Draft proposals for sober home bed fee assistance mark a major pivot from an operator-controlled process to one centered on resident choice.
This is the second in a series of brief updates on the SB838 workgroup, which is still deliberating on recommendations — due to the General Assembly by Nov. 1 — to strengthen oversight, transparency and resident rights in Virginia’s recovery housing industry.
Today’s focus: proposals to restructure the indigent bed grant process.
As previously reported, the Virginia Association of Recovery Residences (VARR) no longer oversees state funding that subsidizes beds in recovery homes. Under the old system, VARR’s leadership — which has been largely composed of operators who also received the grants — created an inherent conflict of interest, allowing them to influence how much funding they and their peers received. A budget change proposed by GOP Gov. Glenn Youngkin, effective July 1, shifted administration of the grants to the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services (DBHDS), removing these conflicts and centralizing oversight.
Under the old system, VARR provided grants to operators, who then decided week to week which residents would have their housing costs covered — support the operators could revoke at any time. Throughout this reporting, numerous residents have told me that operators often abused that discretion, leveraging the threat of lost housing support to control residents — for example, by steering them into outpatient programs that generated profit for the operators.
In response to feedback from the workgroup, DBHDS has drafted a new framework that would work as follows:
- A recovery house operator submits an application for bed fee assistance on a resident’s behalf — covering up to 60 days with a potential 30-day extension.
- Once approved, the funding follows the resident — not the operator. That means if a resident decides to leave the home where the grant was initiated, they can take their remaining funding to any other recovery residence approved by DBHDS.
Direct disbursement by DBHDS would also make it more difficult for operators to repurpose funds to recoup losses, a practice evident in True Recovery RVA records. In one email copied to executives, True Recovery Director of Operations Chris Waugh told a house leader not to record a resident’s discharge if they left owing rent, so he could instead “apply grant money to recoup the loss”:
The shift also echoes a recommendation recently issued in a regional, Virginia Commonwealth University-led study on the needs of pregnant and parenting individuals with substance use disorders1:
Increase standards for recovery housing quality and accountability. Establish higher standards for recovery housing operators and greater oversight on how state funds are allocated and used. Distribute housing assistance funds to an independent third party that allocates them on behalf of individuals and families in need (rather than VARR or individual recovery houses) to ensure greater client autonomy and promote an environment in which housing organizations have to raise standards to compete for business.
At the July 29 full workgroup meeting, workgroup member Martin Hawes pointed out that in rural areas, it can be difficult for residents to leave a recovery home. Sen. Schuyler VanValkenburg (D-Henrico), who sponsored the bill creating the workgroup, suggested drafting the law or regulation “to say that the recovery home has to make a good faith effort to assist (the residents) if they’re trying to leave.”
There’s been further discussion around the maximum number of days for which a resident could receive funding, along with how to guarantee same-day access and ensure equity for smaller operators. But the core framework — keeping funding resident-centered — has faced no open opposition.
Still, the proposals have yet to be solidified in final recommendations to the General Assembly.
If this topic is important to you, you can weigh in:
- Attend a workgroup meeting and make a statement during the public comment period; or
- Email your comments with the bill number (SB838) to workgroups@dbhds.virginia.gov.
When submitting a written public comment, it might also be helpful to reference the related objective in your email. The one related to today’s topic: “Such work group shall develop credentialing guidelines to be implemented by the Department, including … (b) protocols for the Department to define qualifications for indigent bed fees and payment and reimbursement to recovery residences for indigent bed fees.”
>Click here for a dropdown list of workgroup objectives.
“Such work group shall develop credentialing guidelines to be implemented by the Department, including
(a) a uniform set of certification criteria for all recovery residences;
(b) protocols for the Department to define qualifications for indigent bed fees and payment and reimbursement to recovery residences for indigent bed fees;
(c) 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;
(d) 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;
(e) a Residents’ Bill of Rights, including a mandatory compliance requirement with such Residents’ Bill of Rights by certified recovery residence operators and certified recovery house managers;
(f) protocols for termination of residency;
(g) uniform data collection for recovery residences with a transparent data platform;
(h) establishment of a hotline for complaints involving or against recovery residences to facilitate investigations;
(i) a process for investigation of complaints involving or against recovery residences to be conducted by the Department or the Department in coordination with the locality where the recovery residence is located and not the credentialing entity;
(j) protocols for sanctions on recovery residences, including decertification when appropriate;
(k) methods for localities to conduct fire, building, safety, and health inspections of recovery residences; and
(l) other issues related to recovery residences and their operators as the work group shall deem appropriate.”
The next round of subgroup meetings will be held virtually:
Subgroup 1: Requirements for Certification
Meeting #3: Aug. 26, 12:30 to 2 p.m. | Register here
Subgroup 2: State and Local Government Oversight
Meeting #3: Aug. 26, 3:30 to 5 p.m. | Register here
As a reminder, future meeting dates are also included on the bill tracker page.
The next SB838 workgroup update covers safety standards and enforcement powers in recovery housing.
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. Disclosure: I was among the many people interviewed for this study. Return to article.