Will sober home residents gain protection from abrupt, unjust evictions? That remains an open question.
This is the fourth in a series of 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 sector.
Today’s focus: sober home eviction protocols
Among the workgroup’s official tasks is to recommend credentialing guidelines that will be implemented by the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services (DBHDS), including “protocols for termination of residency.”
Subgroup discussions have underscored the near-total absence of safeguards for recovery home residents — where evictions can happen without warning, justification, or any formal process. As one member bluntly put it: “Right now it’s a free-for-all.”
That dynamic has been documented throughout this project, with residents across multiple organizations describing arbitrary expulsions often tied to the financial or personal interests of operators, rather than resident safety or wellbeing. At Lotus Recovery, for example, 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.
Even so, some workgroup members have resisted imposing specific rules on operators. “You can just say the organization will have a protocol for a termination of residency,” said Dr. Colin Greene, a special adviser on opioid response for the Virginia Office of the Secretary of Health and Human Resources, during a June subgroup meeting. “But don’t tell them how to do it.”
Despite other members warning of potential abuse of power, Greene’s approach appears to have shaped the direction of DBHDS’s draft proposals. At the July 29 full workgroup meeting, the only mention of discharge protocols appeared under a bullet point suggesting operators submit their own internal policies to the department:
The reason discharge protocols are even under discussion traces back to a pivotal change in Virginia law — one that warrants closer examination.
2022 legislation sponsored by Del. Carrie Coyner (R-Chesterfield) exempted certified recovery house operators from the Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (VRLTA) — legitimizing the once unlawful, but common practice of no-notice evictions in recovery housing. Brought forth on behalf of the Virginia Association of Recovery Residences (VARR), the measure stripped residents of basic legal protections and handed operators full control — no strings attached.
Coyner and then-VARR President David Rook argued the exemption was necessary to ensure recovery homes remain safe and sober environments.
In an email to Mark Blackwell, then-director of the DBHDS Office of Recovery Services, Rook wrote:
…allowing an exemption for tenant rights may seem extreme, however maintaining the safety of neighborhoods and other members of the household, it is imperative that aggressive, and/or folks using illicit or recreational drugs be exited.
As the bill advanced through the General Assembly, Coyner echoed Rook’s reasoning, even suggesting the carve-out gave residents the same safeguards as operators.
(Clip sourced from VA General Assembly; visuals edited for privacy.)
But Coyner’s framing doesn’t match the law’s effect. In reality, the exemption increased authority for operators while stripping protections from residents.
Operators gained the power to:
- Remove a resident immediately for any reason;
- Retain pre-paid rent and deposits without following VRLTA refund rules; and
- Draft financial agreements entirely on their own terms
Residents — often court-ordered and/or with limited housing options — lose the right to due process and statutory remedies if an operator acts unfairly.
While it’s true that residents can leave a recovery home without the formal “lease-breaking” process, operators can still pursue them in civil court for unpaid rent or fees under the terms of whatever contract is imposed.
The following resident financial agreement illustrates the power imbalance:
Ironically, Coyner packaged the VRLTA exemption into a bill that included zoning protections for recovery residences — where she argued that people in recovery needed safeguards from housing discrimination based on their status as a federally protected class under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Yet in the same stroke, she stripped all tenant rights from that same protected class — not despite their recovery status, but because of it.
For a January story on zoning, I interviewed Michael Allen, a prominent civil rights lawyer who’s spent decades fighting housing discrimination and even testified before Congress on fair housing issues.
After reviewing Coyner’s exemption, he called it “atrocious.”
“Tenants/residents of any kind ought to have protection related to their housing,” Allen said, “and the idea of a ‘blanket removal’ of such protections — for Oxford Houses, non-profit or for-profit sober home providers — is abhorrent to me.”
Allen acknowledged the need for a procedure to temporarily exclude someone from a recovery home in certain circumstances, such as a return to substance use. “Most responsible public policy does allow for that kind of emergency exception,” he said. “But [to] cut it [VRLTA protection] out entirely and give all the power to the operators of group homes or recovery homes strikes me as just absolutely wrong.”
The National Alliance for Recovery Residences (NARR), VARR’s national affiliate, establishes standards for recovery housing and promotes their adoption nationwide. But on the issue of resident evictions, its standards are notably silent.
After Coyner’s bill passed a House subcommittee in 2022 — with zoning protections and VRLTA exemption still in tact — NARR Executive Director Dave Sheridan praised it as “the best legislative model for recovery residence support in the nation.” I have not yet been able to identify another state that has adopted a comparably drastic measure.
At VARR, the organization’s shifting leadership is acknowledging that at-will evictions could be problematic.
“(We) think some form of a discharge/dismissal policy is a good idea,” VARR Interim Executive Director Bob de Triquet told me via email. “We are currently in the process of consulting with our national network on this topic and developing what this policy should address and incorporate, as well as taking the necessary steps to move forward with incorporating this into our accreditation process.”
Setting aside potential internal changes at VARR, what steps will the SB838 workgroup recommend to protect against unjust evictions in all Virginia recovery homes?
As of right now, it remains unclear.
If this topic is important to you or someone you care about, 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.
As previously announced, the next round of subgroup meetings will be held virtually on Aug. 26. See the bill tracker page for details.
The next SB838 workgroup update covers resident choice of treatment providers.
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.
