How AI Search Is Recommending Alcohol Rehab Centers: Monthly Trends

Executive Summary

Hazelden Betty Ford holds the highest valid recommendation coverage in the category, at 7.1% in August 2026. This is a stable position: the brand's July 2026 coverage was 7.6%, a change of 0.5 points that stayed within the normal range of month-to-month variation for a brand of its size. August 2026 was a quiet month for the category overall — the benchmark classifies all ten tracked brands as stable, with no significant risers or decliners this month.

Within that stable overall picture, Caron Treatment Centers posted the largest point gain, moving from 1.5% to 3.6% valid recommendation coverage, a change driven entirely by growth in top-three recommendations. Recovery Centers of America posted the largest point decline, moving from 3.0% to 0.0% over the same period. Both changes remained inside the benchmark's normal variation range for brands at their observation counts, so neither is treated as a break from baseline.

Because the tracked series currently spans only July and August 2026, the baseline-to-current pattern is the single month-over-month comparison described above: a quiet month with a stable leader and modest redistribution among mid- and lower-tier brands. Several brands lost recommendation coverage, including American Addiction Centers (down 1.8 points), Gateway Foundation and The Recovery Village (each down 1.5 points), and Recovery Centers of America (down 3.0 points), while Hazelden Betty Ford and Ria Health each slipped slightly (down 0.5 and 0.3 points respectively). Banyan Treatment Centers, Footprints to Recovery, and Monument remained at 0.0% coverage in both months. The distance between Caron Treatment Centers and Recovery Centers of America, which traded places in coverage between July and August, widened by 5.1 points across the two-month series.

Each monthly benchmark run begins with 800 prompt-surface observations across the tracked AI/search surfaces (602 unique questions in July 2026; 616 in August 2026). All 800 mentioned a tracked brand or competitor in both months. 159 were relevant and 641 were irrelevant in July 2026; 153 were relevant and 647 were irrelevant in August 2026. The public metrics below use the observations that survive both qualification stages: 66 in July 2026 and 84 in August 2026.

Key Findings

Benchmark Context

The report separates the raw collection universe from the qualified analysis set. Brand-level recommendation percentages are calculated within the qualified benchmark set only.

The qualified observation count is a small fraction of the raw collection universe in both months, and the two figures should not be treated as interchangeable when reading percentages elsewhere in this report.

Benchmark-Level Metrics

The qualified observation count grew by 18 between July and August 2026, giving the current month's percentages a broader base than the prior month. The addition of Copilot as a qualified surface in August 2026 contributed to the increase in surface breadth, from 4 to 5 families.

AI Recommendation Trend

August 2026 was a quiet month: every tracked brand's movement stayed within its normal range of variation.

No brand's month-over-month change exceeded the normal range of variation for its observation count, and the benchmark classifies all ten brands as stable this month. The two largest point changes — Caron Treatment Centers' gain and Recovery Centers of America's decline — moved in opposite directions and widened the gap between the two brands by 5.1 points, without either change breaking from the benchmark's normal variation range.

What Changed This Month

Hazelden Betty Ford

Hazelden Betty Ford's valid recommendation coverage moved from 7.6% in July 2026 to 7.1% in August 2026, a change of 0.5 points that stayed within the brand's normal range of variation. The brand holds the number one position with a lead of 3.5 points over second-place Caron Treatment Centers at 3.6%.

The brand's top-three recommendation rate rose from 6.1% to 7.1% over the same period, while its rank-one rate held nearly flat, moving from 6.1% to 5.9%. Raw mention presence fell from 63.6% to 54.8%, a decline of 8.8 points, though the brand still appears in more than half of all qualified observations.

The distinction to notice: Hazelden Betty Ford remains the most recommended brand by a wide margin, but its presence decline outpaced its recommendation decline. The data does not establish why presence fell while recommendation share held steady.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompt types drove the decline in raw mention presence, and are those prompts shifting toward competitors?

Caron Treatment Centers

Caron Treatment Centers posted the largest point gain this month, with valid recommendation coverage moving from 1.5% in July 2026 to 3.6% in August 2026, a change of 2.1 points that stayed within the benchmark's normal range of variation for a brand at this observation count. The gain came entirely from top-three recommendations, which also moved from 1.5% to 3.6%.

The brand's raw mention presence was essentially flat, at 5.9% in August 2026 versus 6.1% in July 2026, while its valid recommendation count moved from 1 to 3 observations. Its net sentiment score moved from 0.25 to 0.6, the largest positive sentiment change among tracked brands.

The distinction to notice: Caron Treatment Centers' presence held steady while its recommendation credit tripled. The data does not establish what changed in the context of its mentions.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which specific prompts now surface Caron Treatment Centers as a top-three recommendation, and what evidence sources appear alongside it?

Recovery Centers of America

Recovery Centers of America recorded the largest point decline this month, with valid recommendation coverage moving from 3.0% in July 2026 to 0.0% in August 2026, a change of 3.0 points. The brand's rank-one rate also moved from 1.5% to 0.0% over the same period.

Raw mention presence declined from 36.4% to 28.6%, a change of 7.8 points, while the valid recommendation count moved from 2 to 0 observations. The brand remains present in more than a quarter of qualified observations, so it has not disappeared from AI answers.

The distinction to notice: Recovery Centers of America remains visible but currently holds no recommendation credit. Presence without recommendation coverage leaves the brand appearing in answers without capturing a recommendation.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which competitor now appears in the top-three slot for the prompts where Recovery Centers of America previously did?

The Recovery Village

The Recovery Village's valid recommendation coverage moved from 1.5% in July 2026 to 0.0% in August 2026, a change of 1.5 points. Its rank-one rate similarly moved from 1.5% to 0.0%.

The brand's raw mention presence declined from 47.0% to 42.9%, even as its present count moved from 31 to 36 observations within a larger 84-observation base in August 2026.

The distinction to notice: The Recovery Village holds the second-highest raw mention presence, at 42.9%, alongside zero recommendation credit — the widest gap between presence and recommendation among tracked brands this month.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Why does The Recovery Village appear in answers without being recommended, and which competitor occupies the recommendation slot in those cases?

American Addiction Centers

American Addiction Centers' valid recommendation coverage moved from 3.0% in July 2026 to 1.2% in August 2026, a change of 1.8 points. Raw mention presence also moved from 84.9% to 81.0%, though the brand remains the most visible in the category.

The brand's top-three recommendation rate moved from 3.0% to 0.0%, while its valid recommendation count moved from 2 to 1 observations. Net sentiment stayed near zero in both months.

The distinction to notice: American Addiction Centers records the highest raw mention presence, but its recommendation credit remains modest relative to that visibility, a pattern already visible in the July 2026 data as well.

Highest-priority diagnostic: What attributes do AI systems associate with American Addiction Centers that lead to mention without recommendation, and which sources drive those associations?

Gateway Foundation

Gateway Foundation's valid recommendation coverage moved from 1.5% in July 2026 to 0.0% in August 2026, a change of 1.5 points. Raw mention presence moved from 10.6% to 4.8%, a change of 5.8 points.

The brand's valid recommendation count moved from 1 to 0 observations, and its present count moved from 7 to 4 observations within the larger qualified base.

The distinction to notice: Gateway Foundation lost both recommendation credit and a portion of its presence in the same month, leaving it out of the recommendation set entirely.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which surfaces previously surfaced Gateway Foundation, and what changed in the prompts that now omit it?

Buyer-Intent Interpretation

All 84 qualified observations in August 2026 fell into the Brand Recommendation cluster. The category's recommendation landscape is currently shaped entirely by direct brand-seeking queries, with no observations captured for pricing and value or multi-brand comparison.

This means the public benchmark can measure which brands win when a specific center is requested, but it cannot yet answer questions about how AI systems handle cost sensitivity, insurance coverage, or direct head-to-head comparisons. Those commercial questions remain outside the current evidence base and would require a deeper, company-level analysis.

Brand Opportunity Summary

The benchmark identifies where attention is warranted; a company-level analysis is needed to explain why.

Evidence Behind the Benchmark

The aggregate metrics are built from prompt-level observations (query, surface, recommendation outcome, rank, sentiment, and citations where exposed). Company-level analysis can go deeper into prompt, competitor, surface, and evidence patterns. Source presence is not automatically treated as proof of causation.

About This Benchmark

This report is part of the LLM Authority Index AI Market Discovery research program.

• AI Industry Market Discovery Methodology
• AI Industry Market Discovery Metrics
• AI Industry Market Discovery Standards

Report-Specific Interpretation Notes

• Small-count movement: With 84 qualified observations in August 2026, single-observation changes can move coverage rates by roughly 1.2 points. Several brand movements in this report reflect a change of one or two observations and should be read in that context.
• Qualified denominator vs. raw collection: The public metrics use the 84 qualified observations, not the 800 raw prompt-surface observations or the 153 relevant prompts. Brand-level percentages are calculated only within the qualified set.
• Month-over-month movement identifies changes worth investigating. It does not by itself establish the cause of those changes.

Next Step

The Public Benchmark Shows Where a Brand Is Winning or Losing. A Company-Level Audit Shows Why.

Beneath the aggregate percentages sit the questions that decide commercial outcomes: which high-intent prompts a brand wins, which competitor takes the recommendation when a brand loses, what attributes AI systems associate with each option, and which external sources shape those answers. The benchmark surfaces where attention is warranted; only a deeper analysis can explain the mechanism.

A company-specific AI visibility audit maps those prompt, surface, competitor, ranking, sentiment, and evidence-source patterns into a prioritized visibility strategy. It answers the "why" behind the movement and identifies the highest-leverage interventions.

Request an AI visibility audit