House panel opens contentious debate on mandatory certification for recovery residences
Loading...
Summary
SB 298 would require statewide certification of recovery residences. Supporters—including operators and people in recovery—said mandatory certification ensures safety, consistent standards and accountability; some operators and advocates urged additional stakeholder work, clearer standards and implementation funding. DHHS said policy goals are sound but implementation requires appropriation and a phased approach to avoid destabilizing housing options.
The committee held an extended and sometimes contentious hearing on SB 298, a bill to require statewide certification of recovery residences and to set standards and enforcement for those homes.
Senator Ebert (sponsor) framed the legislation as a way to ensure recovery housing fulfills its role in helping residents rebuild; he said a certification process would prevent abuse and protect residents. Operators, residents and advocacy groups offered divided testimony.
Supporters—including Laura Wargo of the New Hampshire Partnership for Recovery Residences (NHPRR) and operators such as Sean Cannizzaro and Jake Berry—said mandatory certification protects residents and neighborhoods by ensuring physical inspections, resident rights, grievance processes and consistent recovery supports. Wargo noted NHPRR currently certifies 90 homes with about 1,201 beds and said voluntary certification leaves gaps: "We have pockets of uncertified recovery homes... this bill really does provide high-level safeguards," she told the committee.
Other witnesses, including Anthony Salvucci and representatives of NH CORE, supported the policy goal but opposed the bill as changed in the Senate, saying critical stakeholders were not included in drafting, that references to proprietary "national" standards were unclear and that some enforcement provisions (fines, revocation timelines) could have unintended consequences, including driving operators underground.
DHHS legislative liaison Jenny O'Higgins said the department supports the policy direction but underscored the bill’s fiscal implications: implementation would require contract funding (the department estimated roughly $500,000 in contract costs plus staff oversight) and she offered an amendment to make statutory activation contingent on appropriation so that the program would be phased in if funds are available.
Committee members emphasized the need for more work sessions and stakeholder discussions before a vote; the chair said a work session would be scheduled and members should expect future detailed drafting.
What happens next: The committee signaled intent to hold work sessions to reconcile concerns on standards, fiscal impact and enforcement; stakeholders will be invited back to refine language and implementation timing.
