With Increasing Demand Come New Restrictions on Sober Living Facilities

A short while back, we posted a piece praising an episode of the Meredith Viera show that we felt, was an unusually fair and optimistic media portrait of real people in long-term recovery and how they got there.

At the center of the story was the pivotal role that Oxford House – a now 40-year-old institution that helped to establish and has continued to shape the model for democratically run sober living residences across the country – had in these individuals’ recovery.

The tribute to Oxford House was moving and well-deserved, because – when at their best and true to their principles – sober living houses like these teach people valuable lessons in responsibility, accountability, self-respect, and just plain “getting along” that can be critical to addicts and alcoholics as they try to rebuild their lives.

But there has also been a reaction in recent years and months to sober living facilities when they are not very functional or well-run, and that has resulted in moves for increased regulation that threaten to drive some sober residences out of existence.

Not surprisingly, the debate over the extent to which sober housing organizations and individual residences should be regulated is a heated one. Recovery houses need to consistently be places that are safe, sober, and structured environments where high standards and healthy principles are respected and expected by all who live and work there.

Some say that maintaining this kind of atmosphere with all of the unknowns – and some non-compliant personalities or just plain “bad apples” – that can often be encountered when helping people in early recovery requires some level of training or at least staff and facility regulation.

But many who operate these facilities argue that such an environment can be effectively maintained by residents with little supervision and training –as long as they have a passion to help and a love of recovery. What happens, though, when the latter argument fails because it is not holding up in practice? Well, that’s primarily what many at the local and state government level are reacting to.

More Potential Clients, Less Oversight

 The debate is playing out at a critical time. As the opioid crisis continues, there are many more people with substance use disorders who need help and, eventually, may also need a transitional program to begin to assimilate and rebuild their lives in recovery. Unfortunately, the spike in opiate addiction over the last few years has also been met with market opportunism in the form of unregulated, often disorganized, and sometimes not very “sober” houses popping up all over the country. And, in this landscape, state lawmakers have responded with measures to try to the crackdown.

States from New Jersey to Utah are now seeking to impose minimum standards on sober homes – a term that has come to describe anything from a run-down rooming house with dozens of tenants to an upscale recovery center offering counseling sessions, job training, and yoga classes.

Those recovering from substance abuse may stay in such facilities for weeks or months at a time, often after a stay in treatment or other institutions. Many consider such homes vital to their recovery. But neighbors often complain that they bring noise, traffic, drug paraphernalia, and a revolving door of strangers into otherwise quiet communities. And sober residences have come to vary a great deal in how well they are managed and in how strictly they maintain a drug-free environment. Therein lies the problem.

Attempts to Check and Balance

 While some proprietors bristle at state efforts to impose standards, well-publicized problems with drug sales and overdoses on properties, lack of management and checks on residences and the sobriety of their tenants, and squatting have prompted calls for some checks and balances on the industry.

This was especially true in Delray Beach, Florida, a community with one of the highest populations of recovery housing facilities in the country. Over time, the community became overrun with facilities that promised safe, sober living but which did little to ensure such standards were met and maintained.

Citizens complained – as did some other sober living entities who felt their reputation was being sullied by an increasing number of bad seeds – until the state passed laws in 2015 to create a voluntary certification program for sober homes in conjunction with the National Association of Recovery Residences, which has about 2,000 sober homes in its registry.

To nudge proprietors to comply, the state refused to hand out grants to any home that isn’t certified. They also now bar state-funded addiction treatment programs from referring clients to any sober home that hasn’t gone through the program.

To be certified, sober homes must show that they have strict rules against drug use on the property, that they track their residents’ progress, and that they organize peer support programs, among other requirements. They also must undergo safety inspections by a state-approved certifying organization. Massachusetts passed similar legislation recently, and California and Pennsylvania look to be next.

In Arizona, both the state House and Senate have passed a bill giving city and county governments the right to require sober homes to notify them when they open. The proposal also allows local governments to require that sober living homes have trained managers, maintenance plans, and supervision for residents.

A Small Price to Pay?

 Some proprietors of sober living facilities say the legislation feels unfair and overreaching. Many just hope they will be able to reach some middle ground with lawmakers.

One thing seems clear. Namely, people need an option to be able to transition from the earliest heavily supervised and monitored stages of sobriety into the increasingly independent – but still very accountable – phases of assimilation back into life and work. And many people feel very passionately about what that should look like.

But, if these new regulations mostly attempt to formalize a system for ensuring that certain standards and principles that are proven to help people live well and stay sober are actually present, they shouldn’t seemingly be a terrible burden except to those who are not on board – in practice or in philosophy.

And if it means that there are some new requirements in place to ensure that facilities serve people more effectively, then that may just be the price that we pay to be part of the noble experiment of helping people heal one day at a time.

To learn more about BTG’s approach and its transitional programs to help clients move forward with a strong foundation in sobriety, contact us.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *