance 

Use Disorders (SUD) treatment and recovery efforts in 

the United States, with 73% of addiction treatment 

programs incorporating a spirituality-based element 

(Grim and Grim 2019). Numerous evidence-based 

studies have found that lower levels of substance abuse 

and reduced lifetime likelihood of using drugs have 

been linked to religious and spiritual practices 

(Degenhardt et al. 2010; Herman-Stahl et al. 2007; 

Moscati and Mezuk 2014; Palamar et al. 2014). In a 

comprehensive review, Koenig et al. (2012) found that 

90% of 145 quantitative studies reported that faith led 

to reduced risks associated with alcohol use, abuse, or 

dependence and 84% of 185 studies reported that faith 

was associated with reduced drug use (Koenig et al. 

2012).  

Few studies, however, have examined the pathways 

by which faith aids in recovery. One potential way that 

faith may contribute to the success of recovery is 

through religious coping. Religious coping refers to 

positive and negative actions and cognitions regarding 

God and religion. For example, a positive action would 

be “asked for forgiveness for my sins.” A positive 

cognition would be “sought God’s love and care.” 

Conversely, an adverse action would be “questioned 

God’s love for me,” and a negative cognition would be 

“wondered whether God had abandoned me.” 

 The Resilient Recovery program is a Bible study 

on the topic of addiction that seeks to encourage 

positive religious coping and to decrease negative 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(1), Summer 2024  

 
   

   

Paltzer, Jonker, Reinemann, and Benfer, A Pilot Study of an Integrated Faith-Based Recovery …      24 
   

 

coping. The meeting structure includes a time for 

voluntary self-disclosure or “confession,” asking God’s 

forgiveness, and a time to reflect on God’s love and 

care. The program is available online or in-person and 

has been used by churches and sober living homes 

primarily in the southwestern United States. 

  The Resilient Recovery program uses verses 

from the Bible to initiate discussion and guide prayers, 

but is open to people of any faith or no faith. 

Participants are encouraged to view the program’s 

assertions as hypotheses and to share their thoughts and 

beliefs through group discussions. Although Christians, 

members of other religions, Agnostics, and Atheists, 

may respond differently to the program, Resilient 

Recovery hopes the program will encourage positive 

religious coping and decrease negative religious coping 

in most participants.  

Religious and spiritual SUD recovery programs 

increase recovery capital, which refers to the number of 

resources one has access to that can help one initiate 

and maintain recovery (Granfield and Cloud, 1999). 

Financial capability is an essential aspect of recovery 

capital, but treatment programs rarely focus on 

developing financial capability among their clients 

(Jones-Sanpei and Nance 2021). Two domains of 

recovery capital, physical/financial and human, are 

related to access to and use of financial services (Cloud 

and Granfield 2001). Prior research suggests financial 

literacy promotes relapse resiliency in recovery and is 

related to the knowledge and skills to manage financial 

resources effectively (President’s Advisory Council on 

Financial Capability 2013; Harris et al. 2011).  

Faith & Finances is a series of twelve weekly 

financial education sessions designed for a small group 

study in a church or Christian nonprofit. As a financial 

education ministry, it empowers people in material 

poverty with practical money management skills, 

biblical stewardship principles, and supportive 

relationships. By design, its small-group structure 

creates opportunities to bring people together within a 

local church or ministry community. Facilitators, 

participants, and allies at all income levels walk together 

in authentic relationships and discover how God has 

chosen to use individuals’ money to accomplish his 

work. 

This pilot study investigated the feasibility and 

effectiveness of integrated faith-based recovery and 

financial literacy programs. The purposes of this study 

are 1) to evaluate the effectiveness of a 6-week version 

of Resilient Recovery; 2) to evaluate the effectiveness of 

a combined 12-week Resilient + Faith & Finances 

program; and 3) to assess the feasibility of 

implementing a combined recovery and financial 

literacy program among individuals living in recovery 

residential homes. The goal was to better understand 

from a Christian worldview the mechanisms underlying 

the relationship between faith and recovery. Given the 

lack of specific Christian instruments for measuring 

Christian spirituality, we used more general measures 

of forgiveness, perceptions of God, spiritual well-being, 

and religious coping. Resilient Recovery and Faith & 

Finances are Christian-based programs incorporating 

spiritual lessons from the Bible. The hypotheses 

motivating this study were 1) Christian-based recovery 

meetings increase participants’ spiritual health (i.e. 

forgiveness, perceptions of God, spiritual well-being, 

and religious coping; 2) adding a Christian financial 

literacy program increases spiritual health, financial 

health (i.e. savings account, emergency fund, giving, and 

spending plan), and associated substance use problems 

(measured by the Short Inventory to Problems for 

Alcohol and Drugs (SIP-AD)). 

 

Methods 
This study used a two-group pre-post-study design. 

Partnerships with recovery residential homes in 

Phoenix, Arizona, provided access to eligible 

individuals willing to participate. The residents stayed at 

the homes voluntarily and were asked to participate in 

the study voluntarily. They were allowed to withdraw 

from the study at any point throughout the program. 

Participants were enrolled on a rolling basis between 

June 2021 and August 2022. The Chalmers Center for 

Economic Development provided the Faith & Finances 

facilitator training for the study, and Resilient Recovery 

provided the Resilient facilitator training.  

Each program component, Resilient Recovery and 

Faith & Finances, lasted six weeks, with one week 

between programs for individuals receiving both 

programs. Each program typically lasts longer, but 

shortened versions were implemented to accommodate 

the average time a participant spends in a recovery 

home and maximize participant retention. Baseline and 

follow-up surveys were conducted following the end of 

each program for three possible survey periods 

(baseline=Time 1, 6 weeks=Time 2, 12-week follow-

up=Time 3). Phone, text messages, and email attempts 

were made to follow up with individuals to minimize 

loss-to-follow-up. Individuals staying at recovery homes 

frequently changed addresses and communication 

methods (changed in phone numbers and internet 

access for email), which led to incomplete surveys 

during the follow-up period. Surveys were completed 

through one-on-one phone interviews or self-

administered via a QR code based on the preferences 

and resources of participants. A more extended follow-

up period was not feasible, given the difficulty of 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(1), Summer 2024  

 
   

   

Paltzer, Jonker, Reinemann, and Benfer, A Pilot Study of an Integrated Faith-Based Recovery …      25 
   

 

tracking individuals once they left the recovery home. 

Results were provided based on completed surveys, 

given this was a pilot study with a small sample size, 

limiting the ability to conduct multiple imputation or 

other methods for missing data.  

 

Data and Sample 

The study eligibility criteria were as follows: 

• Adults 18 years of age or older 

• Residents of a recovery home in Phoenix, AZ 

• Not a legal dependent 

• Able to read and write in English 

 

A residential recovery home is defined as a 

structured living environment that supports recovery 

from addiction. These homes have dorm-style 

bedrooms and shared bathrooms. Each home's policies 

varies; some have a “zero tolerance” policy, while 

others are more flexible. Residents typically progress 

through stages. The first stage provides food, Wi-Fi, 

and laundry facilities. Work is not allowed. 

Participation in a 12-step program, house meetings, and 

drug tests are sometimes required. These programs are 

voluntary and accept a combination of insurance and 

private pay. For those who pay privately, most recovery 

residential homes require only that a person have the 

desire to abstain from substances. Substance abuse 

treatment is defined as professional services designed to 

help patients abstain from harmful substances and 

attain a greater quality of life. Recovery homes do not 

provide treatment. They collaborate with professionals 

by providing a sober living environment. Substance 

abuse recovery is defined as “Recovery is a process of 

change through which people improve their health and 

wellness, live self-directed lives, and strive to reach their 

full potential” (National Institutes of Health 2024). 

Substance use recovery may or may not involve a 

substance use disorder defined as the presence of 3 or 

more of 11 items found in the Diagnostic and Statistical 

Manual of Mental Disorders – Fifth Edition (American 

Psychological Association 2022).  

Group 1 (Resilient Recovery + Faith & Finances) 

enrolled 17 individuals as the combined intervention, 

and group 2 (Resilient Recovery alone) enrolled 16 

individuals. Individuals were offered the opportunity to 

participate through a letter from the research team 

distributed by participating residential recovery home 

managers. Participating recovery homes were selected 

for the same study group for feasibility and minimal 

burden on the home managers. Recovery homes in 

Phoenix were recruited through email invitations, 

targeted Facebook ads, and direct phone conversations. 

Participants could withdraw from the study at any time, 

while remaining part of the groups. Meetings took place 

at each participating residential recovery home, where 

individuals were given and read an informed consent 

form. Each participant provided verbal consent by 

agreeing to complete the initial intake survey. 

Individuals had the opportunity to discontinue the 

program by not completing the survey and informing 

the facilitator of their desire not to continue. Individuals 

who completed the questionnaire were given additional 

information regarding their respective program groups. 

Individuals in group 1 participated in weekly Resilient 

Recovery meetings for 6 weeks, followed by Faith & 

Finance meetings for 6 weeks. Meetings were 

conducted on-site at their recovery home. Group 2 

individuals participated in weekly Resilient Recovery 

meetings on-site for 6-weeks. Email and mobile phone 

information was collected, and participants were 

contacted to complete a follow-up questionnaire 

following the completion of each program component 

or the 6-week time period if there was no program, as 

in the case of the Resilient Recovery alone group for 

Time 3. The study received ethics approval through 

Baylor University’s Institutional Review Board.  

 

Measures 

In addition to demographic data, the following 

scales were used to measure substance-related 

problems, spirituality, and financial literacy:  

1. Short Inventory to Problems – Alcohol and 

Drugs (SIP-AD) (Kiluk et al. 2013) —selected due 

to the ongoing relationship of substance abuse-

related problems long after use discontinues. 

2. Spiritual Well-being Scale (Paloutzian and Ellison 

1982) — a general measure of spiritual health and 

relationship with God. 

3. God-10 Scale (Exline et al. 2011) — selected to 

assess individual perceptions of the characteristics 

of God throughout the recovery process. 

4. Forgiveness Long Form (Fetzer Institute 1999) — 

chosen because forgiveness is part of the recovery 

process as individuals reflect on their past 

relationships. 

5. Religious Coping Scale (Pargament et al. 2011) — 

selected to measure spiritual practices related to 

strengthening one’s relationship with God. 

6. Faith & Finances Financial Capacity Survey 

(developed by Chalmers Center for Economic 

Development) — chosen to evaluate the four 

financial behaviors as indicators of financial 

health. 

 

Statistical Analysis 

Data were analyzed using R Version 4.2.2. Sample 

characteristics are reported by frequencies and 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(1), Summer 2024  

 
   

   

Paltzer, Jonker, Reinemann, and Benfer, A Pilot Study of an Integrated Faith-Based Recovery …      26 
   

 

proportions among participants who completed 

Resilient Recovery and those who additionally 

completed Faith & Finances. Frequencies and 

proportions are also reported for financial data. 

Spearman Correlation Coefficients were calculated by 

group, sex, and education level for each item or item 

grouping within scales. Correlation coefficients 

measure the strength of association between two rank-

ordered variables. For the measures used in this study, 

a positive correlation shows the indicator increased in 

value over subsequent time points. If a participant 

moved from a 3 (neutral) in Time 1 to a 5 (moderately 

disagree) in Time 2 for the question, “I don’t find much 

satisfaction in private prayer with God,” the correlation 

coefficient will be a positive value, 0.21 for example, 

and interpreted as a relatively weak-to-moderate 

positive correlation. Statistical significance is 

determined using a p value of 0.10, given the low 

sample size, shown in red. Because this was a pilot study 

with a relatively small sample size, differences between 

the two groups were not analyzed.  

 

 

 

 

Results 
Overall, 33 individuals participated in the study 

(Table 1). Participants completing Resilient Recovery 

were primarily male (81.3%) and single/never married 

(75.0%), white (43.8%), and had graduated high school 

(50.0%). Of those participants who additionally 

completed Faith & Finances, the majority were female 

(52.9%), widowed (52.9%), white (70.6%), and had a 

high school degree (23.5%) or less (23.5%). The total 

completed surveys for each period by group 

participation is shown in Table 2. The groups show 

some demographic variation, which is a limitation of the 

small study sample. A significant limitation is the 

number of completed responses for Time 3 among the 

Resilient Recovery alone (RR alone) group. Subsequent 

results are shown with RR alone Time 3 data for 

transparency.  

 
Table 1: Sample characteristics of participants receiving Resilient Recovery alone and Resilient Recovery plus Faith & Finances. 

 

Characteristic Resilient Recovery (n=16) Resilient Recovery and Faith & 

Finances (n=17) 

Sex:  

Male 

Female 

 

13 (81.3%) 

3 (18.8%) 

 

8 (47.1%) 

9 (52.9%) 

Marital Status: 

Divorced 

Single (never married) 

Widowed 

 

2 (12.5%) 

12 (75.0%) 

2 (12.5%) 

 

7 (41.2%) 

1 (5.9%) 

9 (52.9%) 

Race: 

Black/African American 

Hispanic/Latino 

Other 

White 

 

4 (25.0%) 

5 (31.3%) 

0 (0.0%) 

7 (43.8%) 

 

1 (5.9%) 

3 (17.6%) 

1 (5.9%) 

12 (70.6%) 

Education:  

Less than high school         

Graduated high school 

Some college, no degree 

Associate degree 

Bachelor’s degree 

Trade/technical school 

 

5 (31.3%) 

8 (50.0%) 

2 (12.5%) 

0 (0.0%) 

1 (6.3%) 

0 (0.0%) 

 

4 (23.5%) 

4 (23.5%) 

3 (17.6%) 

3 (17.6%) 

1 (5.9%) 

2 (11.8%) 

Note: Five individuals were removed from the data set because they lacked either Resilient Recovery or Faith & 

Finances financial data. Categories are determined by changes in the strategy between Time 1 and Time 3 

measures.  

 

 

 

 
 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(1), Summer 2024  

 
   

   

Paltzer, Jonker, Reinemann, and Benfer, A Pilot Study of an Integrated Faith-Based Recovery …      27 
   

 

Table 2: Completed surveys for each period by treatment group.  

 

Overall Resilient Recovery 
Resilient Recovery and Faith & 

Finances 

T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 

         

n=33 n=28 n=12 n=16 n=12 n=3 n=17 n=16 n=9 

 

Spirituality  
Outcome tables show correlations by group as well 

as by sex and education, realizing that these 

demographic variables likely influence associations. 

Correlations between items and demographic 

characteristics were mostly neutral but in the expected 

direction among participants completing either 

program (Tables 4-8). Five Spiritual Well-Being Scale 

items improved among participants completing 

Resilient Recovery: “I don’t know who I am, where I 

came from, or where I’m going” (correlation=0.48; p 

value=0.01), “I believe that God is impersonal and not 

interested in my daily situations” (correlation=0.38; p 

value=0.04), “I feel good about my future” 

(correlation=0.32; p value=0.08), “I feel that life is full 

of conflict and unhappiness” (correlation=0.32; p 

value=0.08), and “I believe there is some real purpose 

for my life” (correlation=0.34; p value=0.07). Some 

variation is observed between males and females. 

Perceptions of God (God-10 Scale) as loving, cruel, or 

distant stayed relatively unchanged among individuals 

in both groups. The Forgiveness scale measures 

showed that offering and receiving forgiveness with 

God, others, and self also remained unchanged when 

participating in both groups. Items showing 

improvement over time for the RCOPE scale included 

“Felt punished by God for my lack of devotion” among 

participants in the combined group (correlation=-0.34; 

p value=0.03).  

 

Substance-Related Problems  
The Short-Inventory of Problems for Alcohol and 

Drugs (SIP-AD) scale showed improvement in most 

items among participants in the combined group. The 

SIP-AD is designed to measure problems associated 

with active substance use, but the scale has shown 

validity in measuring the variation of problems among 

those in a sober state of the recovery cycle, as was 

expected among the participants in the study (Kiluk et 

al. 2013). To accommodate for the length of time 

individuals may have been living in recovery homes, the 

SIP-AD instrument was adapted to have a 12-month 

recall of problems associated with drinking alcohol or 

taking drugs. Foolish risks (correlation=-0.27, p 

value=0.09), impulsivity (correlation=-0.28, p 

value=0.08), money problems (correlation=-0.26, p 

value=0.10), family hurts (correlation=-0.26, p 

value=0.10), and personal growth interference 

(correlation=-0.31, p value=0.04) are areas with the 

most significant improvements among those receiving 

the combined programs.  

 

Financial Literacy 
During the Resilient Recovery period (change between 

times 1 and 2), individuals having a bank account 

increased by ten percentage points, and individuals 

giving to church decreased by eight percentage points 

among the Resilient Recovery Alone group. Church 

giving increased by almost 15 percentage points, and 

spending plans declined by 15 percentage points among 

the RR and FF combined group. The percentage of 

individuals completing the FF program (change 

between time 2 and 3) increased by nine percentage 

points for having a bank account and eight percentage 

points for having an emergency fund (Table 3).  

 

 
Table 3: Financial behavior results by group (percentages)  

 

Financial Activity Resilient Recovery Alone (%) Resilient Recovery and Faith & 

Finances (%) 

 T1 (n=16) T2 

(n=12) 

T3 (n=3) T1 (n=17) T2 (n=16) T3 (n=9) 

Church Giving 25.0 16.7 0.0 35.3 50.0 55.6 

Bank Account 56.3 66.7 100.0 64.7 68.8 77.8 

Spending Plan 43.8 41.7 66.7 52.9 37.5 33.3 

Emergency Fund 25.0 25.0 33.3 29.4 25.0 33.3 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(1), Summer 2024  

 
   

   

Paltzer, Jonker, Reinemann, and Benfer, A Pilot Study of an Integrated Faith-Based Recovery …      28 
   

 

 
Table 4: Spiritual Well-Being Scale results by group, sex, and education level, Spearman correlation measures (p value).  

  Group Sex Education 
SWBS 1=strongly agree; 
2=moderately agree; 
3=agree; 4=disagree; 
5=moderately disagree; 
6=strongly disagree 

Overall  
n=33 

RR 
n=16 

RR_FF 
n=17 

Male 
n=21 

Female 
n=12 

Less 
than 
high 
school 
n=9 

Graduat
ed high 
school 
n=12 

More 
than 
high 
school 
n=12 

I don’t find much satisfaction 
in private prayer with God 

0.21 
(0.07) 

0.22 
(0.23) 

0.19 
(0.23) 

0.29 
(0.06) 

0.03 
(0.86) 

0.27 
(0.24) 

0.36 
(0.07) 

0.07 
(0.72) 

I don’t know who I am, where I 
came from, or where I’m going 

-0.05 
(0.71) 

0.48 
(0.01) 

-0.25 
(0.11) 

0.17 
(0.25) 

-0.21 
(0.28) 

0.08 
(0.74) 

-0.06 
(0.78) 

-0.12 
(0.55) 

I believe that God loves me and 
cares about me* 

0.13 
(0.28) 

0.05 
(0.81) 

0.15 
(0.35) 

0.13 
(0.41) 

0.15 
(0.42) 

0.06 
(0.80) 

-0.02 
(0.94) 

0.26 
(0.20) 

I feel that life is a positive 
experience* 

0.06 
(0.64) 

0.06 
(0.73) 

0.05 
(0.76) 

0.04 
(0.78) 

0.10 
(0.61) 

0.24 
(0.30) 

-0.20 
(0.34) 

0.17 
(0.38) 

I believe that God is 
impersonal and not interested 
in my daily situations 

0.23 
(0.05) 

0.38 
(0.04) 

0.15 
(0.34) 

0.37 
(0.02) 

0.00 
(1.00) 

0.05 
(0.84) 

0.24 
(0.24) 

0.36 
(0.06) 

I feel unsettled about my 
future 

-0.02 
(0.84) 

0.18 
(0.33) 

-0.10 
(0.53) 

0.09 
(0.55) 

-0.02 
(0.92) 

0.20 
(0.39) 

-0.04 
(0.83) 

-0.13 
(0.49) 

I have a personally meaningful 
relationship with God* 

0.08 
(0.53) 

0.10 
(0.61) 

0.04 
(0.79) 

0.16 
(0.31) 

0.03 
(0.87) 

0.21 
(0.39) 

-0.19 
(0.34) 

0.20 
(0.33) 

I feel very fulfilled and 
satisfied with life* 

0.05 
(0.65) 

0.22 
(0.23) 

-0.02 
(0.91) 

-0.06 
(0.69) 

0.20 
(0.28) 

0.09 
(0.70) 

-0.03 
(0.88) 

0.12 
(0.56) 

I don’t get much personal 
strength and support from my 
God 

0.08 
(0.48) 

0.11 
(0.55) 

0.05 
(0.77) 

0.08 
(0.61) 

0.12 
(0.52) 

-0.11 
(0.65) 

0.19 
(0.37) 

0.12 
(0.55) 

I feel a sense of well-being 
about the direction my life is 
headed in* 

-0.05 
(0.69) 

0.16 
(0.39) 

-0.14 
(0.38) 

0.10 
(0.54) 

-0.15 
(0.42) 

0.07 
(0.78) 

-0.09 
(0.66) 

-0.10 
(0.61) 

I believe that God is concerned 
about my problems* 

0.17 
(0.15) 

0.16 
(0.39) 

0.19 
(0.23) 

0.16 
(0.32) 

0.22 
(0.25) 

-0.10 
(0.67) 

0.22 
(0.29) 

0.35 
(0.08) 

I don’t enjoy much about life 
0.03 
(0.80) 

0.18 
(0.34) 

-0.07 
(0.68) 

-0.03 
(0.87) 

0.07 
(0.72) 

0.10 
(0.71) 

-0.08 
(0.70) 

0.06 
(0.75) 

I don’t have a personally 
satisfying relationship with 
God 

-0.02 
(0.87) 

0.08 
(0.67) 

-0.12 
(0.44) 

0.07 
(0.65) 

-0.17 
(0.37) 

-0.19 
(0.43) 

-0.21 
(0.31) 

0.25 
(0.21) 

I feel good about my future* 
0.01 
(0.90) 

0.32 
(0.08) 

-0.15 
(0.34) 

0.05 
(0.77) 

0.02 
(0.92) 

0.08 
(0.73) 

-0.04 
(0.84) 

0.02 
(0.94) 

My relationship with God helps 
me not to feel lonely* 

0.02 
(0.84) 

0.09 
(0.63) 

-0.08 
(0.63) 

-0.09 
(0.57) 

0.19 
(0.33) 

-0.04 
(0.87) 

0.09 
(0.67) 

0.03 
(0.87) 

I feel that life is full of conflict 
and unhappiness 

0.11 
(0.37) 

0.32 
(0.08) 

-0.01 
(0.94) 

0.19 
(0.23) 

0.04 
(0.82) 

0.35 
(0.13) 

0.02 
(0.91) 

0.01 
(0.95) 

I feel most fulfilled when I’m in 
close communion with God* 

0.13 
(0.28) 

0.13 
(0.49) 

0.07 
(0.67) 

0.16 
(0.31) 

0.10 
(0.59) 

-0.02 
(0.94) 

0.15 
(0.46) 

0.28 
(0.16) 

Life doesn’t have much 
meaning 

-0.02 
(0.85) 

0.29 
(0.12) 

-0.21 
(0.19) 

0.00 
(0.99) 

-0.11 
(0.58) 

-0.02 
(0.93) 

0.05 
(0.82) 

-0.08 
(0.68) 

My relation with God 
contributes to my sense of 
well-being* 

0.08 
(0.52) 

0.14 
(0.46) 

0.01 
(0.95) 

-0.18 
(0.27) 

0.39 
(0.03) 

-0.12 
(0.63) 

0.28 
(0.17) 

0.08 
(0.70) 

I believe there is some real 
purpose for my life* 

0.08 
(0.50) 

0.34 
(0.07) 

-0.03 
(0.85) 

-0.14 
(0.37) 

0.40 
(0.03) 

-0.13 
(0.61) 

0.27 
(0.19) 

0.14 
(0.49) 

*Items reverse coded. 

 
 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(1), Summer 2024  

 
   

   

Paltzer, Jonker, Reinemann, and Benfer, A Pilot Study of an Integrated Faith-Based Recovery …      29 
   

 

 
 
 
Table 5: Perceptions of God Scale by group, sex, education level, Spearman correlations (p value) 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 Table 7: Religious Coping Scale by group, sex, and education level, Spearman correlations (p value) 

 
*Items reverse coded

 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(1), Summer 2024  

 
   

   

Paltzer, Jonker, Reinemann, and Benfer, A Pilot Study of an Integrated Faith-Based Recovery …      30 
   

 

Table 8: Short Inventory of Problems – Alcohol and Drugs Scale by group, sex, and education level. Spearman correlations (p value)

 
 

 

Discussion 
The primary purpose of this study was to evaluate 

the effectiveness of Resilient Recovery and a combined 

Resilient Recovery plus Faith & Finances program on 

spiritual health, financial behaviors, and problems 

associated with substance use.   The results do not fully 

support the stated hypotheses: 1) A Christian-based 

recovery meeting would increase participants’ spiritual 

health (measures: forgiveness, perceptions of God, 

spiritual well-being, and religious coping; 2) adding a 

Christian financial literacy program increases spiritual 

health, financial health (measures: savings account, 

emergency fund, giving, and spending plan), and 

associated substance use problems (measures: SIP-

AD). Other potential variables need to be considered 

as possible explanations between faith-based recovery 

meetings that are combined with additional recovery 

capital, such as financial literacy essential to maintaining 

abstinence (Cloud and Granfield 2001). 

The results of this pilot study suggest that a 

combined Resilient Recovery and Faith & Finances 

intervention reduces some problems associated with 

substance use. Changes in financial habits varied in both 

groups, suggesting other variables need to be 

considered, such as length of the intervention, available 

benefits received while in recovery, in-kind resources 

provided by the recovery homes, or support from 

family and friends. The Spiritual Well-being Scale 

among individuals completing Resilient Recovery alone 

had improved responses in feeling good about their 

future, origin/purpose/destiny, belief in God’s interest 

in their life, and perception of conflicts. Participants in 

the combined group had increased feelings of being 

punished by God. The content of both programs 

highlighted God’s providence, provision, and grace 

(forgiveness). Yet, participants in both groups did not 

show significant changes in giving or receiving 

forgiveness or perceiving God as loving. This result 

indicates that aligning program content with spiritual 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(1), Summer 2024  

 
   

   

Paltzer, Jonker, Reinemann, and Benfer, A Pilot Study of an Integrated Faith-Based Recovery …      31 
   

 

mechanisms supporting recovery requires further 

research to understand the faith journey of individuals 

in recovery and develop appropriate measures. It is 

worth noting that, though the goal was to measure 

Christian beliefs related to two Christian-based 

programs, participants were able to answer questions 

based on their personal understanding of God.  

The study shows that combining a recovery 

program with a financial literacy program is feasible 

among individuals in recovery homes. Slightly more 

than half of the individuals in the combined group 

completed both programs. Upon completion of the 

study, residential home managers were interviewed to 

determine the feasibility of conducting the groups in the 

homes. The managers of the homes expressed a high 

level of satisfaction with the programs. One 

recommendation the home managers had was to have 

the same facilitators conduct both programs, given the 

level of trust developed with participants and the 

continuity of facilitator trust.  

Both programs are typically of longer duration than 

those evaluated in this pilot study. In a real-world 

implementation, Resilient Recovery is ongoing, with 

individuals moving in and out over months or even 

years. Faith & Finances is a 12-week program. For this 

study, due to the high mobility rates of individuals in 

residential recovery homes, both programs were 

shortened to 6 weeks. This is a significant limitation of 

the study.  

Other limitations include a change in facilitators 

requiring new relationships to be established. The 

director of Resilient Recovery was present during the 

Faith & Finance sessions, which was recognized as a 

positive feature in participant retention and 

engagement. The SIP-AD does include items that 

could be considered incongruent with the design of 

Resilient Recovery in addressing the shame cycle by 

asking about “foolish risks" in the SIP instruments. 

Given the limited selection of validated tools that assess 

substance issues from a Christian perspective, we 

selected the SIP-AD as the closest validated match. 

Possible confounding relationships influencing the 

results could be the short duration of each program, 

education levels, relapse occurrences, facilitator 

differences, and losses-to-follow-up. Additional 

variations may occur because of differences in the 

individual non-linear faith journey, recovery home 

management and policies, prior recovery experience, 

non-substance using relationships, or proximity to 

family. An individual’s faith journey includes processing 

past influences of shame, self-worth, and beliefs from 

past and current substance use before moving to a place 

of forgiveness, spiritual well-being, and loving 

perceptions of God. Such a change might require a 

more intentional move toward a positive understanding 

and belief about themselves and their relationship with 

God. A future study could investigate this journey of 

faith through recovery by measuring participants’ 

religious feelings over a 6- to 12-month period as they 

participate in programs like Resilient Recovery, an 

ongoing program, and Faith & Finances. Still another 

study could consider increasing retention rates in 

recovery programs to increase the likelihood of 

individuals navigating this faith journey through 

recovery.  

This study has several additional limitations. The 

small sample size limits the interpretation of the 

evidence and increases the likelihood of bias and 

confounding. Loss-to-follow-up was an issue as only 

three individuals from the Resilient Recovery alone 

group completed the third survey. Incentives were 

provided and secondary contact numbers were 

collected if available to help increase retention rates, but 

movement of individuals in recovery homes occurs at 

high rates, especially if they relapse back into substance 

use and are not allowed back into the same home. In 

the future, retention might be improved by creating 

multiple contact points through numerous contact 

numbers, hiring a recovery communications manager, 

or promoting additional support communities that 

participants could join. In addition, individuals in 

recovery experience good and bad days that influence 

survey responses. Future studies should include a 

general quality of life question to establish an emotional 

status before each survey.  Yet another limitation is that 

residential recovery homes self-selected into the study, 

leading to potential selection bias on the residential 

home level, as observed in Table 1.  

Strengths of the study include the comparison of 

the two groups, with one receiving an integrated 

financial literacy program, a novel approach to 

recovery. The design allows us to assess the added 

effectiveness of financial literacy alongside an existing 

recovery model. The pre-post sequential design 

provides an opportunity to measure each program with 

a baseline for outcomes specific to that program. The 

study provides insight into a hard-to-reach population: 

those entering recovery. The study team underwent 

thorough training for the component they were 

facilitating, increasing fidelity to each intervention. 

Strong relationships between Resilient Recovery staff 

and home manager were built through 1) in-person 

visits and explanation of the Resilient Recovery 

program, including videos of the model; 2) sharing 

personal facilitator experiences of addiction and 

recovery as a peer-based model; 3) committing to 

conducting the groups at the recovery home; and 4) 

consistently showing up weekly. As recovery home 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(1), Summer 2024  

 
   

   

Paltzer, Jonker, Reinemann, and Benfer, A Pilot Study of an Integrated Faith-Based Recovery …      32 
   

 

managers saw the commitment of the Resilient 

Recovery facilitators, they were willing to allow residents 

to participate in the study.  

For similar studies in the future, we recommend 

the following improvements: First, upon recruitment, 

obtain multiple points of contact for the individual to 

minimize losses-to-follow-up. In a subsequent study, we 

found individuals in recovery were willing to provide 

additional contact information to support them as 

much as possible. Identifying the appropriate recall 

period based on the individual's recovery journey will 

help establish better recovery measures for the 

individual and program content. Second, a future study 

should also measure variation in residential recovery 

home policies, such as a "zero tolerance" policy, versus 

those more flexible. And third, a future study design 

should implement programs concurrently among the 

combined intervention group (providing each program 

on two different days) and the comparison group 

receiving only one program throughout the same 

timeframe. This requires recruiting homes in advance 

so the programs can start simultaneously, which also 

means the study team must have enough facilitators to 

serve both groups. This approach would allow the 

recovery homes to be randomized.  

 

Conclusion 
The population of individuals in recovery is 

growing, and it is important to identify ways to study and 

determine the most effective methods for supporting 

those in recovery. Substance use is a growing global 

problem, and innovative, faith- and community-based 

approaches are clearly called for. This study provides 

insight into the feasibility of a combined recovery and 

financial literacy approach. Although the results do not 

support a substantial effect on recovery, spiritual, or 

financial outcomes, there are important lessons about 

program implementation and methods for future 

research. This research offers guidance for 

implementing a combined recovery model, such as 

consistent facilitators and simultaneous 

implementation. Future research methods should 

include additional confounding factors, a longer follow-

up period, and more robust retention strategies. 

General spiritual measures only go so far, and there is 

a need to determine specific spiritual factors that 

mediate the faith-based recovery pathway. Concepts 

like forgiveness, grace (God as loving), hope of an 

eternal destiny, and generosity are potential factors that 

need further study to strengthen faith-based recovery 

programs.   

 

 

References 

American Psychiatric Association. 2022. Diagnostic 
and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th 

ed., text rev.) 

https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.978089042578

7  

Cloud, William, Rober Granfield. 2001. “Natural 

Recovery from Substance Dependency.” Journal 
of Social Work Practice in the Addictions 1(1), 83-

104. https://doi.org/10.1300/J160v01n01_07  

Degenhardt, Louisa, et al. 2010. “Evaluating the Drug 

Use ‘Gateway’ Theory Using Cross-National Data: 

Consistency and Associations of the Order of 

Initiation of Drug Use Among Participants in the 

WHO World Mental Health Surveys.” Drug and 

Alcohol Dependence 108(1-2), 84-97. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2009.12.001   

DiClemente, Carlo C. 2013. “Paths Through 

Addiction and Recovery: The Impact of 

Spirituality and Religion.” Substance Use & Misuse 

48(12), 1260-1261. 

https://doi.org/10.3109/10826084.2013.808475   

Exline, Julie J., Crystal L. Park, Joshua M. Smyth, and 

Michael P. Carey. 2011. “Anger Toward God: 

Social-Cognitive Predictors, Prevalence, and Links 

with Adjustment to Bereavement and Cancer.” 

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 

100(1), 129-148. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021716   

Fetzer Institute 1999. “Multidimensional 

Measurement of Religiousness, Spirituality for Use 

in Health Research. A Report of a National 

Working Group.”  

Granfield, Robert, and William Cloud 1999. Coming 
Clean: Overcoming Addiction Without 

Treatment. New York University Press.  

Grim, Brian J., and Melissa E. Grim. 2019. “Belief, 

Behavior, and Belonging: How Faith is 

Indispensable in Preventing and Recovering from 

Substance Abuse.” Journal of Religion and Health 

58(5), 1713-1750. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-

019-00876-w   

Harris, Kitty, Sara Smock Jordan, and McKenzie 

Wilkes. 2011. “Relapse Resilience: A Process 

Model of Addiction and Recovery.” Journal of 
Family Psychotherapy 22, 265-274. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/08975353.2011.602622  

Herman-Stahl, Mindy A., Christopher P. Krebs, Larry 

A. Kroutil, and David C. Heller. 2007. “Risk and 

Protective Factors for Methamphetamine Use and 

Nonmedical Use of Prescription Stimulants 

Among Young Adults Aged 18 to 25.” Addictive 

Behaviors 32(5), 1003-1015. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2006.07.010   

https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425787
https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425787
https://doi.org/10.1300/J160v01n01_07
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2009.12.001
https://doi.org/10.3109/10826084.2013.808475
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021716
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-019-00876-w
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-019-00876-w
https://doi.org/10.1080/08975353.2011.602622
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2006.07.010


Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 6(1), Summer 2024  

 
   

   

Paltzer, Jonker, Reinemann, and Benfer, A Pilot Study of an Integrated Faith-Based Recovery …      33 
   

 

Jones-Sanpei, Hinckley A., and Richard J. Nance. 

2021. “Financial Capability in Addiction Research 

and Clinical Practice.” Substance Use & Misuse 

56(2), 214-223. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/10826084.2020.1853776  

Kiluk, Brian D., Jessica A. Dreifuss, Roger D. Weiss, 

Jon Morgenstern, and Kathleen M. Carroll. 2013. 

“The Short Inventory of Problems - revised (SIP-

R): Psychometric Properties Within a Large, 

Diverse Sample of Substance Use Disorder 

Treatment Seekers.” Psychology of Addictive 
Behaviors 27(1), 307-314. 

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028445  

Koenig, Harold, Dana King, and Verna Benner 

Carson. 2012. Handbook of Religion and Health. 
(2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.  

Moscati, Arden, and Briana Mezuk. 2014. “Losing 

Faith and Finding Religion: Religiosity Over the 

Life Course and Substance Use and Abuse.” Drug 

and Alcohol Dependence 136, 127-134. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2013.12.018  

National Institutes of Health, 

https://nida.nih.gov/research-topics/recovery. 

Accessed July 2, 2024. 

Palamar, Joseph J., Matthew V. Kiang, and Perry N. 

Halkitis. 2014. “Religiosity and Exposure to Users 

in Explaining Illicit Drug Use Among Emerging 

Adults.” Journal of Religion and Health 53(3), 

658-674.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-012-

9660-3   

Paloutzian, Raymond F., and Craig W. Ellison. 1982. 

“Loneliness, Spiritual Well-Being and the Quality 

of Life.” In Loneliness: A Sourcebook of Current 

Theory, Research, and Therapy, edited by Letitia 

Anne Peplau and Daniel Perlman, 224-236. John 

Wiley and Sons.  

Pargament, Kenneth., Margaret Feuille, and Donna 

Burdzy. 2011. “The Brief RCOPE: Current 

Psychometric Status of a Short Measure of 

Religious Coping.” Religions 2(1), 51-76.  

President’s Advisory Council on Financial Capability: 

Final Report. 2013. 

https://www.nefe.org/_images/partnerships/PACFC

%20final%20report%20Feb%2019%202013.pdf  

 
 

 

 

 

Jason Paltzer is the executive director of the Meros 

Center. He has experience in public health and 

missions. Dr. Paltzer is a visiting professor at 

Wisconsin Lutheran College and scholar at the 

Institute for Studies of Religion at Baylor University. 

 

Author email: Jason@meroscenter.org.  

 

 Jason Jonker is the director of Resilient Recovery 

Ministries. He has extensive experience implementing 

evidence-based programs for SUDs and formerly 

oversaw the daily clinical operations of six mental 

health clinics as a regional clinical director for a 

nonprofit agency. 

 

Author email: resilient@crosswalkphoenix.com.  

 

Anna Reinemann. MSW teaches in the Meros 

Community Health Ministry Certificate program. She 

advises students around the globe in the use of 

community engagement tools in church and 

community settings. Her background is in cross-

cultural ministry, project management, and training.  

 

Author email: anna.r.reinemann@gmail.com.  

 

Jessica Benfer is a research scientist/grant writer at the 

Meros Center. Her background is in statistics, public 

health, and health services research and policy. She is 

working to build a research program in dementia care 

at the Meros Center. 

 

Author email: Jessica@meroscenter.org.  
 

 

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028445
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2013.12.018
https://nida.nih.gov/research-topics/recovery
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-012-9660-3
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-012-9660-3
https://www.nefe.org/_images/partnerships/PACFC%20final%20report%20Feb%2019%202013.pdf
https://www.nefe.org/_images/partnerships/PACFC%20final%20report%20Feb%2019%202013.pdf
mailto:Jason@meroscenter.org
mailto:resilient@crosswalkphoenix.com
mailto:anna.r.reinemann@gmail.com
mailto:Jessica@meroscenter.org

