Where the recovery housing workgroup’s final recommendations stopped short of protecting patient choice, a new bill seeks to make residents’ rights unmistakably clear.
Continuing to lead efforts on Virginia sober home reform, Sen. Schuyler VanValkenburg (D-Henrico) has introduced Senate Bill 270, which would require state regulations to prohibit recovery residences from mandating clinical care as a condition of housing.
Under the bill, those regulations:
shall require that no recovery residence, or operator, employee, or agent of a recovery residence, require a resident to participate in medical or psychological services, including clinical substance use treatment, as a condition of entering or continuing residence at a recovery residence.
If enacted, the bill would formally de-legitimize a lucrative business model that has taken hold in Metro Richmond’s recovery housing sector — one in which operators use housing as leverage to steer residents into outpatient treatment programs that financially benefit those same operators.
In doing so, it would close the loophole that has allowed sober home operators to run de facto residential treatment programs while evading state regulations designed to protect residents’ safety, rights and well-being.
The manner in which the provision would be enforced, however, is not specified in the bill.
Under current law, people living in certified recovery homes have no tenant rights — a result of 2022 legislation that exempts recovery residences from the Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act.
Over the past several years, residents have reported being removed from recovery housing with little or no notice after declining participation in operator-affiliated treatment programs — including instances in which residents missed sessions to attend work, and in some cases after pre-paying rent.
The bill does not specify what recourse residents would have in such cases, or what consequences an operator would face.
The SB838 workgroup, convened last year to recommend improvements to recovery housing oversight, was directed to address eviction practices by developing “protocols for termination of residency,” but ultimately delivered none.
Similarly, VanValkenburg’s new bill makes no mention of evictions. It does, however, direct the State Board of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services to develop regulations establishing processes for reporting and investigating complaints, as well as issuing sanctions and corrective action plans for recovery residences.
Whether those regulations would ultimately provide meaningful enforcement remains to be seen.
Still, the bill represents a significant conceptual shift by clearly affirming that residents — not sober home operators — should hold the power to make their own healthcare decisions.
What else is in Senate Bill 270
More certification options: The bill would allow recovery residence operators to bypass third-party credentialing entities and obtain certification directly from the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services (DBHDS).
>> Review the background: Push for more certification options gains traction
Reducing conflicts of interest: Credentialing entities would be prohibited from accrediting recovery residences “owned or operated by an individual who is employed by and in a position of authority at such credentialing agency, or an immediate family member…of any such individual.” In practice, this would prevent a repeat of past conflicts, such as when Anthony Grimes served as executive director of the Virginia Association of Recovery Residences (VARR) while that organization accredited the WAR Foundation, which he and his wife owned. Still, the language is weaker than the workgroup’s original recommendation, which called for restricting credentialing entities from being led by anyone who owns or operates a recovery residence. It also appears to leave non-employee board members unaccounted for, preserving opportunities for conflicts of interest at the board level.
Limiting referrals: State agencies would only be allowed to refer residents to recovery homes “that are certified and have received accreditation by or membership in a credentialing agency.”
Expanded data reporting: DBHDS would be tasked with tracking metrics to evaluate recovery residence effectiveness — including employment, family reunification, financial stability, recidivism and overdoses. Regulations could also require public reporting on “(i) certification status; (ii) credentialing agencies; (iii) recovery model; (iv) date of last inspection and the outcome of such inspection; (v) incidents reported in the past year, including the number and type of incidents; (vi) summary of findings from audits or investigations; (vii) demographics and number of residents served; and (viii) indigent bed usage.” Some workgroup members had hoped to include relapse rates and resident length of stay — metrics they consider crucial to evaluating quality — but these were not included in the bill.
Ongoing workgroup: The recovery housing workgroup created last year under SB838 would continue meeting at least twice a year, submitting annual recommendations to the General Assembly.
A study of housing paired with treatment: DBHDS and the Virginia Housing Commission would be required to “study and make recommendations for establishing regulations for licensed providers of clinical substance use treatment services that offer housing as a benefit for individuals participating in treatment services but are not licensed or certified as a recovery residence.” It’s unclear what “housing as a benefit” means under this provision. But offering anything of value in exchange for participation in clinical treatment services is already a federal criminal offense. Workgroup members had raised concerns about patients being housed in hotels by substandard treatment organizations, which might constitute an illegal inducement. How the bill’s regulatory approach would address this issue is not clear.
What’s not in the bill
Over the summer, workgroup members expressed concern about recovery house operators using non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) to silence staff and residents.
“We’re going to write something about NDAs,” VanValkenburg said during a workgroup discussion. “That’s insane. That should not be happening.” His new bill, however, does not address NDAs at all.
***
VanValkenburg’s office indicated it would respond to questions on SB270 closer to the hearing date.
VARR Executive Director Bob de Triquet did not respond directly when asked about whether VARR opposes any provisions of the bill. Instead, he provided a general statement:
VARR commends Senator VanValkenburg for his ongoing efforts to strengthen recovery residences and protect individuals seeking recovery by ensuring irresponsible operators are removed from this space. We are actively working with his office on Senate Bill 270 and look forward to continued partnership throughout this session and beyond.
In the House of Delegates, Del. Marcus Simon (D-Fairfax County) has introduced an identical bill (HB931), which has been referred to the House Committee on Health and Human Services.
At this time, neither bill has been scheduled on a committee docket.
In the meantime, if your senator or delegate serves on either committee, you might wish to contact their office directly. You can find your representative using the state’s Who’s My Legislator? Service.
The current committee memberships are listed below:
- HB931: House Committee on Health and Human Services — full membership
- SB270: Senate Committee on Rehabilitation and Social Services — full membership
(Guidance for contacting legislators is available here.)
On the House side, written public comments are currently open for HB931, and members of the public may submit comments here.
Please subscribe for updates and information on how to participate as both bills move through the legislative process.
Scroll below to view investigative stories in The Parham Papers series, or visit the homepage to explore all articles, including legislative updates.
I was on the SB838 committee. I want to address eviction practices. I tried to tackle this problem on my own in documenting a way to do it. The problem is – it is VERY complicated to get right. You would think it would be pretty straight forward. It isn’t. The issue is the number of variables at play. There are 4 types of situations (or combinations of those four situation) that would start the eviction process. They are: Danger to themselves, danger to others, danger to the home, or failure to pay fees.
Now let’s look at “danger to home”. I have identified sixteen possible things that fall in this category:
The dangers can be any single or combination of the following:
– Damage to property such as deliberately causing harm to furniture, furnishing, and so forth
– Starting fires
– Repeatedly clogging toilets and drains with objects that are not meant to be put in drains.
– Insisting on bringing in animals to the home
– Tampering with the HVAC after being warned not to multiple times
– Repeatedly leaving windows open after being told not to – this is a surprisingly common issue. In winter, I’ve found that this happens a lot.
– Damaging appliances like the washer or dryer after being shown multiple times how to use the appliances correctly.
– Damaging plumbing that would cause flooding to the house
– Damaging the electrical system
– Tampering with the cameras
– Tampering with security locks or lockers to gain entry or to disable them.
– Deliberately ignoring rules about bed bugs and causing bed bugs to be introduced into the home.
– Causing structural damage
– Causing a bio-hazard on purpose over and over. This includes leaving trash and rotten food.
– Tampering with items that are meant for people who are disabled.
– Tampering with smoke detectors, Co2 detectors, gas detectors, radon detectors.
Next, we have to give each option a score. Some are more serious than others. For example, opening a window is not that serious. Damaging plumbing on purpose so the house is flooded, that is more serious.
A danger to themselves – I identified 10 possibilities that may be singular or multiple. They need to be scored. Danger to other residents: fifteen possibilities
Pay the fees – that is one item. (or more, depending on the operator)
You then have to factor in whether it is a first offence or not (or second, or third….). Then you have to factor the possibility that the situation is life & death(or not). That is a loaded question for what one person would consider life & death is not that extreme to another person.
Once you have all this data, you have to have the system produce a score and a course of action.
You KNOW you will get people who disagree with the result. People who are running the places have motives. Maybe have the system give a response, but leave it up to the operator, (and it be documented). If there is a pattern of abuse, then re-education is required. Or loss of licensing.
As you can see, it is complex, and EASY to mess up.
What stops the operator of the IOP or PHP service to simply pay a third party provider for housing. The third party provider only looks at it from a money aspect – If they don’t get paid, the person can’t stay.
Saying that, if the provider of the service and housing provider are different businesses (having two different business licenses) is actually the same person, how does this change anything? Am I missing something here? I hope I am.
Hi, thanks for your question. There’s nothing in the bill that would prevent a housing provider from evicting someone who isn’t paying rent. In the scenario you described, the third-party housing provider still has the right to be paid and may need to follow eviction procedures under the Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (VRLTA) — unless they are a certified recovery residence, which is exempt from the VRLTA.
That said, if an outpatient program is paying a patient’s rent, it could potentially be considered an illegal inducement under federal law, including the Anti-Kickback Statute and the Eliminating Kickbacks in Recovery Act. Additionally, if the housing provider referred the tenant to the IOP or PHP that is now paying rent, the housing provider could also be legally liable.
I hope this helps clarify things. Please feel free to reach out or leave another comment if you have any more questions.