Virginia’s legislatively mandated recovery housing workgroup held its first two subgroup meetings virtually last week.
Each was set to tackle a different set of recommendations related to improving oversight, transparency and resident rights in recovery housing, as delineated in Senate Bill 838, sponsored by state Sen. Schuyler VanValkenburg (D-Henrico).
The back-to-back meetings included stakeholder presentations from Paul Stevens (Oxford House), Michael Feinmel (Henrico County) and Terri Todd (National Sober Living Association), followed by open discussion.
This update features highlights from those discussions, organized by objective.
To access materials from both subgroup meetings, follow the links below:
Objective: Develop ‘a uniform set of certification criteria for all recovery residences’
Paul Stevens, senior advisor for state policy and public affairs with Oxford House, expressed concern about applying uniform criteria to all recovery residences, as there are fundamental differences among their models.
Unlike most, if not all, non-Oxford recovery residences in Virginia, homes formed under Oxford House charters are financially self-supporting, democratically peer-run and non-commercial. “There’s no revenue being extracted to compensate staff or operators or a certifying organization even,” Stevens explained.
“The majority of the certified recovery residences in Virginia are Oxford Houses,” he pointed out. “And when you look at what we’re doing here (with the workgroup), the entire project is being viewed through the lens — is the language of — commercial, staffed, business recovery residences,” such as those accredited by the Virginia Association of Recovery Residences (VARR).
Pointing to research that supports the Oxford House model’s effectiveness, Stevens cautioned the group against assuming that more is better when it comes to supervision and structure.
“I’m not saying there’s not a place for staffed recovery residences,” he said. “But if you’re going to make policy here, you need to remember that your inclination to think that (staff is) necessary completely flies in the face of the sound research and evidence that says that the highest — astronomically high — success rates are the houses that don’t have staff and self-govern themselves and nobody’s making money off of them. And there’s no one in a position of authority to abuse their authority.”
“When we sit here and talk about standard, I hope you understand why my suggestion is don’t mess with it,” he said at another point in the meeting. “Because if you put regulation on top of a self-governing model, you are going to water down its ability to be self-governing, and you are going to compromise the outcomes, because Virginians need recovery residences.”
Chrissy Chow, board member for the Virginia Association of Addiction Professionals, suggested establishing a basic standard of living that can apply to all recovery residences, regardless of which model they follow.
“We’re talking about zoning laws,” she said. “We’re talking about housekeeping. Is your house infested with bugs? Do your clients or the people who live there have food?”
She elaborated:
I talked to a gentleman who — his son lived in one of the certified houses — and he would have to bring food and buy food for the whole house because nobody had money for food. You know, this is just basic necessities and basic needs of humans, right? And I think that that’s what we’re talking about. You know, we’re talking about having Narcan. We’re talking about training for house members for exploitation, you know, or anything like that. I don’t know what the law is on, like, four people living in an unfinished basement, but I don’t think that that seems cool, but we should probably look into that. You know, so it’s basic level of care and basic standard of care for all humans for dignity purposes. And, you know, if our physiological needs aren’t being met, it’s like the hierarchy of needs. If our safety and our physiological needs aren’t being met, how can we even pretend to have the goal of long-term sobriety or recovery? It’s not real. …
“Is there really anything fundamentally wrong with the expectations of the Oxford House model or the NARR standards?” Stevens asked, as the discussion continued.
(The National Alliance for Recovery Residences, or NARR, is VARR’s parent organization. As is the case with all NARR affiliates, VARR accredits recovery homes according to the NARR standard.)
The standards are “pretty robust and detailed,” Stevens said, “and they talk about the kind of things that I’ve heard people complaining about here. So is the problem really the expectations of the model, or the standards? Or is it a failure for them to be enforced? Which is a whole different conversation than what the expectations or standards are. It’s about whether credentialing entities are doing their job or not.”
Nicole Riley, representing Treatment and Recovery Allies [Correction below], added: “I think there’s a good chance that we’ll probably find that (the current credentialing) standards are already sufficient and adequate. It does come probably more to the question of how do we have some type of accountability, better accountability, a better grievance process…”
“I don’t really see this as a need to reinvent the wheel,” said Benjamin Carr, director of recovery services for CARITAS and a former VARR board member. “We’re looking more at an opportunity here for, I guess, supervision and enforcement, as Paul put it. The models themselves are kind of already in place and don’t really necessarily need to be changed. … And I think over-regulating actually detracts from the ability to serve …”
He added: “I’m a person in recovery too. I have been in recovery housing. I’ve lived in an Oxford House before. There’s benefit in all of the different models. And people recover differently. And if you detract from that, you’re actually being of disservice to the people that we’re trying to help.”
VanValkenburg and other subgroup members acknowledged the concerns and advised against deconstructing either credentialing entity’s model.
VanValkenburg also said it would be “fruitful” to explore having more than just VARR and Oxford House as credentialing entities in Virginia.
Under current regulation, the pathway to state certification requires operators to be credentialed by either Oxford House or VARR.
That means anyone wishing to operate a certified recovery house that doesn’t fit squarely into the nonprofit, democratic, peer-run structure of Oxford House must go through VARR.
Some Virginia operators, such as Martin Hawes, want alternative options.
In the second subgroup meeting, Terri Todd presented on behalf of the National Sober Living Association (NSLA) — a potential third credentialing entity for Virginia.
NSLA is similar to VARR in that it inspects homes annually and requires operators to agree to a minimum set of standards. Most NSLA-certified homes are 12-step based or faith-based, said Todd, who is an NSLA board member. What sets the organization apart is that it has not taken public funding, she said, describing the organization as more “grassroots.”
“I think we can have a variety of credentialing,” VanValkenburg said. “The second piece of this is kind of like, OK, well, what is that kind of thin layer of thing that we want DBHDS (the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services) to do? Or some other entity to do? … There might be this basic core thing that we can do to put guardrails around (the credentialing), that’s not infringing on anybody’s model but is making sure Virginia’s safer.”
Objective: Develop ‘protocols to ensure resident and patient choice in receiving treatment and that the recovery residence operator, the house manager, or anyone in leadership with the recovery residence is not determining the treatment received’
As reported throughout this series, several of Metro Richmond’s for-profit VARR operators have been forcing residents into outpatient treatment programs from which the operators allegedly benefit.
Residents caught in this system have been denied autonomy and choice — a basic human right in healthcare — as they’ve been funneled to intensive outpatient programs (IOPs) and partial hospitalization programs (PHPs) they often describe as unhelpful at best.
“I know we’re in this mess because allegedly there is operators that are mandating people to IOP and PHP,” said Honesty Liller, CEO of The McShin Foundation. “Fine.”
But she cautioned against extending the patient choice principle to non-clinical recovery programming, noting that recovery and treatment are two distinct categories.
For recovery, “participant choice also needs to be togetherness,” she said. “And, like, how can we help that human being that walks through our doors without mandating them to anything, obviously, but also just keep in mind, (with) great programs that are doing good work, you can’t just have an individual walk in and say, ‘Well, I don’t want to do any of that. I just want to, you know, sit and play video games’ or whatever, for example. So we really need to be careful when writing these (recommendations), for sure.”
Consistent with the bill’s text, Feinmel told me the intent was not to influence non-clinical recovery programming but to protect residents’ rights to make their own decisions about clinical treatment services.
Objective: Develop ‘protocols for termination of residency’
The group first discussed terminating residency in the context of a resident’s relapse.
“Particularly in a non-clinical setting, relapse is a risk to all members,” Stevens said. Homes formed under Oxford House charters are required to immediately remove any resident who returns to substance use. But in the event of a relapse, the house follows the resident’s pre-established contingency plan, which could include a referral to detox or making contact with family members, he said. “They do not just kick them to the curb.”
Later, Stevens added: “I would very firmly stand by the protocols that Oxford House has for the termination of residency.”
Stevens and Todd also pointed out that the Fair Housing Act — which requires localities to grant recovery residences “reasonable accommodations” with respect to zoning — doesn’t apply if the residents are in active addiction. “The protected class is people in recovery, in remission,” Stevens said.
McShin, on the other hand, doesn’t always discharge residents who relapse. Liller said the organization uses recovery assessment plans and sometimes relocates the resident to a different house. “Individuals sometimes that are exited improperly overdose and die,” she said.
Feinmel concurred. “If you say, ‘OK, we’re going to extract people that are relapsing from our houses,’ that’s when folks are most vulnerable. And what we see is crises coming up and overdoses coming up and deaths coming out of people being ejected from houses without there being a long-term plan,” he said, while also acknowledging the complexity of the issue.
Feinmel then pointed to other types of improper evictions:
Equally, I have a concern about residents that are being preyed upon, either financially or sexually or by some other form of intimidation. And we know right now that there’s no guardrails on kicking anybody out of a house. … In terms of how an operator operates and decisions that can be made, there aren’t really guardrails along that road. And certainly if somebody is dangerous to the other residents or the staff of the house, if it’s a managed house, there has to be an immediate ability of the operator to kick somebody out, to make them leave. But there also has to be some oversight to that. And there has to be the ability to learn what the whole story is and to evaluate that decision to make sure that the resident was treated fairly.
Riley reminded the group that certified recovery housing is exempt from Virginia landlord and tenant laws (per Del. Carrie Coyner’s 2022 legislation). “I think we just want to make sure that we don’t backtrack on that,” she said, “but where we can (make sure) that we have good reasonable protocols.”
Dr. Colin Greene, a special advisor on opioid response for the Virginia Office of the Secretary of Health and Human Resources, advised the group to “watch out for unintended consequences” as they develop recommendations. “Don’t make a regulation that’s not consistent with the way an existing organization functions,” he said. Regarding evictions, “You can just say the organization will have a protocol for a termination of residency. And that will take care of the ejection for no reason that we heard one or two people talk about. But don’t tell them how to do it. Just say you have to have a protocol…”
The NARR standard is silent on the topic of resident evictions. But the VARR code of ethics — which mirrors the NARR code of ethics — requires operators to “provide consistent and uniformly applied rules,” “provide for the health, safety and welfare of each resident,” “address each resident fairly in all situations,” and “provide an environment in which each resident’s recovery needs are the primary factors in all decision making.”
According to dozens of former residents of Richmond area recovery homes, that hasn’t stopped operators from evicting residents without notice for any number of reasons unrelated to the safety and wellbeing of the house.
Last year at Lotus Recovery, a then-VARR-certified and VARR-funded house, former residents say they were thrown into the street for talking about the romantic relationship they observed between the operator and one of his residents.
Former residents of various organizations have also reported being evicted or threatened with eviction for the following reasons:
- Not attending outpatient therapy with the operator’s business partner;
- Speaking negatively about the operator;
- Challenging the operator in front of others;
- Disobeying the operator’s orders to not communicate with a friend or family member;
- Dating someone the operator didn’t approve of;
- Making a Facebook post that reflected negatively on an agency that funded the operator; or
- Having a “negative attitude.”
Some certified operators require residents to sign contracts that say they can be evicted at any time, for any reason.
From a True Recovery policy, signed by a resident last year:
A former Journey House resident provided an agreement she signed in late 2020 that contained identical language:
In January, Gordon Atkeison had been at Journey House for roughly a month when he got sick with COVID.
After voicing concerns about the organization, Atkeison felt he was being targeted by his house manager, who was the brother of a Journey House employee.
Shortly after Atkeison got sick, he had the following exchange with his house manager (January 2025):
Two days later, on a Monday morning, Atkeison received the following message from Journey House staff:
“This is bizarre,” Atkeison said in a text after sending me the screenshots. “I’ve been in bed sick for 2 days, passed all drug tests and followed all rules.”
Three minutes before Atkeison was supposed to be off the property, Journey House staff sent him a list of phone numbers to other recovery houses.
Atkeison said he never received a response to that question. “I was in a state of panic and slept in an abandoned car for a night,” he told me.
A few days later, after his situation stabilized, he sent the following text in the same group thread.
Despite following up, Atkeison said he never got an explanation for his eviction.
Journey House owner Michael Tillem, who was on the above text message thread, didn’t respond to a request for comment.
***
Under the current system, complaints and grievances are investigated and managed by the credentialing entities: VARR and Oxford House. Language in SB838 seeks to change that.
Objective: Develop ‘a process for investigation of complaints involving or against recovery residences to be conducted by (DBHDS) or (DBHDS) in coordination with the locality where the recovery residence is located and not the credentialing entity’
“I very firmly stand by the grievance process and investigation process that happens with chapters’ state association and the field staff of Oxford House as the credentialing entity,” Stevens said. “I’m not aware that there’s an issue there that is driving the desire to recast this. I don’t know if there has been a sense on the VARR side.”
He continued:
I’m just going to say something that’s not going to make me any friends. … Has it ever occurred to anyone that maybe part of the challenge there is the concept of the independence of the credentialing entity? Because, historically, VARR has been staffed, operated, and their board consists of the very same operators that they are supposed to be investigating and policing. And if they haven’t — and I’m not saying I’m aware of them having failed to do an adequate job of investigation — but if they haven’t, maybe we should look at who it is that’s running VARR. I mean, I am aware of the fact that the new executive director is not an operator. I think that’s fantastic. Bob, I know he’s here. … But, you know, if there’s been a failure of investigation such that you want to try to create what would be probably pretty significant, onerous, you know, require funding, require staffing on the part of DBHDS to suddenly, you know, have people that can go out into the field and do that, or even local governments. You know, maybe there’s a way to just make the credentialing entity have less of a conflict of interest in investigations like that.
(Historically, recovery residence operators have dominated the collective makeup of VARR leadership, but that is lessening. The eight-member board now includes four individuals with no known ties to recovery housing organizations. Similarly, Interim Executive Director Bob de Triquet has no known financial interests in a recovery housing entity.)
“(Stevens asked), ‘Is there really an issue there with the process with investigations?’” Feinmel said later in the discussion. “And the answer is emphatically, yes. It’s a thousand percent yes.”
As Henrico County’s former lead drug crime prosecutor and current deputy county manager for public safety, Feinmel pointed to issues with recovery homes that have come to his attention over the past decade — a high number of overdoses at a particular house, medication sharing between residents, and sexual assaults against residents by house managers and operators.
“I had an operator lie to a judge in court about drug testing a resident to the point where that judge said, ‘I’m not taking anybody from recovery residences anymore,’” Feinmel said. “And I had to talk him down off the ledge on that and say, ‘Exclude this particular recovery residence, but don’t exclude all recovery residences…’”
“These are things that the operators, as constructed, don’t have the ability nor the bandwidth to conduct these investigations,” he continued, referring to operators that have occupied VARR leadership roles. “And ethically, it’s not really proper for them to be investigating themselves or their competitors. But more so, it requires special training to be able to investigate. You’ve got to know what questions to ask. You’ve got to know how to look into what you’re trying to look into.
“What we (in Henrico County) did, was delegate this to folks that did not have the ability to conduct these investigations,” Feinmel said, referring to VARR officials. “And quite frankly, the end result was a loss of credibility from at least the people professionally I interacted with — the judges and the lawyers in my scope, but the community at large.”
He also pointed out that former residents interviewed for this series “did not trust the process because they didn’t trust that there was going to be a fair investigation into (their complaints).”
“I don’t think it is isolated or focused on leadership of a particular organization,” Feinmel added. “I think it’s a structural defect that needs to be addressed differently. There needs to be a neutral investigator who’s got some skill sets there to be able to look into problems and make credible findings and then pass that on to someone else who ultimately decides — as Senator VanValkenburg was talking about — what the sanctions are for that.”
Liller said she sees the need for oversight and supports having a grievance policy. “People are being harmed, allegedly,” she said. “But I truly believe they’re being harmed in this state. So I think there needs to be a process where it’s not too rigorous but also be a voice for the humans of Virginia that are trying to seek recovery.”
“The core issue is that we have these credentialing agencies putting a rubber stamp on them,” Chow said, “and then DBHDS being like, ‘Oh, OK, you signed off on yourself. Great, let’s go.’ And then DBHDS doesn’t have the tools and resources they need to follow back behind. And so when somebody dies in one of these homes — which absolutely happens, and it’s not just a VARR thing, it’s not just an Oxford thing, it’s an all recovery house thing — there’s no investigation that is uniform. Or, you know, when something nefarious happens, there’s no investigation that’s uniform. So my question is, we’re sitting here and we’re talking about Oxford (House) and VARR. Is there a way, or are we even open to those (two organizations) not being the ways? Those not being the rubber stamps? DBHDS being the certifying entity. DBHDS being the rubber stamp. And not allowing Oxford (House) and VARR to credential and certify themselves…”
With limited time for discussion, there was no direct response to Chow’s question.
Objective: Develop ‘training and standards that recovery residence operators and house managers shall meet before becoming a certified recovery residence operator or a certified recovery house manager, including a verified period of participation in recovery’
“I get, like, not hiring people three, six months in recovery,” Liller said. “(But) it’s going to be very difficult to get house leaders that have a year or more in recovery. If that’s where we’re going to cap it at, I don’t even know. … Normally people with a year or more (in) recovery … being a house leader ain’t their jam. You know, they have their own full-time job, they’re out there living life.”
She added: “I know why we’re here, and I respect that, and I understand that, but also, as someone that’s been doing this for a very long time, I hope you hear me on all of this.”
VanValkenburg suggested tabling this objective and the residents’ bill of rights until later in the summer.
Objective: Develop ‘protocols for (DBHDS) to define qualifications for indigent bed fees and payment and reimbursement to recovery residences for indigent bed fees’
Two workgroup members commented on this objective:
Stevens: “I just want to make sure everybody is aware of the fact that, despite being the majority of the recovery beds in Virginia, despite the robust evidence for these extraordinary success rates, the people moving into Oxford Houses have been denied those millions and millions of dollars in indigent bed fees. Those were given exclusively to VARR-certified houses. I do not understand why, and I hope we will correct that. Because it has been a disservice to a great deal of Virginians who have moved into successful Oxford Houses.”
Carr said he believes that any operator who meets a credentialing standard should be eligible to receive indigent bed money.
***
VanValkenburg asked everyone to come to the next meeting with a list of specific items they want to see included in the workgroup’s recommendations for the General Assembly, which are due on Nov. 1.
The subgroups will meet again virtually during the second week of July.
Subgroup 1: July 9, 2:30 to 4 p.m.
Subgroup 2: July 10, 10 to 11:30 a.m.
Public access information will be posted on the Commonwealth Calendar at the links above.
Correction
The original version of this article incorrectly identified Nicole Riley as a representative of VARR, based on a list of SB838 workgroup members provided by the Office of the Secretary of Health and Human Resources. Riley actually represents Treatment and Recovery Allies (TARA), the same group she represented before the General Assembly this past session. The only confirmed member of TARA is Stephanie Bellanger, co-owner and operator of Starfish Recovery & Wellness, which is also VARR-accredited. Return to article.
Scroll below to view investigative stories in The Parham Papers series, or visit the homepage to explore all articles, including legislative updates.
I think this is a step in the right direction. Am I right.
I apologize for the word wall in advance. I have lots of thoughts on this and want to be clear. Some of you reading this may get angry at me. That is OK. Differences in opinions provide an opportunity for collaboration and, in the long run, lead to better solutions to issues.
I will say this here at the beginning of this – I’m a strong supporter of the work Christa does. I’ve made it very plain to her that I WANT her to call me out if she sees something wrong on my end. I WANT to be held accountable. She has, in fact has full permission from me to check anything in my organization. Site inspections, reviewing our procedures, and interviewing residents without interference – it’s all on the table for her. I try to be transparent in my company. Accountability is the number one thing in recovery. I want to be held accountable.
—————————
As an operator of many recovery homes, when it comes to residents being forced to leave against their will, I want to highlight something that often happens to operators that seems to get left out of the discussion:
We are often misled by many of the residents.
Not every time. Not all the time. It is a lot, though. We reach the point (and I’m ashamed to admit it) that we are not trusting of people due to so much lying. I know why they lie. The reasons are many. It may be a survival tactic, a mental health issue, or trauma. In some cases, one is dealing with someone who is a psychopath, a sociopath, or a narcissist. With the group of people we deal with daily, the frequency of encountering this behavior is far higher than normally expected.
In the last two weeks, I’ve had to remove five people. Due to HIPAA, I can’t and won’t say who. I can tell the reasons were many. The reasons were: refusing to follow rules, not paying bed fees, refusing to stop using, trying to circumvent U/A screening, and theft. I do want to say one thing: we do have cameras all over the house. They are in all the common and outside areas. Those cameras are a godsend. We use them to review situations and to determine what REALLY happened. It isn’t just trusting the resident’s word. It is also partnering with the cameras to get a clear picture, as well as working with my house managers. Before you ask: my residents LIKE the cameras. I’ve had MANY times where a resident will ask can a camera could be reviewed to clarify something. They have been very helpful.
As a side note: Have I had to remove house managers? Yes. More than once. Both male and female. Each time, the cameras were used when gathering evidence.
I want to make this clear: Having to remove someone is the worst part of what I do. I do NOT take it lightly. We follow a protocol when we do this. I’ve been working on improving that protocol. It is extremely difficult to cover every nuance that may happen. For example, what happens when you have someone whose behavior goes sideways? I had one situation where the person in reality was off their medications. I can’t go into the reasons why that happened; however, once we figured it out, we got the medication issue corrected, and they were able to function without the mental hindrances. This is one of MANY situations that can happen, where some operators remove the individual instead of trying to figure out the real issue.
I have a phrase when it comes to being in recovery – Trust capital. It means the resident has built trust with the operator. This takes time. Hard to build, EASY to destroy. When a new resident comes to the house and we don’t know them, we have no way to say for sure if they are being truthful with us or not. When we background check people beforehand, we have to check all sorts of resources to verify things. Are they who they say they are? Are they a sex offender? Did they commit some sort of crime that we consider a barrier crime? (Rape, major robbery, murder.) Where did they come from? Are they even giving you their real name? (That happens more than you think.) I could go on and on here on this point.
Just trying to find out if they came from another program and why they left that program – don’t get me started on that one. That is a nightmare to deal with at times. I will have other operators try to push onto me people they are kicking out, and they WON’T TELL ME WHY THEY KICKED THEM OUT. I only found out after the fact. I then have to deal with the fallout from that. For example, I was sent someone whom I only found out later had been kicked out of every house they had been in for stealing. They come to one of my houses and continue stealing. How do you think this goes over with the other people in the house? I’m asked all the time: Why don’t I screen for this? Well, I try, but if I’m not told, I can’t get the information. You can’t get blood from a turnip.
In reading about the situation between Atkeison and the house manager, this is my take on it with ONLY THE INFORMATION GIVEN. I would have liked to have seen information from the house manager’s point of view as well as from other residents of the house. Cameras would have helped as well.
1. What was the behavior of Atkeison before they got COVID? This is, by far, the most critical piece of information missing from this situation.
2. ONLY using text to communicate with Atkeison while Atkeison is in the house is a bit unprofessional. The house manager should have also gone to Atkeison personally and told him. Yes, it IS his job to chase Atkeison down to get the U/A test done. It is also Atkeison’s responsibility to go to the house manager. It isn’t hard at all, considering the house manager is physically present in the same house as Atkeison. This is an example of poor communication between the two of them.
3. The center should have understood Atkeison is sick with COVID, and specific protocols should have been followed. What are those protocols? Do they even have protocols?
4. People sick with COVID can have a range of symptoms and degrees of illness. This can range from you can get up and function somewhat to bedridden to death. I see NOTHING that indicates what actual condition Atkeison was in other than what he says. Again, we, as operators, are often misled. In judging this situation fairly, Atkeison should have gone to a doctor.
5. At some point, Atkeison had to go to the bathroom. Judging by the fact that he could communicate via text, he could go to the toilet unassisted. If there had been better communication between the house manager and Atkeison, the U/A screen could have been done then.
6. If Atkeison is reporting that the house meeting was not held and the house manager says it was, then that is a problem that needs to be investigated. I’ve had times when a house manager says they hold a meeting, but it wasn’t a real house meeting. This developed into a situation where the house manager required additional training on how to conduct effective house meetings.
7. The house manager admits he went around to people while Atkeison was asleep and called it a house meeting. That is NOT a house meeting. Not even close.
8. Was another resident watching Atkeison take a U/A screen? This should not be allowed.
9. Why didn’t Journey House investigate this issue between the house manager and Atkeison? There are many failures here, from the lack of investigation on Journey House management’s part to poor communication on the part of the house manager and Atkeison’s failure to seek medical attention for his COVID issue.
10, The reason Atkeison was removed from the house was a bit bizarre. He didn’t take a U/A due to illness and was thus removed. (As presented by the house manager in the text message) I strongly feel there is much more to this than the information I have been provided. If I were investigating Journey House’s procedures for removing residents, I’d like to interview other residents. Review cameras (if they are even available), review records, and so forth.
——-
As part of the SB838 committee, this specific issue of eviction needs to be addressed. It is much more difficult than most people think. If there a former resident files a complaint, what needs to happen? How often do you think a former resident will complain with personal bias to others when they get evicted CORRECTLY? It happens far more often than you think. I’m just one operator with a few houses. There are hundreds of homes in Virginia. Most likely several thousand. A LOT of manpower would need to be available to handle all the investigations that will occur when people start reporting an eviction that, in their mind, was unfair, yet was actually fair. Would we turn this investigation issue over to local law enforcement? How would one address rural areas of the state in terms of investigations? Have VARR do it? (No way in hell would I agree to let VARR investigate me. They have a history of not being trusted at all. The above article with quotes from other committee members alone shows it.)
The eviction issue is a complex problem, and the solution will not be straightforward. I’m sure there will be people who will not be happy with what the SB838 committee comes up with. We do NOT want to be heavy-handed in the solution, for there are many different successful recovery house models that work. We want the correct solution that works for everyone and is fair.
Hi Martin,
Thanks for sharing your perspective on the eviction piece.
Regarding the Journey House situation, there are another three days’ worth of text messages that go into the minutiae of the COVID situation at the house where Atkeison lived. They also show more of the communication dynamics between the owner, staff and residents. You can view those messages here.
I didn’t include them in the story because they weren’t especially relevant to the abrupt eviction that took place a few days later — seemingly without an explanation from staff or assistance finding alternative housing.
You make good points about the complexity of the issue and there being pieces of information we don’t have access to. But whether or not the decision to remove a resident is considered fair — and absent immediate threats to health and safety of the house — should operators have unlimited discretion to remove residents without notice? In cases of immediate evictions, should they bear some responsibility for finding the resident another place to stay? Those are the questions I hoped to generate by highlighting the eviction at Journey House.
Reading the additional texts Christa posted in the comments and thinking about how Gordon was being silenced before he was disposed of. The texts from the owner of the Journey House are emotionally abusive and covert silencing. Instead of acknowledging the resident’s concerns, he denies his experience: “Nobody is powerful enough to cause feelings unless the individual allows it.” This is classic gaslighting: implying his distress is self-inflicted.
The resident said he felt “shamed,” so that’s how he felt. Period. He owns his feelings. We all own our own feelings and experiences. Then he follows it with a list of recovery platitudes: “get a sponsor,” “don’t use,” “be nice.” Weaponizing recovery language to silence valid concerns. Gaslighting wrapped in recovery language is still gaslighting.
I read the extra text messages. My thoughts:
1. Why were mask not issued?
2. Were mask even available in the house for others to use?
3. Why were COVID test done for the entire house when first reported? That is STANDARD PROCEDURE for any house I operate.
4. Michael Tillem’s dismissive responses saying he can’t control sickness is complete BS. YES YOU CAN CONTROL IT, MICHAEL. Any medical professional with basic medical training will tell you this. There are mask, disinfectant protocols, and quarantine measure you can EASILY do. Here is a link you can use that explains the basics: https://gprivate.com/6hihr
5. People could have been moved around in the house to quarantine who was sick.
6. Michael claims nobody shamed him. Was Michael in the house? No. This stuff happened IN THE HOUSE. It seems to me the house manager shamed him. Then lied to the center about what he said. Again – CAMERAS would have made a difference here. From reading all the text, the resident was not being treated fairly.
7. I will bet my hat Journey House doesn’t even have any contagious disease protocols. I’m putting this out there for anyone who has been to Journey House: Have you ever seen any contagious disease protocols in writing? If yes, could you post them? Thanks in advance.
Any updates from those meetings? Rich Prado804.852.8468
Thank you for your indepth reporting