House Human Services panel hears testimony backing S.157 to certify recovery residences and expand stabilization supports

The House Committee on Human Services heard more than two hours of testimony on S.157, a bill that would authorize the Department of Health to establish a certification process for recovery residences, require data collection from certified homes and make the landlord-tenant exclusion permanent for certified operators.

"Prevention works, treatment is effective and people can recover," said Emily Truter, Division Director for the Department of Health’s Division of Substance Use Programs, framing the bill as part of the department’s strategic plan to expand access, quality and equity in recovery housing. Truter told the committee that Vermont has adopted the National Alliance for Recovery Residences standards and currently funds primarily level‑2 and level‑3 residences while supporting broader capacity growth.

Operators and nonprofit advocates urged the committee to back S.157, describing the law as a tool to sustain structured, peer‑driven homes and to prevent destabilizing outcomes in shared residences. "I jotted down 58% of the folks that enter a recovery residence come from homelessness," said Jeff Morrow, executive director of the Vermont Alliance for Recovery Residences, citing his organization’s intake patterns and arguing that certification plus voucher supports helps people avoid immediate rent obligations that could be a barrier to housing stability.

David Regal, executive director of Vermont Foundation for Recovery, said certified homes function as recovery programs rather than standard rentals and told the committee "approximately 62% come to us from unstable housing," emphasizing that most residents arrive in vulnerable circumstances and that timely programmatic exits can protect both individuals and the household.

Testimony laid out several concrete changes S.157 would make. Truter said the bill would:

- Give the Department of Health authority to create and oversee certification rules for recovery residences through rulemaking and community engagement; - Require a common data‑collection and reporting standard for certified homes; and - Make permanent the statute that exempts certified recovery residences from certain landlord‑tenant protections, limited to certified operators.

Operators described how the field has built protocols to avoid leaving residents homeless after program exits. Jeff Morrow and others described "respite" or reengagement options and credited newly available stabilization or reengagement beds — operated under funds routed to programs such as Serenity House, Valley Vista and the Transitions program — as an "ultimate safety net" when a resident cannot safely remain in a shared home.

Several witnesses described the kinds of conduct S.157 would add to the immediate‑exit or transfer grounds for certified homes, including theft, criminal charges, refusal to engage in required programming and behavior that interferes with others' recovery. Morrow and David Regal said those grounds are intended to protect the rest of the house and are not meant as punishment. Regal recommended the committee add 9 V.S.A. §4460 (notice of entry) to the bill's exemptions so house coordinators could enter program spaces when needed for operations and intake.

Supporters urged that certification remain voluntary. "I implore you that we keep certification voluntary," Morrow said, arguing that a mandatory certification regime could force difficult choices about providers that decline standards for programmatic or philosophical reasons.

Committee members pressed for detail on several points. Truter pointed the committee to the Act 163 inventory (which listed 8 organizations, 29 locations and 145 beds as of the October 2025 report and was updated in testimony to 155 beds after recent openings). She also described cross‑agency coordination (Health, DCF, Mental Health, DAIL) and said the department funds 26 outreach positions across preferred treatment providers with opioid‑abatement settlement dollars to support engagement into services.

Members signaled concern about broad statutory language in Section 3 that would allow exits for conduct that "interferes with others' recovery," asking whether the phrase could be narrowed or clarified to avoid subjective application. Witnesses said those decisions are intended to follow documented, team‑based processes (safety plans, accountability plans, restorative actions) and suggested the committee could refine statutory language during markup.

Truter and multiple operators emphasized an implementation constraint that shaped support for the bill: stabilized and reengagement beds are not carved out as fixed, numbered slots statewide but are funded as allowable uses within several treatment and provider programs. Truter told the committee that the rural health transformation RFP (open for level‑2 and level‑3 residences and designed to fill geographic gaps) requires applicants to justify geographic focus and closes at the end of April.

The committee did not take a vote; Chair Teresa Wood said members would hear additional witnesses and move to markup. Several members said they anticipate refining the bill's language on interference with others' recovery and clarifying operational details about stabilization beds and certification prerequisites.

Next steps: the committee plans further witness testimony and a markup session where members expect to consider amendments including language about notice of entry and adjustments to definitions and exit grounds.