Recovery organizations ask Vermont lawmakers to fund recovery housing, extend peer coaching and make S.157 permanent

Recovery Partners of Vermont, Vermont Foundation of Recovery (V4), the Vermont Alliance for Recovery Residences, and peer recovery providers told the Senate Institutions Committee that certified recovery residences and peer‑coach programs are expanding but need sustained funding and narrow statutory protections to scale safely.

Candice Gale, director of community relations for Vermont Foundation of Recovery, said V4 operates 10 certified recovery homes with 79 beds and estimated about 150 certified recovery beds statewide; she cited a Department of Health goal of 400 recovery beds by 2030. Gale urged support for the Opiate Settlement Advisory Council (OSAC) FY27 recommendations and asked the legislature to fund operations and scholarships for certified residences: "I am hearing clearly and directly ask the legislature to support OSAC's FY27 recommendations related to recovery housing," she said, listing $1,750,000 for operations and $200,000 for scholarships.

Speakers from Recovery Partners and individual recovery centers also sought renewal of existing prevention funding (a renewal request of $800,000 was mentioned) and additional opioid‑abatement dollars to continue peer recovery coaching in corrections. Multiple witnesses — including program directors and coaches who operate in correctional facilities — described the coaching model, its expansion (coaching at 18 sites statewide, including correctional facilities and probation/parole offices), and local outcomes: coaches provide reentry planning, housing and clothing assistance, employment help and continuity of contact that testifying providers said reduces recidivism and emergency costs.

Jeff (introduced as Jeff Marou) representing the Vermont Alliance for Recovery Residences described S.157, a narrowly tailored landlord‑tenant exemption for certified recovery residences that allows operators to follow credentialed discharge policies. He urged the committee to make the exemption permanent and expand grounds for removal (including illegal behavior and failure to engage in programming), and said the bill also codifies national certification standards under the health department.

Why it matters: Witnesses argued that certified recovery residences — when paired with recovery centers and peer coaching — form a continuum that prevents relapse, reduces hospital and correctional costs, and helps people stabilize. Providers cautioned against for‑profit models without appropriate certification and said existing pilot programs and HUD and federal grants have enabled initial expansion.

Committee response and next steps: Senators asked about interactions between clinical treatment (billing Medicaid, 14‑ vs. 90‑day treatment windows) and recovery residences (which do not provide clinical services). Committee members requested clarification about which funding streams (OSAC recommendations, governor’s budget line items, federal grants) covered which program elements. Several witnesses offered to provide additional data and written testimony. The committee adjourned without taking any formal votes on funding items or legislation.