Footprints to Recovery AI Visibility Market Strategy Report - Drug Rehab Centers

Answer Capsule

Footprints to Recovery recorded no measurable AI recommendation presence in the October 2026 LLM Authority Index benchmark for Drug Rehab Centers. The brand appeared in 0 of 121 qualified observations, produced 0 valid recommendations, and held a 0.00% raw mention presence rate across six tracked AI platforms. The clearest opportunity is not to defend existing recommendation share but to establish a first valid recommendation footprint in the category's single measured buyer-intent cluster, Brand Recommendation. The benchmark shows the category leader, Hazelden Betty Ford, at 19.8% valid recommendation coverage, which means the gap between Footprints to Recovery and category leadership is the full width of the recommendation layer.

Who This Report Is For

This report is written for Footprints to Recovery's marketing, growth, and executive leadership teams, and for any operator in the drug rehab category evaluating how AI systems currently distribute recommendation-stage visibility across treatment providers.

Report Card

Executive Summary

Footprints to Recovery holds no measurable position in the October 2026 AI recommendation layer for drug rehab centers. Across 121 qualified benchmark observations, the brand recorded 0 mentions, 0 valid recommendations, 0 top-three placements, and 0 rank-one placements. Its raw mention presence rate was 0.00%, and its net sentiment score was 0.0000, reflecting the absence of any classified mention rather than a neutral framing outcome.

This is a different condition from being visible but under-recommended. American Addiction Centers, for example, was mentioned in 67.8% of qualified observations but converted to valid recommendations in only 2.5% of them. The Recovery Village was mentioned in 31.4% of observations and converted to 2.5%. Footprints to Recovery did not appear in the qualified set at all, which means the brand is absent from the prompt surface where AI systems are forming shortlists in this category.

The benchmark's single measured buyer-intent cluster is Brand Recommendation, covering prompts that ask which rehab center to choose. All 121 qualified observations in October 2026 fell into this cluster. No qualified observations were recorded for Pricing & Value or Multi-Brand Comparison in any month of the four-month series, so the public benchmark cannot yet describe how Footprints to Recovery performs on cost, insurance, or head-to-head comparison prompts.

The category leader, Hazelden Betty Ford, held 19.8% valid recommendation coverage in October 2026, up from 7.8% in July 2026. The next-highest brand, Recovery Centers of America, held 3.3%. The gap between the leader and the second brand widened from 5.6 points in July to 16.5 points in October. Footprints to Recovery sits outside this distribution entirely.

The clearest platform-level gap is structural rather than comparative. Because the brand recorded no mentions on any of the six tracked platforms, there is no platform where Footprints to Recovery currently has a recommendation signal to build on. The benchmark's platform-level data shows Gemini, ChatGPT, Copilot, Perplexity, AI Overviews, and AI Mode all producing recommendation placements for other tracked brands in the same qualified set.

The clearest opportunity is to enter the Brand Recommendation cluster with a first valid recommendation footprint. The benchmark identifies where attention is warranted. A company-level analysis is needed to explain why Footprints to Recovery is absent from the qualified set and which prompts, sources, and competitor displacements are driving that absence.

What Footprints to Recovery Is Winning

The October 2026 benchmark does not show evidence-backed wins for Footprints to Recovery in the measured recommendation layer. The brand recorded no mentions, no valid recommendations, no top-three placements, and no rank-one placements across 121 qualified observations.

One factual observation is worth stating plainly: Footprints to Recovery recorded no negative mentions in the qualified set. That is not a positive signal in the usual sense, because the brand also recorded no positive or neutral mentions. The absence of negative framing reflects the absence of any framing at all.

The benchmark does not support a claim that Footprints to Recovery is winning any measured cluster, platform, or prompt type in October 2026. The honest read is that the brand is not yet present in the recommendation layer this benchmark measures.

Where Footprints to Recovery Has the Clearest AI Visibility Gaps

Questions This Section Answers

• Why is Footprints to Recovery's situation different from brands that are mentioned often but rarely recommended?
• Which platforms and buyer-intent clusters show zero Footprints to Recovery presence?
• Does Footprints to Recovery appear among the most-cited domains in this category?

The clearest gap is total absence from the qualified recommendation set. Footprints to Recovery appeared in 0 of 121 qualified observations in October 2026. Every other tracked brand except Footprints to Recovery recorded at least one mention in the qualified set. Banyan Treatment Centers and BrightView each recorded 2 mentions. Phoenix House recorded 3. Caron Treatment Centers recorded 7. The brand's complete absence places it below even the lowest-presence tracked competitors.

The second gap is the absence of any recommendation conversion pathway. American Addiction Centers demonstrates the pattern of high presence with low recommendation conversion: 67.8% raw mention presence against 2.5% valid recommendation coverage. The Recovery Village shows a similar pattern at 31.4% presence against 2.5% coverage. Footprints to Recovery cannot yet be described as visible but under-recommended, because the brand is not visible in the qualified set at all. The gap is upstream of recommendation conversion.

The third gap is platform coverage. The benchmark tracked six AI surface families: ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, Perplexity, AI Overviews, and AI Mode. Footprints to Recovery recorded zero mentions on every one of them. By contrast, Hazelden Betty Ford recorded recommendation placements across all six platforms, with its strongest platform-level recommendation signal on Perplexity at 66.67% valid recommendation coverage within that platform's qualified observations. American Addiction Centers recorded its strongest platform-level presence on AI Mode at 93.18% raw mention presence. Footprints to Recovery has no comparable platform-level signal to report.

The fourth gap is cluster coverage. The benchmark's single measured cluster, Brand Recommendation, covers prompts asking which rehab center to choose. Footprints to Recovery recorded no qualified observations in this cluster. The two additional clusters defined in the benchmark framework, Drug Rehab Center Comparisons and Drug Rehab Center Costs & Insurance, produced no qualified observations in any month of the series, so the brand's performance on comparison and pricing prompts cannot be assessed from this dataset.

The fifth gap is the source layer. The benchmark's top cited domains for October 2026 include americanaddictioncenters.org at 231 citations, therecoveryvillage.com at 134, hazeldenbettyford.org at 102, recoverycentersofamerica.com at 74, and banyantreatmentcenter.com at 49. Footprints to Recovery does not appear among the top 10 cited domains. The benchmark observed 3,802 total citations spanning 1,195 unique domains. Source presence is evidence about the information environment, not automatic proof that a source caused a recommendation, but the absence of the brand's domain from the top cited set is consistent with the absence of the brand from the recommendation set.

Biggest Opportunity

Questions This Section Answers

• What is the realistic first step for getting Footprints to Recovery into AI rehab shortlists?
• Why isn't maximizing mention volume the right first goal for Footprints to Recovery?
• What does the low single-digit recommendation coverage of other brands suggest about what is achievable?

The single biggest opportunity for Footprints to Recovery is to establish a first valid recommendation footprint in the Brand Recommendation cluster, the only buyer-intent cluster the October 2026 benchmark measured. This is not a share-gain opportunity against a specific competitor. It is an entry opportunity into the prompt surface where AI systems are currently forming shortlists without the brand.

The benchmark shows that recommendation coverage in this category is concentrated but not closed. Hazelden Betty Ford holds 19.8% valid recommendation coverage. Recovery Centers of America holds 3.3%. American Addiction Centers and The Recovery Village each hold 2.5%. Caron Treatment Centers holds 1.7%. Gateway Foundation holds 0.8%. Four tracked brands, including Footprints to Recovery, hold 0.0%. The distribution shows that recommendation coverage is achievable at low single-digit levels by brands with modest presence, and that the leader's position is not the only available position.

The benchmark also shows that raw presence and recommendation coverage are separate signals. American Addiction Centers holds the highest raw presence in the category at 67.8% but converts to valid recommendations in only 2.5% of qualified observations. Recovery Centers of America holds the second-highest recommendation coverage at 3.3% despite a raw presence rate of only 9.1%. The pattern suggests that recommendation conversion depends on something other than mention volume alone, which is consistent with the benchmark's framing that source presence is evidence about the information environment rather than proof of causation.

For Footprints to Recovery, the practical implication is that the first step is not to maximize mentions. It is to appear in the qualified observation set at all, on the prompts where AI systems are forming rehab shortlists, and to convert that appearance into a valid recommendation placement. The benchmark identifies where attention is warranted. A company-level analysis is needed to identify which specific prompts, sources, and competitor displacements are driving the brand's absence.

Competitive Landscape

Questions This Section Answers

• How far ahead is Hazelden Betty Ford in top-three and rank-one recommendation rates?
• How does Footprints to Recovery's zero placement compare with brands like Phoenix House that have presence but no top-three rate?
• Which tracked brands hold recommendation coverage at 0.0% alongside Footprints to Recovery?

Hazelden Betty Ford holds dominant recommendation-stage strength in the Drug Rehab Centers category, with a 16.5-point lead over the next brand. Recovery Centers of America is the strongest challenger at 3.3% valid recommendation coverage. Footprints to Recovery sits outside the recommendation distribution entirely, with no top-three placements and no rank-eligible recommendations in the October 2026 qualified set.

Average recommended rank covers rank-eligible recommendations only.

Footprints to Recovery's position in the table reflects the absence of any recommendation placement in the October 2026 qualified set. The brand's 0.00% top-three rate and 0.00% rank-one rate are not the result of losing placements to competitors in head-to-head comparisons. They reflect the brand not appearing in the qualified observations at all. Phoenix House, which also holds a 0.00% top-three rate, recorded 3 positive mentions and a net sentiment score of 1.00, indicating the brand is present in the information environment even without recommendation placement. Footprints to Recovery recorded no mentions of any classification.

Prompt Evidence

The benchmark's qualified observation set for October 2026 does not include prompt-level results for Footprints to Recovery, because the brand recorded no mentions in the qualified set. The prompt examples below are drawn from the benchmark's cluster prompt examples and illustrate the types of prompts where other tracked brands are being recommended and where Footprints to Recovery is currently absent.

ChatGPT / Brand Recommendation Prompt: "What is the most successful rehab in the US?" Result: Hazelden Betty Ford recorded a rank-one placement on ChatGPT at 21.43% rank-one rate within that platform's qualified observations. Footprints to Recovery recorded no mention.

Perplexity / Brand Recommendation Prompt: "What rehab centers do celebrities go to?" Result: Hazelden Betty Ford recorded 66.67% valid recommendation coverage on Perplexity within that platform's qualified observations. Footprints to Recovery recorded no mention.

AI Mode / Brand Recommendation Prompt: "Which state has the best rehab facilities?" Result: American Addiction Centers recorded 93.18% raw mention presence on AI Mode within that platform's qualified observations, with 4.55% valid recommendation coverage. Footprints to Recovery recorded no mention.

AI Overviews / Brand Recommendation Prompt: "How much does a drug rehab program cost?" Result: The Recovery Village recorded a rank-one placement on AI Overviews at 5.00% rank-one rate within that platform's qualified observations. Footprints to Recovery recorded no mention.

What CiteWorks Studio Would Do Next

Questions This Section Answers

• What does the AI Market Discovery Audit cover for Footprints to Recovery?
• How would the owned content and citation layer phases move the brand from zero mentions to a valid recommendation?

Phase 1: AI Market Discovery Audit Map the specific prompts, platforms, and competitor displacements where Footprints to Recovery is absent from the qualified recommendation set, using the benchmark's Brand Recommendation cluster as the starting scope.

Phase 2: Recommendation Readiness Plan Identify which prompt types, page types, and source types are most likely to move the brand from zero mentions to first valid recommendation placements, prioritized by the benchmark's measured cluster.

Phase 3: Owned Answer Layer Buildout Develop owned content and structured answer assets that address the specific rehab selection questions where AI systems are currently forming shortlists without Footprints to Recovery.

Phase 4: Citation / Authority Layer Development Build the public evidence layer that AI systems can retrieve and synthesize, including third-party directories, comparison pages, and source pages that appear in the benchmark's cited domain set.

Phase 5: Monthly AI Visibility and Recommendation Tracking Track mention presence, valid recommendation coverage, top-three rate, rank-one rate, and sentiment by platform and cluster on a monthly cadence, using the same qualified observation methodology as the benchmark.

Why This Matters

Questions This Section Answers

• Why doesn't raw mention presence translate into shortlist placement in this category?
• What is the practical next move when a brand has no mention layer to convert at all?

AI presence alone is not enough. The benchmark shows that American Addiction Centers is mentioned in more than two-thirds of qualified observations but converts to valid recommendations in only 2.5% of them. The Recovery Village is mentioned in nearly a third of qualified observations and converts at the same 2.5% rate. Presence without recommendation conversion does not produce shortlist placement.

For Footprints to Recovery, the condition is upstream of that pattern. The brand is not present in the qualified observation set at all, which means there is no mention layer to convert. The next move is not to increase mention volume in isolation. It is to enter the prompt surface where AI systems are forming rehab shortlists, establish a first valid recommendation footprint, and then build the citation and source layer that supports continued recommendation placement. The benchmark identifies where attention is warranted. The prompt, page, and citation layers are where the correction happens.

Core Metrics

Sentiment Score

Sentiment Score = (positive mentions × 1 + neutral mentions × 0 + negative mentions × -1) / total mentions

For Footprints to Recovery in October 2026, the calculation is (0 × 1 + 0 × 0 + 0 × -1) / 0. The result is undefined because the brand recorded no mentions in the qualified set. The reported value of 0.0000 reflects the absence of classified mentions, not a neutral framing outcome.

This distinction matters because unclassified mention counts are misleading. A brand with zero mentions and a brand with equal positive and negative mentions can both produce a sentiment score near zero, but the two conditions are not equivalent. Share of voice is a diagnostic metric, not a business KPI. A positive recommendation, a neutral reference, a cautionary mention, and a competitor-displaced mention are not equal in commercial terms, and counting all mentions as wins is bad measurement. Classified sentiment is required before interpreting AI visibility, and for Footprints to Recovery, there is no classified sentiment to interpret in the October 2026 qualified set.

Sentiment by Platform

Methodology

1. Report orientation: This is a benchmark-based AI Visibility Company Market Strategy Report for Footprints to Recovery, derived from the LLM Authority Index AI Market Discovery Index for Drug Rehab Centers. It is not a client implementation case study and does not imply that CiteWorks Studio caused any benchmark outcome.
2. Reporting window: October 2026, with comparative reference to the July 2026 baseline and the August and September 2026 interim months where the source data provides them.
3. Platforms tracked: Six AI surface families were tracked: ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, Perplexity, AI Overviews, and AI Mode. All six produced at least one qualified observation in the October 2026 benchmark.
4. Observation count: The October 2026 collection began with 648 source prompt-surface observations and 501 unique questions. After qualification, 121 observations formed the public denominator for percentage metrics.
5. Competitor universe: Ten brands were tracked, including Footprints to Recovery. The other nine are American Addiction Centers, Banyan Treatment Centers, BrightView, Caron Treatment Centers, Gateway Foundation, Hazelden Betty Ford, Phoenix House, Recovery Centers of America, and The Recovery Village.
6. Public clusters used: The benchmark measured one buyer-intent cluster in October 2026, Brand Recommendation, covering prompts that ask which rehab center to choose. Two additional clusters, Drug Rehab Center Comparisons and Drug Rehab Center Costs & Insurance, are defined in the benchmark framework but produced no qualified observations in any month of the four-month series.
7. Stage 0 role: Stage 0 extraction retained the query, AI surface, answer, brand outcome, recommendation placement, sentiment, and, where exposed, citations or attributable evidence sources for each prompt-level observation. Source presence is evidence about the information environment and is not automatically proof that a source caused a recommendation.
8. Definition of a mention: A mention is a qualified observation in which the brand appears in the AI response, regardless of recommendation status. Raw mention presence rate is the share of qualified observations where the brand is mentioned.
9. Definition of a valid recommendation: A valid recommendation is a qualified observation in which the brand appears in a valid recommendation shortlist. Valid recommendation coverage is the share of qualified observations where the brand appears in a valid recommendation shortlist. Negative, neutral, cautionary, comparison-anchor, and listed-only mentions are not counted as valid recommendations unless the dataset explicitly marks them as such.
10. Ranking interpretation: Top-three rate is the share of qualified observations where the brand is recommended in the top three positions. Rank-one rate is the share of qualified observations where the brand is the first recommendation. Average recommended rank covers rank-eligible recommendations only and is reported as N/A when a brand has no rank-eligible recommendations.
11. Dataset normalization: Brand names are normalized to their canonical forms. Platform names appear only where the source data includes them. The benchmark's qualified denominator of 121 observations is used for all brand-level percentages, not the raw collection of 648 prompts.
12. Limitations: The benchmark does not measure market share or sales attribution, every possible AI response across all model versions and surfaces, organic-search ranking positions, social media mention volume, private or sponsored channels such as brand-managed AI experiences, or causality from metric movement alone. Several tracked brands have valid recommendation counts between 1 and 4, and those movements are directional signals rather than robust trends. The public benchmark measures Brand Recommendation discovery only and cannot yet answer commercial questions about price positioning, value perception, or head-to-head comparison outcomes.

See How AI Is Recommending Your Brand

The public benchmark shows where Footprints to Recovery stands in the category-level recommendation layer. A company-level AI visibility audit maps the specific prompts, platforms, competitors, ranking patterns, sentiment, and evidence sources behind that position into a prioritized visibility strategy. It moves from the category-level signal to the brand-level explanation.