The SB838 workgroup is still deliberating on recommendations — due to the General Assembly by Nov. 1 — aimed at strengthening oversight, transparency and resident rights in Virginia’s recovery housing industry. 

Since my last update, members have held a second round of subgroup meetings and reconvened for a full workgroup session.

This is the first in a series of short updates tracking the workgroup’s progress, one topic at a time. Today’s focus: where members align — and where they diverge — on certification pathways for recovery house operators.

Under current regulation, Virginia operators have two routes to certification that are recognized by the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services (DBHDS):

• Oxford House — which charters only noncommercial, democratically run, peer-managed homes; or
  
• The Virginia Association of Recovery Residences (VARR) — the state affiliate of the National Alliance for Recovery Residences (NARR)

Independent operators who don’t fit Oxford House’s specific model are effectively forced to rely on VARR for formal state certification through DBHDS — a requirement since July 1, with a misdemeanor penalty for noncompliance. Both workgroup members and operators I’ve interviewed have flagged the lack of alternative pathways as a significant problem.

“It’s a very important thing to many operators to have another option,” said workgroup member Martin Hawes.

McShin Foundation CEO Honesty Liller echoed the point in an earlier subgroup meeting:

I told ya’ll in the beginning, there are recovery house operators that don’t want anything — no offense — but anything to do with Oxford or VARR. … So we can’t forget about those that do not want to be certified or credentialed by either one of them. I don’t know how this looks for the certification, but just remembering there are some really good mom-and-pop recovery houses out there that are doing amazing things that are not VARR or Oxford. 

Others have raised concerns about conflicts of interest within VARR leadership — a topic I’ve covered heavily throughout this reporting process. Historically, the organization has been dominated by recovery house owners and operators, giving them authority over peers and, in some cases, direct competitors. While that influence has diminished under evolving leadership, the structure still raises questions about impartiality — and how such dynamics can affect both operators and the vulnerable residents they serve.

In response to related feedback, DBHDS added a potential guideline for the workgroup’s consideration: “Restrict credentialing entities from being led by an individual(s) who owns/operates a recovery residence.”

VARR policies have also drawn scrutiny for their potential to silence criticism. In 2022, the group adopted a confidentiality policy barring staff, board members and volunteers from disclosing any information about VARR that was “not generally known by the public.”

That same year, VARR added a “professional code” to its certification agreement — requiring accredited operators to refrain from criticizing other VARR members.

In 2023, the policy was expanded to ban criticism of VARR itself:

For the first two years of my reporting on Richmond’s recovery housing industry, VARR responded to most of my questions with silence. When I asked about the above documents last year, VARR issued a general statement about improving standards and transparency — avoiding any mention of the policies in question.

But amid recent leadership changes and legislative developments, VARR is taking a different approach. Last week, Interim Executive Director Bob de Triquet responded to a list of questions and comment requests in detail, even signaling an openness to addressing related concerns.

When I asked to revisit the above policies, for example, he replied with the following:

VARR has also taken steps to improve transparency regarding its accreditation process and results — adding a page that lists denials, revocations and expirations as of July 1, as well as providing substantially more details about application requirements, including:

• A list of assurances to which operators must attest;
• A recently revised overview of the accreditation process;
• Writing guides for resident intake packets and for operator policies and procedures; and
• A safety inspection log

While these steps suggest progress, they don’t erase VARR’s history. Two years of reporting have shown how concentrated authority can be wielded to favor insiders, making the question before the workgroup just as relevant: Should one private organization control the now-mandatory credentialing of every independent recovery house operator in Virginia?

Sen. Schuyler VanValkenburg (D-Henrico), who sponsored the bill creating the workgroup, supports the idea of expanding credentialing options. 

Candace Roney, director of the DBHDS Office of Substance Use Services, told the group that DBHDS standards should align with national best practices — without limiting them to the frameworks of NARR or Oxford House. “We do recognize that there are other national best practices that we can look at and study,” she said, citing the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) as another agency producing national best practices.

In June, workgroup members learned about the National Sober Living Association (NSLA) — a possible third credentialing entity for Virginia. But at the July 29 meeting, VARR representatives de Triquet and Matthew Conner questioned NSLA’s transparency and credibility — noting its absence of public board listings, minimal social media presence and lack of formal endorsements.

Conner, VARR’s assistant director, stressed NARR’s national recognition by SAMHSA, the American Society for Addiction Medicine and the National Council for Mental Wellbeing. “NSLA lacks the same national adoption, federal recognition and cross-state infrastructure that comes with NARR,” he told the workgroup. 

De Triquet also pointed to NSLA’s membership application questions about whether an operator accepts residents on medically assisted treatment (MAT) — the use of prescribed medications such as buprenorphine or methadone to treat opioid use disorder. Another asks if they have written confirmation from a doctor of a plan to taper off the medication. “That’s a little dangerous,” de Triquet said. “We want to be careful with this.” His point touched on a broader concern raised in other forums: that recovery housing policies can discriminate against residents on MAT.

While the statements about NSLA appear accurate, VARR’s aversion to an additional credentialing body is reminiscent of past attempts to centralize power. In late 2021 and early 2022, under previous leadership, the group backed legislation that would have stripped Oxford House of its recognition — making VARR the state’s sole credentialing authority and steering referrals exclusively to VARR-accredited homes. The proposals collapsed following pushback from DBHDS officials and others who feared such action would lead to the closure of Oxford House residences statewide.

Frank Bellanger, owner and CEO of Starfish Recovery & Wellness, was among the VARR operators who submitted a public comment supporting the bill:

… This bill assures and solidifies a national standard that is well established and has been successfully implemented throughout the country. … (The Oxford House) model does not follow a recognized continuum of care. This model instead states that it “shall forever remain non professional” which runs counter to the level of due diligence necessary when dealing with such a vulnerable population. If you were in an accident you would want your car repaired by a licensed mechanic. How much more precious are our sons, daughters, brothers, sisters and parents? We want them to get the best possible services and to have those services provided by accredited organizations overseen by trained staff. In closing, to ensure the safety of the community at large, and to establish and promote a standard that will protect vulnerable citizens I strongly urge that this bill be passed.

In a text message to Starfish staff and house leaders, Bellanger revealed a different motive:

Similar efforts have played out in other states, with some NARR affiliates pushing to secure or maintain exclusive credentialing authority.¹ 

Earlier this year, NARR sued Growth Partners, parent company of the New Hampshire Partnership for Recovery Residences (NHPRR), which the state designated as its recovery housing certifying body instead of the NARR affiliate.

NARR claimed that Growth Partners’ recovery housing standards infringed on its copyrighted works — even though those standards drew largely from materials in the public domain.

In response to NARR’s demand letter, Growth Partners’ attorney wrote:

… NARR’s copyrights extend to expression, not to ideas, and cannot be used to prevent NHPRR from using industry standard approach to the certification of recovery residences. 

The “framework” or “organization” of NHPRR’s standards, and common-sense procedures such as obtaining proof of insurance coverage, are consistent with formulations contained in multiple official federal and state authorities. These include best practices published by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (“SAMHSA”), required by law to be made “publicly available”. …. They were also developed with a view toward housing quality standards published by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, e.g., 24 C.F.R. §§ 5.703 & 982.401; the International Property Maintenance Code; New Hampshire law, N.H. Rev. Stat. § 153:10-d; and other sources.

NARR eventually dropped the lawsuit.

In Virginia, it remains to be seen whether a third credentialing body will be approved. Meanwhile, DBHDS has floated another way to address the monopoly issue: direct state certification — allowing operators to bypass third-party groups altogether. 

At the July 29 meeting, the agency put that option on the table for the workgroup’s consideration, but it’s unknown whether it will make the final recommendations to the General Assembly.

If this topic is important to you, you can submit a public comment by emailing workgroups@dbhds.virginia.gov with the bill number (SB838) in the subject line.

---

---

Have a correction, update, or tip to share? Email christa@investigate-rva.com or get in touch with me here.

---

Scroll below to view investigative stories in The Parham Papers series, or visit the homepage to explore all articles, including legislative updates.

1. See, for example, recent efforts in Tennessee and Minnesota. Return to article.