Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
House Human Services advances recovery-residence changes, adds grievance process and written-exit notice
Loading...
Summary
The House Human Services Committee reviewed draft 1.1 of S.157, adding a required grievance process approved by the Department of Health or an approved recovery-residence affiliate and directing rulemaking for written exit-notice timing and annual data reporting for certified recovery residences.
The House Human Services Committee on Thursday reviewed draft 1.1 of S.157, a bill revising certification standards for recovery residences and adding new requirements for immediate exits and transfers. Committee Chair opened the session by saying the committee would both mark up S.157 and hear a separate witness on a forensic-facility bill before a formal walkthrough of that measure.
Katie McGlenn of the Office of Legislative Council presented the draft and summarized the changes. She said the bill keeps a list of specific behaviors that could trigger immediate exit or transfer from a certified recovery residence, including violating a residence substance-use policy, repeatedly refusing participation in services, criminal charges, theft, materially interfering with others’ recovery, and acts of violence that threaten safety.
The draft also adds a new requirement that a recovery residence must maintain an established grievance process approved by the Department of Health and a Vermont affiliate of the National Alliance for Recovery Residences (or another organization approved by the department). McGlenn said the committee would place timing and other procedural details in rulemaking rather than hard-coding them into statute.
A witness representing recovery residences described how operators document exits in practice. The representative said, “Anytime there’s an actual exit, that that is communicated in writing. And most of the time, we try to actually do it with a phone call or in person first, and then the email comes as documentation after.” The chair responded that the committee would add a statutory requirement for written notification while leaving precise timeframes and operational details to rulemaking.
Members pressed staff on a proposed clause that would allow a recovery-residence employee to enter a residence “notwithstanding” chapter 44 §60, which governs access into homes. Committee members asked whether that access would be limited to common areas or extend to private rooms; providers and Health Department staff said access is typically to common areas but acknowledged occasions—reports of substances in a room, elopement risk, or retrieval of personal property—when entering private rooms may be necessary. The committee asked that rulemaking clarify limits and safeguards.
Lawmakers also debated terminology in the definitions section—whether the text should refer to “residents” or “individuals” and how to phrase the list of supports (peer support; assistance accessing services; community resources). Staff and members agreed on maintaining consistent terminology and indicated they would refine the language in subsequent drafts.
McGlenn noted Section 5 will direct rulemaking to set data-collection standards and annual reporting requirements for certified recovery residences, including exit-and-transfer data elements and reporting frequency. The committee signaled it intends to require written exit notice in statute but to allow rulemaking to set timeframes and operational standards so stakeholders can provide feedback during the rulemaking process.
Chair closed by noting the committee had received additional written testimony on S.157, including a submission from the ACLU, and said markup on the bill will continue in committee at 9 a.m. tomorrow.
Next steps: markup will resume at the committee’s scheduled session tomorrow morning, with staff to circulate revised language and the department to work with stakeholders during rulemaking.
