We had a great deal of conversation ahead of our last IARCP General meeting. I wanted to ensure that those comments are not lost, as they highlight the areas of concern that many of us have as RCPs navigating this landscape.
Ruth Riddick, New York:
Dear Colleagues,
HAPPY NEW YEAR! IARCP Advisory Council member, Johanna Dolan (on this distribution), starts our year by helpfully clarifying the issue of "peer-or-coach" in the behavioral health (recovery) ecosystem. We sorta discussed this issue in 2024 - see, for example, https://tinyurl.com/coach-peer-Riddick-IARCP-2024.
Through her recent LinkedIn post announcing the launch of the SAMHSA-funded national CARS- Center for Addiction Recovery Support: Posts | LinkedIn, Johanna - who serves on the CARS Steering Committee - takes us to a platform which confirms that "peer support" is what's on offer here (peer support specialist/peer recovery support specialist). I can't find the "c" word (coaching) anywhere on the website.
Meanwhile, Medicaid-billable peer support specialist job tasks are helpfully listed by the NYS state agency, the Office of Addiction Services & Supports (OASAS), at https://oasas.ny.gov/recovery/become-certified-recovery-peer-advocate. ("CRPA" is the NYS PRSS analog.)
There's a lot of talk on these websites of "lived experience," but nothing about the 3-legged stool. That is, nothing about coaching talent, training, or ethical commitment. Nothing about asking good questions, listening attentively, or managing our own stuff. Nothing about working agreements, or motivational interviewing, or stages of change/recovery, or any of the great content in the CCAR Recovery Coach Academy. Nothing about Recovery Coach Professionals (RCP) or Recovery Coach Professional Facilitators (RCPF).
Accordingly:
Keeping it real: if we're employed in, or training for, these jobs, let's stop gaslighting ourselves (or our stakeholders). We're not coaching, we're offering "peer support," as defined by employers, state agencies, and Medicaid-billing. And by "guidelines" from the national-level agency, SAMHSA.
Keeping it simple: pAUL aLVES's great observation (August 2023) - "Coaches are being asked to do everything EXCEPT coach" - no longer applies. There are no coaches in the system. Only peer support specialists (whatever your job title says). Who do everything EXCEPT coach.
What does the International Association of Recovery Coach Professionals have to say about this reality?
Sandy Valentine, Rhode Island:
Weighing in from RI - I have been unable to attend meetings due to conflicts and have one tomorrow. However, RI has gone down the clinical model of certifying peers. I have made peace with it by looking at Recovery Coaching as a competency/skill of a Peer rather than a job title/description, and like other professional skills, can be developed via ongoing professional development once an individual has complied with their state requirements.
It's the only way I can move forward until I am able to influence the system in our state.
To summarize - You want to be a certified Peer Recovery Specialist in RI? Great - follow the state guidelines. You want to change lives as a PRS in RI, let's talk about developing your recovery coaching skills.
Count me in if I can assist outside of the meetings.
Lila Boyer, New York:
Good morning, Ruth
This has been a major concern that I have voiced many times over. We’re using the CCAR model Recovery “Coach” Academy and Ethical Considerations for Recovery “Coaches” manuals for the foundational approved training through NYCB/IUA for participants to become either Recovery Coaches or Peer Advocates. Since the PEER advocate role is mostly Medicaid reimbursable service(s) we continue to find misalignment throughout this industry both in language and service. This has been a pet peeve of mine. Additionally, it’s confusing for all stake holders. Sometimes the adage of “Staying in Our lane” is a cop out not to address the elephant in the room. I hope the stake holders can come together to resolve this issue in a win-win-win fashion.
Inspiration + Information = Transformation
Ruth Riddick, New York:
Thank you for your important observations, Lila. To be crystal clear - your comments regarding peer certification are NYS-specific. The New York Certification Board protocols, including training approvals, have no salience beyond New York state, and "CRPA" is not recognized for Medicaid-billing outside of NYS.
Certification is role specific - that is, roles as formally delineated, not as practiced in diverse settings - see, "Which Certification?" (green navigation button, https://www.asapnys.org/ny-certification-board/). NYCB has determined that CCAR training products - RCA and Ethical Considerations - are appropriate to both the Recovery Coach and the Peer Recovery RDS competencies.
Any perceived training "misalignment" would be between a Role Delineation Study (RDS) and role deployment in the workforce/field. Not the certification standards which stay true to the RDS, irrespective of role deployment.
For a change in certification standards to better reflect contemporary role deployment (and appropriate training), you would require a whole new Role Delineation Study.
'Hope this helps!
NYCB protocols adhere to the highest standards in the national credentialing industry, and NYCB is a proud member of the national Institute for Credentialing Excellence. We're delighted to offer our certification expertise at any time - https://calendly.com/nycb-ruth-riddick-schedule-meeting/nycb.
Paul Alves, Massachusetts:
Hi Everyone,
Unfortunately, I must agree with Ruth. That's not what seems to be wanted. The systems have issues with anyone having power but themselves, so empowering others is not to their benefit in the greater sense. This does not absolve us from trying. How do we now work to "satisfy the system and coach the individual"? That is the game we end up playing.
See you all tomorrow AM!
Stacy Charpentier, Connecticut:
I know I have been working on this for a bit….given the upcoming IARCP meeting today I decided to spend more time and would like to hear your thoughts.
Primary Purpose of Role:
Recovery Coaches: A Recovery Coach is anyone interested in promoting recovery by removing barriers and obstacles to recovery and serving as a personal guide for people seeking or in recovery. They help remove personal and environmental obstacles to recovery, link individuals to the recovery community, and guide the management of personal and family recovery. Recovery Coaches empower individuals to define and pursue their unique vision of recovery, whether through abstinence, harm reduction, or other pathways.
Peer Recovery Support Specialists: Peer Recovery Specialists promote long-term recovery, often defined by sobriety, remission, or mental health stabilization, along with enhancement of wellness and healing of the person-community relationship. Their focus is frequently rooted in shared lived experiences and the promotion of abstinence-based recovery models. Peer Recovery Specialists also work within behavioral health settings to support individuals facing mental health challenges alongside addiction recovery.
Nature of Role:
Recovery Coaches: Non-clinical and non-diagnostic, supporting multiple pathways to recovery. They are rooted in strengths and wellness, focusing on success and the expansion of personal potential. Recovery Coaches empower individuals to define recovery on their terms, including abstinence, harm reduction, or other personalized approaches.
Peer Recovery Support Specialists: Non-clinical, recovery-oriented, often integrated into behavioral health systems. Their work emerged from grassroots recovery community organizations and may include mental health support alongside addiction recovery.
Scope of Work:
Recovery Coaches: Assist individuals in envisioning and working towards a positive future, emphasizing personal growth, goal setting, and achievement. They operate beyond traditional behavioral health settings, making them suitable for integration into various sectors, including corporate environments. Recovery Coaches’ autonomy allows them to transcend traditional healthcare roles, supporting individuals across diverse pathways of recovery.
Peer Recovery Support Specialists: Focus on promoting long-term recovery, enhancing wellness, and healing relationships within the community. Their work is often confined to behavioral health and recovery programs, with an emphasis on shared lived experiences and community integration.
Training and Professional Standards:
While training for peer work is often dictated by state certification standards—where recovery coaching is frequently categorized—it is important to recognize that peers can significantly benefit from the communication and goal-oriented skills emphasized in coach training. These skills complement lived experience by enhancing a peer’s ability to empower and guide individuals effectively, fostering a more holistic and impactful approach to supporting recovery.
Recovery Coaches: Receive comprehensive training in coaching principles, motivational interviewing, stages of change, and goal-setting. They adhere to professional coaching standards and uphold a focus on facilitating autonomy and self-discovery for those they serve.
Peer Recovery Support Specialists: Trained in peer support, advocacy, and utilizing personal recovery experiences to assist others. Their training often aligns with clinical or treatment-based behavioral health models, limiting flexibility in addressing broader pathways to recovery.
Funding Sources
· Recovery Coaches: Operate as a professional service that prioritizes autonomy and client choice. Funding streams for recovery coaching should support independence, allowing coaches to work outside of traditional behavioral health frameworks. This flexibility positions recovery coaching as a service that can be integrated into diverse sectors, including corporate, community-based, and private practice settings.
· Peer Recovery Support Specialists: Often funded through behavioral health programs, such as Medicaid, and typically integrated within clinical and treatment-oriented environments. Their funding streams are frequently tied to established systems of care, which can influence the scope and nature of the services provided.
Moving beyond Behavioral Health:
Given their focus on personal development, goal achievement, and non-clinical approach, Recovery Coaches are uniquely positioned to transcend traditional behavioral health roles. They can be effectively integrated into corporate human resources departments to support employee well-being, professional growth, and organizational health. This adaptability, combined with their embrace of multiple pathways to recovery, makes them valuable assets in various sectors beyond healthcare.
Key Differences at a Glance:
Aspect | Recovery Coaches | Peer Recovery Specialists |
Primary Focus | Personal transformation; individual goal-setting | Long-term sobriety/remission; wellness enhancement |
Pathways | Multiple pathways (abstinence, harm reduction) | Often abstinence-focused within treatment models |
Scope | Diverse settings, including corporate environments | Behavioral health systems and recovery programs |
Training | Coaching fundamentals, motivational interviewing | Peer support, advocacy, shared lived experience |
Autonomy | Operates independently of behavioral health systems | Often tied to clinical or Medicaid billing frameworks |
Connecticut Community for Addiction Recovery. (2021). Recovery Coach Academy (Self-published).
Schuyler, A., Brown, J., & White, W. (2013). The Recovery Coach: Role Clarity Matrix. Retrieved from https://www.chestnut.org/resources/9a1a2785-a30e-4f19-b724-9810f70fbbf0/Recovery-percent-20Coach-percent-20-percent-28Role-percent-20Clarity-percent-20Matrix-percent-29.pdf
Tiodolo Delegarza, Wisconsin:
Good morning all Happy Wednesday!
With careful reflection, research, and deep questions, I'd like to explore this more deeply as we embark on this path together, the detailed and thoughtful explanation of the RDS process is amazing. The insight into how the formalization of recovery coaching can look within a certification framework is truly valuable. I can sense the passion and care we all have behind this work, and I wholeheartedly respect the importance of creating rigorous, standardized measures to ensure the professionalism of our field.
That said, I do have a few deeper questions and concerns that I’d love to explore, particularly as we consider the potential transition from the current Recovery Coach Professional Designation to a more formalized certification process. I think it’s important for us to reflect on whether this path, as outlined, truly aligns with the values and nuances that make Recovery Coach Professionals so effective in their work. Here are some questions that I hope might shed light on the complexities of the RDS process and help us clarify whether a formal certification is the best choice for our community.
1. The Nature of Recovery Coaching vs. Standardization:
Does the highly structured nature of the RDS process risk undermining the flexibility and adaptability that is at the core of recovery coaching?
Recovery Coach Professionals often work in highly individualized contexts, responding to the unique needs of those in recovery. This flexibility allows us to meet people where they are, using a broad array of techniques and approaches. If we formalize the role too strictly through certification, is there a risk that we could lose the very essence of recovery coaching, which thrives on personalization and individualized support?
How can we ensure that a standardized process like RDS won’t stifle the creativity and autonomy that defines successful recovery coaching?
There is often a “fitting together” of resources, tools, and methods in recovery coaching that’s unique to each coach’s experience and the specific needs of their client. Would a competency exam based on rigid criteria be able to honor that individuality, or would it force coaches into a narrow, one-size-fits-all approach?
2. The Risk of Being Defined by a Medical or Clinical Model:
If we pursue a certification that follows the RDS model, could we inadvertently align more with a clinical or medical model, thereby distancing ourselves from the authentic, community-driven nature of recovery coaching?
A Recovery Coach Professional’s role is often defined by lived experience, empathy, and community-based support. The role is less clinical and more relational, focused on guiding others through their personal recovery journey. By formalizing this through the RDS certification process, are we in danger of framing recovery coaching as a clinical or professionalized service that doesn’t fully reflect the grassroots, lived-experience nature of the role?
Would an RDS certification inadvertently diminish the value of lived experience in the eyes of employers or recoverees/clients?
One of the strongest attributes of a Recovery Coach Professional is the ability to relate through shared experience. If the emphasis is placed more on testing formal competencies than on honoring lived experience, could this risk devaluing one of our most essential contributions to the recovery process?
3. Cost and Accessibility Concerns:
How might the costs associated with formal certification create barriers for individuals and communities who would benefit most from the validation that comes with being a Recovery Coach Professional?
The costs of certification processes, including exam fees, preparation materials, and potential loss of income during the study or exam process, may be prohibitively expensive for many professionals, especially those from underserved or marginalized communities. How do we ensure that the certification process doesn’t exclude those most invested in this line of work, and how can we create a model that remains accessible to all who need it?
Is the investment of time and money into a formal certification truly accessible for all Recovery Coach Professionals, especially those who have already demonstrated their competence through experience?
Many Recovery Coach Professionals have years of practical, lived experience in the field. For these individuals, will the certification process feel redundant or unnecessarily burdensome, especially if their effectiveness can’t be measured in the same way as traditional clinical roles?
4. Will a Certification Necessitate a One-Size-Fits-All Approach?
Is there a risk that a certification process might favor one particular approach to recovery coaching over others, thus limiting the diversity of methodologies within the profession?
Recovery is incredibly individualistic, and there are many different approaches that recovery coaches may employ depending on the needs of their recoverees/clients/coachees. By moving to a formal certification model, is there a danger that we will narrow the scope of recovery coaching into one methodology, rather than celebrating the diversity of techniques that work for different people?
What would the impact of formal certification have on the organic, community-based development of recovery coaches?
If we adopt a rigid, formal certification process, could we be moving toward a more top-down approach to recovery coaching that hinders the natural, grassroots growth of the field? Many of the most innovative, compassionate, and effective Recovery Coach Professionals come from within the communities they serve. Would formalizing the certification process limit new, creative pathways for coaching to emerge organically from those very communities?
5. Alternative Pathways for Recognition:
Are there alternative models for professional recognition and validation of Recovery Coach Professionals that don’t follow the standard certification route?
If we want to recognize the professionalism of Recovery Coach Professionals while maintaining the flexibility and individuality that makes this role unique, might there be other ways to formalize our credentials perhaps through a different system of recognition that reflects the role’s distinctiveness without tying it directly to a traditional, clinical certification?
Could a designation-based system (such as what we currently have) continue to grow in legitimacy without requiring certification?
Could our Recovery Coach Professional Designations serve as a valid and respected credential/designation within the field of recovery, without the need to follow a traditional certification route? Might this allow us to remain true to the role's roots, while still gaining recognition and trust from employers, communities, and the broader recovery movement?
6. What Makes Us Different:
If we follow the same certification process as peer support specialists (other certifications), how will we distinguish ourselves as unique in the broader recovery field?
While peer support specialists and recovery coaches share similarities, there are distinct differences in focus, approach, and scope. Would formalizing recovery coaching into a certification that mirrors the peer support specialist path risk blending the two roles together? If we are not aiming to become synonymous with peer support specialists, how do we maintain and emphasize the distinct value of being a Recovery Coach Professional?
7. What if we choose to follow a different, innovative pathway instead of just "following the crowd" in terms of certification?
Could stepping away from the conventional certification model and choosing a different approach that better aligns with the values and principles of recovery coaching be the very thing that differentiates us and showcases the true worth of the work we do? What if innovation in our field is what makes us stand out in a way that a traditional certification process might not?
Conclusion:
I truly value the direction we are working toward, and I think these questions are meant to enrich our dialogue and challenge the assumptions we might be making as we move forward. I want to ensure that whatever path we take, we preserve what is unique and powerful about Recovery Coach Professionals and the role we play in the recovery community. I’d love to continue exploring these questions with you all and see if there’s a way to move forward that reflects the essence of recovery coaching while also addressing the needs for professionalism, legitimacy, and recognition.
Thank you again for your thoughtful work, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
Johanna Dolan, Maryland:
Happy New Year to you all! Thank you for this rich and layered discussion—it’s an issue that touches the heart of our work and impacts how we show up for those we serve. Loving this.
Ruth, as ever, I appreciate the thoughtfulness you consistently bring in delineating the language and systems that shape "peer support" versus "coaching." Similarly, Lila, your concerns about alignment and Paul, your observation of systemic resistance to empowerment both highlight the ongoing challenges we face in navigating this space.
Here are a few reflections and suggestions to move this conversation forward constructively:
1. Peer Support vs. Coaching: A Language and Function Divide
Ruth is right to point out that the language used in systems (Medicaid-billable roles, state protocols, and SAMHSA guidelines) does not align with the broader coaching framework in which we were trained. While "peer support specialist" emphasizes shared lived experience as a cornerstone, "coaching" centers on specific skills like motivational interviewing, active listening, and guiding individuals toward self-directed change.
2. Training Alignment vs. Role Deployment
Lila’s concern about the disconnect between training and role deployment is vital. The fact that many peer roles are based on coaching frameworks (e.g., CCAR’s Recovery Coach Academy) but aren’t operationalized as coaching creates confusion and frustration. Ruth’s note about the need for a new Role Delineation Study to address this systemic misalignment is an excellent point—perhaps this is an area where we, as a professional body, could advocate collectively.
3. Empowerment Within the System
Paul’s observation about systemic control resonates deeply. While the system might resist true empowerment, we have opportunities to influence change within our roles. The question, "How do we satisfy the system and coach the individual?" is critical. One approach is emphasizing dual competencies: meeting the system’s requirements while embedding coaching principles to truly empower individuals.
Suggestions for Action:
Advocacy for Clarity: As an advisory council, we might consider forming a task force to address language misalignment and propose updates to Role Delineation Studies. This could involve engaging directly with SAMHSA, state agencies, and credentialing bodies to clarify and standardize role definitions.
Education for Stakeholders: A robust communication effort to help stakeholders (including employers and policymakers) understand the differences and overlaps between peer support and coaching could reduce confusion.
Practical Guidance for Practitioners: Creating tools and resources for practitioners to integrate coaching principles into peer roles—without stepping outside the bounds of Medicaid-billable tasks—could be a powerful step forward.
Long-Term Systems Change: Finally, we must continue advocating for systemic change that recognizes the value of empowering approaches like coaching within the recovery ecosystem.
A Call to Collaboration
As Ruth mentioned, NYCB’s protocols are robust and nationally recognized. This puts us in a strong position to advocate for updates that reflect the evolving workforce needs. I am interested to explore how we can collectively champion a win-win-win solution that aligns training, certification, and practice in a way that benefits stakeholders and, most importantly, those in recovery.
Ruth Riddick, New York:
Lovin' this convo, but - please! - a word of caution.
RDS: ROLE DELINEATION STUDY
A formal Role Delineation Study (RDS) that might be adopted by a credentialing agency is a major undertaking. By which I mean significant funding, lengthy process, patience and expertise. And you have to find a credentialing agency interested in implementing your product once it's published.
The New York Certification Board (NYCB) has significant experience here, having commissioned RDS for three specialty certifications, Veteran Supported Recovery (VSR 2021) peer, Criminal Justice Supported Recovery (CJSR 2024) peer and Peer Supervision Professional (PSP 2024) for professional supervisors - see, https://www.asapnys.org/asap-pwi/. NYCB built its competence-based exam for the NYCB Peer Supervision Professional certification in-house as part of the certification development process.
NYCB estimates an approximate 14-month development period for any already funded RDS to include the recruitment of a minimum of 20 voluntary Subject Matter Experts; the engagement of a professional psychometrician (we love Rachael Jin Bee Tan - https://www.linkedin.com/in/rachael-jin-bee-tan/) and a project manager (NYCB's Doug Rosenberry or myself, for example); and achieving validation from the field (min. 400 complete survey responses when the draft RDS is put out for review).
When you've completed this formal process, you need to find a credentialing agency to adopt your RDS; define eligibility standards for training, ethics and certification; develop a role competence testing exam; and manage all aspects of the certification process for candidates, including ethical oversight and renewal protocols.
PREEXISTING RDS and associated CERTIFICATIONS
Role competencies for NYCB Recovery Coach (CARC) and NYCB Peer Advocate (CRPA; peer support specialist) are posted under "Which Certification?" (green navigation button) at https://www.asapnys.org/ny-certification-board/. The respective Role Delineation Studies were carried out by the Connecticut Certification Board (2012) and IC&RC (2013).
IC&RC is the national organization composed of many state-based credentialing agencies. The International Certification & Reciprocity Consortium (IC&RC)'s peer recovery certification (2013 RDS) forms the basis of SUD peer support specialist certifications adopted at state member level and recognized state-by-state for Medicaid-billing purposes nationwide. The IC&RC peer recovery role competence-based exam is used by member states, including NYS, which have adopted this peer support specialist credential. You'll also be interested in this recent IC&RC announcement at https://internationalcredentialing.org/icrc-adopts-samhsa-model-standards-for-peers.
Unlike NYCB, IC&RC has never offered a professional certification for recovery coaches. For further information, see, https://internationalcredentialing.org/.
If these preexisting RDS don't meet with your approval, you have the option of advocating with the credentialing agencies for a revised/updated Role Delineation Study to better reflect the current job tasks of the certified roles. That is, effectively commissioning a new RDS. Your advocacy may meet with success, or not.
CONCLUSION
Everything about professional certification is technical. (And working is this field has turned me into a pedant with a penchant for lengthy, wordy memos!) But certification is a serious commitment and, to preserve its value for everyone, we all gotta sweat the details. Get sweaty!
Any agency not following the mainstream RDS and certification development process discussed above is doing something else (not certification).
And what is that value?
"Certification is confirmation by a reputable third-party, such as NYCB, that the certificant is a competent and ethical professional with a transparent and accountable practice in the formally delineated competencies of the certified role as per eligibility standards set by the credentialing agency.”
I'd love to see us continue this conversation. Share your thoughts or send us an email at iarcp@ccar.us
Comments