Senate committee hears support and concern for bill to certify sober living homes

Sen. Kevin Nabard, prime sponsor of Senate Bill 298, told the Senate Executive Departments and Administration (EDNA) Committee that the bill would require sober living houses to be certified by the New Hampshire Coalition of Recovery Residences, verify resident eligibility and employ a paid house manager, and would give enforcement authority to municipalities and the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).

Sponsors and witnesses said they want the state to protect residents and neighborhoods while avoiding unintended barriers to recovery housing. "We want to encourage people in sobriety," Sen. Kevin Nabard said, adding that the bill might need work and could be referred for further discussion.

Nut graf: The bill drew support from operator groups and certifiers who said standards and oversight are needed to address bad actors, while operators and advocates warned some proposed requirements—especially a prohibition on hiring former or current residents as paid house managers and strict documentation rules—could harm peer-led recovery models and small operators.

Owners and certifiers called for a collaborative work group. Joe Scully, who identified himself as a Concord resident, said he supports creating standards and enforcement by DHHS but emphasized certification should be practical and avoid harming legitimate programs. "I do support this bill," Scully said, "and I would love the opportunity to work with all stakeholders to get some good standards in place for sober living houses so that the residents of those houses are protected as well as the members of the community."

Operators said many accredited houses already follow standards. Peter Nelson, owner-operator of Saint Christopher Sober Living, told the committee his houses are NH Core certified and asked the panel to hold the bill to resolve language on resident eligibility, manager definitions and recordkeeping: "Recovery is very much a peer-led movement," he said, and restricting managers to non-residents could be harmful.

The New Hampshire Coalition of Recovery Residences, represented by Anthony Salvucci, described certification, ombudsman complaint processes and education it already provides and urged a stakeholder work group. "We would like to see the language as crafted refer to a study group or a committee of some sort where all of the stakeholders have an opportunity to come in, work in collaboration," Salvucci said.

The DHHS-contracted certifier, the New Hampshire Partnership for Recovery Residents, told the committee it has developed New Hampshire-specific standards under SAMHSA best practices and said many states have moved toward mandatory certification or licensing. Jake Berry of New Futures, a policy nonprofit, said his group had no formal position but supported mandatory certification as a tool to weed out bad actors while warning of potential ADA and fair-housing implications.

Local government representatives urged preserving municipal zoning discretion. Bridal Deshaies of the New Hampshire Municipal Association said the bill is primarily a planning-and-zoning measure and recommended municipalities be allowed—rather than required—to condition permits on certification and related documentation and to charge administrative fees.

The committee did not take final action on SB 298 at the hearing; senators and witnesses repeatedly asked for more stakeholder work to refine definitions, clarify the enforcement role for DHHS, and avoid creating barriers to peer-led and small operators.

Ending: Committee members said they plan further conversation. The chair noted the bill could be re-referred for additional stakeholder drafting before a committee vote.