Who can sober home residents turn to if they’re being exploited or treated unfairly? Who can family members or neighbors call when they have concerns?

For years, the options have been slim. Complaints about uncertified residences had no outlet at all. For certified homes, people could get in touch with one of two nongovernmental credentialing bodies: 

• Oxford House, for non-commercial, peer-run homes formed under its charter, or
• The Virginia Association of Recovery Residences (VARR), for all others

While conflicts of interest within VARR have lessened considerably, the group has long been dominated by the very operators it is supposed to oversee, leaving many residents and the public with no independent avenue for grievances — only the prospect of appealing to the same people who are engaged in the questionable behavior.

After years of little recourse, signs of a shift are taking shape.

This is the sixth and last in a mini-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: removing barriers and conflicts of interest with complaint reporting and investigations

Among other tasks, SB838 directs the workgroup to recommend “a process for investigation of complaints involving or against recovery residences to be conducted by the Department (of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services, or DBHDS) or the Department in coordination with the locality where the recovery residence is located and not the credentialing entity.” 

That language responds to accounts from dozens of former residents, employees and neighbors of Richmond-area recovery homes who say they’ve had no meaningful outlet for resolving complaints. Workgroup members have echoed that concern, stressing the need for a streamlined process that routes grievances to a qualified, independent party.

“My suggestion would be keep it simple,” Honesty Liller, CEO of The McShin Foundation, said during a subgroup meeting. “Get the grievance to DBHDS as soon as possible, like an easy streamline but also an accurate one. And also there [should be] no conflict of interest within the entity. It’s got to be a third party doing the actual investigation.” She and others emphasized that investigators should also have professional investigative experience.

VARR Interim Executive Director Bob De Triquet welcomed the idea of a new framework. “I think DBHDS should develop their own process to investigate complaints and grievances,” he said. 

If those complaints lead to sanctions or de-certifications, de Triquet recommended a collaborative approach between DBHDS and the credentialing entity, noting that VARR doesn’t take the term “de-accreditation” lightly. “Shared responsibility in these processes can strengthen them and also limit risk,” he said in a July subgroup meeting. “We should be supporting each other in making a better system of care with a shared responsibility and shared accountability.”

When it came to localities’ involvement in investigations — aside from potential criminal conduct — several members urged caution, pointing to the risk of discrimination from neighbors and local governments. De Triquet recalled a recent exchange: “I was talking with a neighbor maybe three weeks ago, and at the end of our conversation, they simply said, ‘How can I have this organization not achieve accreditation?’”

The “not-in-my-backyard” (NIMBY) resistance to recovery homes is a well-documented phenomenon nationwide — and recently illustrated in our region by the opposition to a quiet sober home in Powhatan County. But the NIMBY label can also drown out legitimate neighborhood concerns. 

One Henrico County resident, who asked to remain anonymous, shared an email she sent to DBHDS about a neighboring recovery home managed by one of the area’s prominent operators.

“Because a ‘recovery house’ opened on my block last summer (2024), I’ve been keeping up with the plans to regulate how recovery housing is run and supervised,” she wrote. 

After citing the workgroup’s prior discussion about neighborhood hostility toward recovery homes, she continued:

I feel like there’s a big gap in reasons that a community might have concerns about recovery housing having watched the evolution of one for a year. I don’t really feel hostility would be an issue on my block if the house truly resembled a family residence which makes sense and many operators state is important. I don’t think hostility comes into play when house residents are outside after midnight, smoking and talking and keeping people awake. It’s not hostility that causes concern when garbage is being thrown into a yard along with empty liquor bottles as it was with my 82 year old widowed neighbor. She was confused – who do you tell? And I wasn’t hostile but concerned when a man paced in circles for most of the night in front of the residence in question, and he was still there pacing the next morning. So if this is a “recovery house” who exactly is in charge of the patients in their care who have mental health issues or, at minimum, are in distress? I don’t think it’s hostility, but concern and worry when someone is taken out on a stretcher or when four policemen show up in the space of a week. I later learned that this was a welfare check on a resident who left hospital ama with an IV in their arm and the other was an overdose. …

(View the full email, redacted for privacy.)

Despite some resistance to local involvement in complaints and investigations, workgroup members have generally supported a more active role for DBHDS, though opinions differed on when and how complaints should reach the agency.

Some proposed a tiered system, whereby complaints would first be reviewed by the operator or credentialing entity, then escalated to DBHDS if the complainant wasn’t satisfied.

Others warned of the pitfalls in that setup, stressing that residents should always have the option to go straight to an independent party.

“I just don’t want to see any residents forced into a situation where their remedy is to go to the operator … if this person is exploiting them,” said Michael Feinmel, Henrico’s deputy county manager for public safety, at the July 29 full workgroup meeting.

He illustrated his point with a gripping scenario:

If we’ve got a resident of a recovery house who’s being sex trafficked by the operator of the recovery house, she’s got to — or he’s got to — have the ability to communicate what’s going on. …

I feel like we’ve got a decade of a track record of people that have been abused in their lives now being abused in recovery residences, and I want to make sure that we come out of this so that we have credibility with the folks that we’re trying to serve. …

Later, he added:

Somebody who’s been engaged in prostitution for her entire life and probably has felony convictions is not going to call 911. It won’t happen. Because the expectation is I’m going to be treated the same way I’ve been treated my entire life. …

We’ve got to create the avenue for somebody who’s being exploited to feel like, OK, here’s where I go.

Based on the group’s cumulative feedback, DBHDS drafted a revised framework that includes an avenue for residents to report concerns directly to the agency. The revised proposal was presented at last Tuesday’s subgroup meeting:

DBHDS has also floated additional requirements for recovery homes that receive agency funding, such as indigent bed grants. Level 3 and 4 recovery residences, which provide more services and structure than Levels 1 or 2, could potentially fall under the same human rights regulations that apply to DBHDS-licensed providers, including substance use treatment facilities.

“State code and our regulations stipulate that any provider that is licensed, operated or funded by DBHDS is subject to the state human rights regulations,” said Dev Nair, DBHDS assistant commissioner for provider management. These regulations guarantee basic rights for residents, such as freedom from unnecessary restrictions, the right to communicate with anyone privately, and access to visitors.

Previously, VARR’s role as grant administrator meant recovery homes weren’t considered directly funded by DBHDS, allowing them to avoid regulations that might otherwise apply. But the recent shift of state funding oversight from VARR to DBHDS could give residents access to these protections for the first time.

Some workgroup members cautioned that the idea needed more vetting to ensure requirements weren’t overly burdensome. De Triquet agreed but also suggested the protections should extend further than what DBHDS proposed:

Just my opinion, just right now, I do believe this could involve Level 2 recovery residences. … You know, if I’m an operator, and I don’t fix the AC unit, and it’s 100 degrees out, I think that’s a problem. So I think it does apply, although I think we need to implement it slowly, to let this thing kind of take place and understand what the requirements are, and what the process is, before we do a blanket statement..

While deliberating on the broader complaint process, the workgroup has also been compelled to address a barrier to complaint reporting: the use of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs).

‘That should not be happening’

Over the last few years, residents, house leaders, and staff of the VARR-accredited Starfish Recovery & Wellness have reported a pattern of exploitative conduct, along with efforts to silence anyone who spoke out. Among the tactics, they said, was a broad non-disclosure agreement that barred staff and house leaders from ever revealing:

• Any communication with the owners, Frank or Stephanie Bellanger
• Any records of communication with people affiliated with Starfish
• The existence of the NDA itself

Notably, house leaders are typically residents themselves — sometimes only weeks into their recovery and/or living at Starfish under a court order. 

During a workgroup discussion on open communication, Liller raised the issue without naming any operator. “I know there are some [operators] that make their staff sign NDAs upon hiring them,” she told the group. “There are [operators] that are certified through VARR that are allegedly doing that.”

She added: “I’m just saying, we’re moving forward for safety and regulations. Y’all got to figure that out. I’m throwing that to y’all. Ball’s in your court.”

Nicole Riley — the lobbyist representing Stephanie Bellanger (so far the only confirmed member of Riley’s client, Treatment and Recovery Allies) — weighed in with a comment that was somewhat unclear but appeared to suggest that NDAs might be needed for HIPAA compliance and that they should be permissible as long as they don’t block disclosures required by law.

Even if HIPAA applied to non-clinical recovery homes (which it doesn’t) compliance would be handled through standard HIPAA forms and policies, not through sweeping NDAs such as the one used by Starfish.

When I first reported on the Starfish NDA in 2023, Stephanie Bellanger held a seat on the VARR board, and VARR declined to answer whether the NDA was consistent with its standards and ethics.

A few weeks ago, I asked again if VARR had taken a position on NDAs. I also shared a more recently obtained Starfish “confidentiality agreement” — which appeared to be the same document that Stephanie Bellanger cited in 2022 to justify punishing a participant who had vented about Frank Bellanger and Starfish management in a 12-step meeting.

De Triquet responded:

VARR has not taken a position on this type of agreement with staff, to our knowledge this is the only organization that has an NDA with staff. We are not aware of any residents having to sign an NDA nor do we endorse the practice of restricting a resident’s freedom of speech regardless of the forum, including mutual aid meetings. 

We are exploring this topic, however, we understand the potential to harm an NDA has if  residents (including those who occupy a staff/employee role) are required to sign one — we are currently in communication with our national network regarding this topic as it relates to the standards and accreditation — additionally we have added it to the list of items to carry to the board of directors for discussion. I am not a legal expert; my understanding is that NDAs do not cover non-disclosure of illegal operations or unethical behavior, however I do agree that having one in place could discourage someone from speaking up. 

Happy to keep you updated on this developing topic. 

Regardless of whether a given NDA would be upheld in court, the threat of a lawsuit alone often achieves the intended chilling effect. As the National Whistleblower Center put it: “Restrictive non-disclosure agreements are blatant attempts to censor employees and limit the exposure of company misconduct.”

After Liller brought NDAs to the workgroup’s attention, Sen. Schuyler VanValkenburg (D-Henrico), who sponsored the bill creating the workgroup, took a hard stand: “We’re going to write something about NDAs,” he said. “That’s insane. That should not be happening.”

At last Tuesday’s subgroup meeting, DBHDS followed by adding a draft recommendation: “Prohibit use of non-disclosure agreements that conflict with complaint reporting.”

It’s unclear, though, whether that language would fully protect residents’ and employees’ ability to share their experiences. 

• Would their freedom to speak be confined to a formal complaint process? 
• Could they warn peers, confide in family and friends, or talk to journalists? 
• And more broadly, under what circumstances, if any, should NDAs be permitted in recovery housing?

Along similar lines, one workgroup meeting attendee emphasized the need for communication channels outside of the formal complaint system.

“I think it’s really important to set up a structure for the residents to share their experience,” said Danny Clawson, executive director of the Virginia Harm Reduction Coalition, during the public comment period of the July 29 meeting.

Clawson recommended establishing a regular survey that would allow residents to share feedback with DBHDS. 

“When you ask to file a complaint, that puts a target on your back, especially if it’s a bad faith operator,” Clawson said. “And so normalizing data collection from the residents that is shared with the DBHDS will allow people to regularly provide that feedback without getting a target on their back.”

***

This is the last update in the mini-series on the SB838 workgroup’s progress, but I will continue to follow new developments closely and keep you informed.

If any of the topics covered are important to you, there’s still time to weigh in:

• Attend the final 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.

The final meeting will be held from 2 to 4 p.m. Thursday, Sept. 18 in Senate Room 3 of the Virginia Capitol at 1000 Bank St. All meeting recordings and presentation materials are available on the bill tracker page.

On The Parham Papers front, I’m finally getting back to work on an in-depth article about labor in recovery housing. If you’ve been a house leader or employee at a Richmond-area recovery housing organization, I’d love to hear from you. Please reach out to me here.

---

---

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.