Providers and Health Department back different approaches to S.157 certification and oversight for recovery residences

The Health & Welfare committee considered S.157 on Wednesday, a bill that would formalize certification standards for recovery residences in Vermont. Providers, recovery-residence networks and the Department of Health each described how certification, engagement beds and rulemaking authority could work together to protect residents and recovery environments.

Jeff Moreau, executive director of the Vermont Alliance for Recovery Residences, told the committee S.157 codifies voluntary certification that many homes already follow. He highlighted recent "reengagement" and "engagement" beds at Serenity House and Valley Vista that provide temporary placements when residents are exited from recovery homes for safety or relapse-related reasons. "This bill codifies that work, and makes it permanent," Moreau said, adding certification should remain voluntary and that some abstinence-only homes may not meet the standards.

Janice Gale, director of community relations for the Vermont Foundation for Recovery, said certification and recertification already require extensive documentation and annual inspections under national standards and that S.157 aligns Vermont statute with those practices. She urged amendments the Foundation supports to clarify operator authorities (for example, entry to properties for safety and legal protections for operators when removing residents) and to ensure operators can rely on established safety-net plans.

Chad (identified in testimony as Chad Vijay), CEO of RecoveryHouse Inc., described treatment–recovery residence partnerships and emphasized person-centered planning and the role of engagement beds in protecting both individuals and recovery households. "That infrastructure ... ensures that we have operators who are doing the very best to center that person and provide excellent services," he said.

Jessica Schoepano, policy director for the Department of Health, presented the department's markup. The department recommends adding a recovery-residence definition aligned with Act 163 and using existing statutory authority (transcribed in testimony as "18 BSA 48 0 6") to allow the department to establish certification rules through rulemaking rather than codifying detailed standards directly in statute. Schoepano also said the department would narrow a proposed landlord-tenant-law exclusion so it applies only to certified residences and recommended removing a statutory provision that would treat relapse as a determinative factor for emergency housing eligibility (a change proposed by DCF).

Schoepano said the department does not favor statutorily mandated data-collection provisions because Vermont already collects outcome information through grant agreements and program reporting; the department would prefer to harmonize data collection through rulemaking and grant terms.

Committee members thanked witnesses and asked for written submissions to be uploaded to the committee page; members said they expect further markup and continued stakeholder conversations to reconcile the department's rulemaking approach, certification incentives, and protections for residents and operators.

Next steps: Committee will schedule markup and continue negotiations with the Department of Health, recovery residence representatives and DCF; written testimony was requested for the record.