32 comments
I understand that cannabis can be used medically, but for the sake of people that cannabis can destroy their recovery, there needs to be 100% substance free housing. If medical cannabis is to be allowed in recovery housing, the housing needs to be labeled differently- have two different levels of housing: one that supports medical cannabis and one that is 100% substance free. People need to know what type of recovery housing they are going into in order to protect their chance at long term recovery. Allowing cannabis in all recovery housing can be incredibly harmful to people's recovery. I know that if I had been around cannabis or people that were high when I was in early recovery, I would not still be sober.
The point of these laws was to break a monopoly, not build one. The General Assembly told DBHDS to set statewide minimums, let operators apply directly, stop credentialing entities from running the system as their private club, and stop homes from being forced into one organization’s model. This draft does the opposite. It still makes VARR or Oxford House the door. If VARR does not like a home’s pathway — including a medical-cannabis policy the draft itself pretends to allow — the home never gets certified. Courts and state agencies then cannot refer there. That is not oversight. That is VARR’s particular way, written into state paper.
GreenhouseRVA is a recovery residence in Henrico County. We house people in recovery, including residents on probation and residents who hold valid Virginia medical cannabis certifications. We support certification, inspections, complaint rights, and a ban on brokering. We do not support a draft that looks like it allows medical cannabis and then lets VARR block the home by doing nothing.
What already happened to us.
DBHDS gave GreenhouseRVA a six-month extension. VARR did not process our application. It timed out. That is not a standards review. That is a pocket veto. As long as § 20.A requires a VARR or Oxford House credential before DBHDS certification, VARR can deny a home without ever saying no: slow-walk the file, refuse to schedule, wait out conditional certification, then treat the operator as noncompliant. That is the monopoly the statute was supposed to prevent.
Please change the draft so that cannot happen again.
1. Stop the pocket veto — add deadlines to §§ 20, 50, and 130.
Require every credentialing entity to confirm in writing whether an application is complete within 3 months of receipt, and to grant, deny, or issue a written deficiency list within 6 months of a complete file. Every denial, withdrawal request, or “application closed / timed out” decision must be in writing, cite the specific standard, and go to the operator and DBHDS the same day. A credentialing entity may not let an application expire by inaction while the home holds DBHDS conditional certification.
If VARR misses the 3-month or 6-month deadline, or closes a file by timeout, that shall not count as “accreditation withdrawn” under § 130. DBHDS shall review the home directly, or extend conditional certification, until a decision on the merits is issued.
2. Rewrite 12VAC35-260-170.
A home that uses option 2 (medical only) stays eligible for certification. Require: valid Virginia medical certification on file; lockbox; no sharing or diversion; inventory/monitoring; discharge or written consequences for misuse. Products used under § 4.1-1600 are not illicit drugs. VARR cannot deny, delay, refuse to docket, or time out an application because the home chose option 2. This section should be the Board’s protocol for prohibiting recreational and unauthorized marijuana, aligned with NARR national standards — not VARR’s private ban.
3. Change §§ 20.A and 50. End the monopoly.
Operators may apply directly to DBHDS. That was the purpose of the Act. Missing a VARR credential is not an automatic denial if the home meets this chapter, including § 170. A credentialing-entity stall is not a home defect. State certification cannot depend on joining one association’s particular way of recovery.
4. Change §§ 10 and 180.
“Illicit drug” does not include medical cannabis used under § 4.1-1600 and § 170. A THC test that matches a documented, valid certification is not, by itself, a violation. Off-site legal medical use should not be an automatic house violation.
5. Change §§ 80 and 130.
Following § 170 is not an “illegal act” and is not grounds to deny, suspend, or revoke. VARR inaction, timeout, or a cannabis-policy refusal is not, by itself, grounds to decertify.
We are not asking for recreational use in recovery housing. We are asking for more than one lawful pathway, with lockboxes, monitoring, and consequences for misuse — and for a process that cannot be killed by silence.
Do not replace these rules with a variance. “Keep option 2, but VARR still decides” is the current draft. That rebuilds the monopoly these laws were written to stop. That is how our file died on the clock. Write that loophole closed.
Jeremy Tillem
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
I strongly support the direction of proposed § 12VAC35-260-170 because it recognizes that recovery is not one size fits all. Some people choose complete abstinence. Others may use legally authorized medical treatment while still living stable, productive lives in recovery. Both deserve safe housing and meaningful options.
My biggest concern is whether that choice will actually exist in practice.
Section 170 appears to allow operators to either prohibit marijuana entirely or permit medical cannabis under strict protocols for residents with valid Virginia certifications. However, other sections still appear to require accreditation through VARR or Oxford House before DBHDS certification.
If a residence follows every DBHDS requirement under the medical cannabis pathway but a credentialing entity refuses to accredit it solely because of that choice, then Option 2 is not truly an option.
I respectfully ask DBHDS to make sure the final regulations protect both pathways in practice, provide a meaningful independent certification route, and ensure operators are not penalized for third party delays or private policies that conflict with options expressly allowed by the Commonwealth.
This is bigger than cannabis. It is about preserving choice, dignity, and multiple pathways to recovery while still maintaining strong safety and accountability standards.
The people living in recovery residences deserve protection, but they also deserve options.
Kayla McCue
Greenhouse RVA
P.S. Greenhouse RVA has been operating since 2021 and has years of direct experience operating a structured, medical-cannabis-inclusive recovery residence. We already have policies, safeguards, monitoring practices, and real-world experience addressing many of the questions now being considered. To date, no one involved in developing these regulations has reached out to us to ask what has worked, what challenges we have encountered, or what safeguards we have learned are necessary. As this framework continues to develop, I respectfully encourage the workgroup to include operators who are already doing this work. We would gladly share our experience, policies, challenges, and ideas if they could help create a safer and more workable system for residents across Virginia.
ZOE FREEDOM CENTER
Comments on Draft Regulations - Chapter 260, Certified Recovery Residences
dated September 14, 2026
Zoe Freedom Center (ZFC) appreciates the opportunity to comment on Virginia's proposed regulations for certified recovery residences.
ZFC is a nonprofit, faith-based recovery organization operating a NARR-accredited recovery residence. ZFC supports oversight that protects residents, promotes ethical recovery housing, prevents exploitation and resident brokering, and holds operators accountable.
The draft appropriately defines recovery residences as alcohol-free and illicit-drug-free housing—not clinical treatment—for individuals with substance use disorders, including co-occurring conditions. This distinction should remain central.
Virginia can strengthen resident protections without duplicating VARR/NARR accreditation or converting nonclinical residences into licensed behavioral health facilities.
ZFC recommends that the final regulations be guided by three foundational principles:
1. Preserve VARR accreditation and the existing credentialing-entity oversight process rather than creating duplicative state oversight.
2. Protect the confidentiality of recovery residence locations when public disclosure could endanger residents.
3. Preserve the nonclinical, recovery-oriented nature of recovery residences and the diversity of legitimate recovery models, including social-model, abstinence-based and faith-based recovery.
ZFC supports retaining VARR accreditation and oversight as a central part of Virginia's regulatory framework.
The draft requires each recovery residence to meet the qualifications, policies, and practices of a credentialing entity, maintain appropriate accreditation or charter, and also receive certification from DBHDS.
ZFC supports DBHDS certification. However, requiring VARR accreditation while creating a parallel DBHDS system of inspections, reviews, corrective actions, investigations, monitoring, and sanctions risks duplicating credentialing oversight.
Virginia should maintain a credentialing-entity model of oversight in which:
Accredited residences should not routinely undergo separate VARR and DBHDS inspections of substantially identical requirements.
When VARR is overseeing an acceptable corrective action plan, DBHDS should ordinarily recognize it rather than require a duplicative process.
Independent DBHDS inspection or enforcement would remain appropriate when:
Recognition of Credentialing Entity Oversight. A recovery residence accredited or chartered by an approved credentialing entity shall maintain such accreditation or charter as a continuing condition of certification by the Department.
The Department shall recognize inspections, compliance reviews, corrective action plans, monitoring activities, and other oversight performed by an approved credentialing entity when such activities address substantially equivalent requirements of this chapter.
The Department should avoid duplicative inspections, documentation reviews, or corrective action requirements when an approved credentialing entity has adequately reviewed and addressed the matter.
Nothing in this section shall limit the Department's authority to conduct an inspection, investigation, or enforcement action when the Department has reasonable cause to believe there is an imminent or substantial threat to resident health or safety; an allegation of abuse, neglect, exploitation, fraud, resident brokering, or criminal conduct; a significant violation of law or regulation; or circumstances demonstrating that credentialing-entity oversight has not adequately addressed a significant compliance concern.
Approved credentialing entities shall notify the Department of suspension, revocation, termination, or other significant sanctions affecting the accreditation or charter of a certified recovery residence.
VARR/NARR should establish and monitor recovery residence accreditation standards and ongoing accreditation compliance. DBHDS should provide governmental certification, statutory enforcement, and direct intervention when significant resident-safety or regulatory concerns require state action.
ZFC has significant concerns regarding public disclosure of the physical addresses of recovery residences.
The draft requires DBHDS to maintain a public list of certified and conditionally certified recovery residences. It separately requires applicants to provide DBHDS with the address of the recovery residence.
DBHDS needs residence addresses for regulation, but possessing an address differs fundamentally from publishing it online or in another public resource.
Many individuals entering recovery residences have experienced circumstances involving:
For these residents, disclosure of their current residential location may create a genuine safety risk.
A recovery residence is the residents' home; certification should not automatically make its address public.
The regulations should distinguish between information DBHDS requires for governmental and regulatory purposes and information DBHDS may publicly disclose.
Operators should be permitted to designate a recovery residence address as confidential when public disclosure could reasonably create a safety, privacy, or security risk for residents.
A protected residence could instead be publicly identified by:
Organization/operator name;
City, county, or general service area;
Credentialing entity;
NARR level of support;
DBHDS certification status;
Organizational telephone number;
Organizational email address; and
Public referral or website information.
Protection of Recovery Residence Location. The Department shall maintain the physical address of each certified or conditionally certified recovery residence for certification, inspection, emergency response, and other lawful governmental purposes.
Upon request of the operator, the Department shall withhold the specific street address of a recovery residence from any public-facing website, online directory, searchable database, map, publication, or other publicly accessible resource when the operator certifies that public disclosure could reasonably create a safety, privacy, or security risk to current or prospective residents.
Such circumstances may include, but are not limited to, residences serving individuals with histories of domestic violence, human trafficking, sexual exploitation, stalking, abuse, coercive control, or other forms of victimization.
When an address is protected from public disclosure, the Department may identify the residence by locality or general geographic service area and shall provide appropriate contact information through which prospective residents, families, referral sources, and members of the public may contact the operator.
Nothing in this provision shall prevent disclosure of the physical address to law enforcement, emergency responders, credentialing entities, governmental agencies, or other persons when disclosure is required by law or reasonably necessary to protect the health or safety of a resident.
This should be viewed as a resident-safety provision, not merely an operator privacy preference.
The draft defines a recovery residence as housing that does not include clinical treatment services. That distinction should guide the remainder of the regulations.
ZFC is concerned that an extensive state regulatory structure involving routine inspections, investigations, detailed operational requirements, corrective action plans, sanctions, and other requirements could gradually cause recovery residence certification to resemble behavioral health facility licensure.
Recovery residences fill an important role because they are homes and recovery communities, not clinical institutions.
The final regulations should expressly state that DBHDS certification does not constitute behavioral health facility licensure and should not impose clinical treatment requirements upon recovery residences.
Requirements should remain focused on resident safety, ethical operation, recovery-supportive environments, consumer protection, and compliance with applicable NARR standards.
The draft provides that DBHDS may conduct unannounced inspections of all recovery residences 'at any time.'
This authority is unnecessarily broad, particularly considering that accredited residences are already subject to credentialing-entity oversight.
Additionally, a recovery residence is the private home of its residents.
The regulations should distinguish between:
Routine compliance inspections: generally announced, coordinated with VARR when appropriate, and conducted during reasonable hours;
For-cause inspections: may be unannounced when based upon a complaint or reasonable suspicion of significant noncompliance; and
Emergency inspections: may occur immediately when there is reasonable cause to believe an imminent threat to resident health or safety exists.
The proposed requirement to report complaints concerning the 'health, safety or welfare' of residents is overly broad.
Residences routinely address concerns about rules, curfews, transportation, chores, disagreements, expectations, and other normal aspects of communal living.
The term 'welfare' could potentially encompass nearly any resident grievance.
Mandatory reporting to DBHDS should focus on allegations involving:
Abuse;
Neglect;
Exploitation;
Serious injury;
Criminal conduct;
Substantial violations of resident rights; or
Imminent or substantial threats to resident health or safety.
Routine grievances should continue to be handled through the residence's established grievance process and applicable VARR/NARR requirements.
The draft allows repeated complaints to contribute to warning notices and probationary status.
A complaint is an allegation, not a finding.
Operators should not face regulatory sanctions merely because one or more individuals repeatedly submit complaints.
References to 'repeated complaints' as grounds for disciplinary action should be revised to refer to: substantiated complaints, demonstrated patterns of noncompliance, or complaints for which preliminary review establishes reasonable evidence of systemic concerns.
ZFC operates an abstinence-based recovery model.
The proposed medical-cannabis provisions appropriately appear to allow an operator to prohibit marijuana and marijuana products. This discretion should be expressly preserved in the final regulations.
Recovery residences should not be required to modify their fundamental recovery philosophy as a condition of state certification.
Nothing in this chapter shall require a recovery residence to permit the possession or consumption of marijuana, marijuana products, alcohol, or other intoxicating substances when such possession or consumption is inconsistent with the residence's abstinence-based recovery model, written policies, or credentialing standards.
Prospective residents should receive clear disclosure of the residence's abstinence policy before admission.
Faith-based organizations should be able to retain their religious identity and recovery philosophy while complying with applicable state law and recovery residence standards.
Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit a recovery residence from maintaining a religious or faith-based organizational identity or incorporating faith-based principles and voluntary religious activities into its recovery environment, provided that the residence otherwise complies with applicable law and accurately discloses its program model to prospective residents.
The draft recognizes the concept of a NARR 'level of support,' but many subsequent requirements appear to apply uniformly across recovery residences.
Recovery residences operating at different NARR levels have materially different models of governance, staffing, structure, and support.
A peer-run residence and a Level III recovery residence should not necessarily be regulated operationally in an identical manner.
Where appropriate, regulatory requirements should defer to or recognize the applicable NARR level of support.
Virginia should not impose a single model that eliminates distinctions in nationally recognized standards.
The draft provides that failure to submit a renewal application at least 90 days before expiration will be considered notification of the residence's intent to discontinue operation.
This consequence is disproportionate to an administrative deadline.
Turnover, illness, administrative error, or technology problems may cause a missed deadline, which should not be treated as a decision to close.
DBHDS should provide written notice that renewal is delinquent, a reasonable cure period, notice of the consequences of failure to cure, and appropriate procedures to protect existing residents if certification ultimately expires.
ZFC supports meaningful consequences for unsafe, exploitative, or unethical operators.
However, regulatory consequences should correspond to the severity of the violation.
Several minor documentation deficiencies should not be treated the same as conduct creating an imminent danger to residents.
Virginia should establish categories such as:
Level 1 - Minor/Administrative Deficiency: Documentation or technical deficiencies presenting no material resident-safety concern.
Level 2 - Significant Noncompliance: Substantive deficiencies requiring corrective action but not presenting an immediate threat.
Level 3 - Serious Health or Safety Violation: Conduct presenting a significant risk of harm or involving serious regulatory violations.
Immediate Jeopardy: Circumstances presenting an imminent and substantial threat to resident health or safety.
Warnings, corrective action plans, probation, suspension, and revocation should correspond to the severity and persistence of the violation.
The draft references an informal conference for denial or revocation, but the final regulations should establish a clearer and more comprehensive due-process framework.
The regulations should clearly establish written notice requirements, opportunity to correct non-emergency deficiencies, informal conference procedures, formal appeal rights, standards for emergency suspension, evidentiary standards, whether certification remains effective during an appeal, timelines for DBHDS decisions, and procedures for protecting residents when certification is suspended or revoked.
DBHDS may require access to documents during certification reviews, inspections, complaint investigations, and enforcement actions.
The draft should more clearly address protection of personally identifiable resident information obtained through those processes.
The regulations should establish what categories of resident records DBHDS may request; when personally identifiable information is necessary; when information should instead be redacted or de-identified; confidentiality requirements for information obtained by DBHDS; storage and retention requirements; limitations on redisclosure; and appropriate safeguards for particularly sensitive information.
The draft references serious incidents in several enforcement provisions, including potential consequences for failure to report them.
However, the draft does not provide a sufficiently clear definition of 'serious incident.'
The term should be objectively defined so operators understand precisely what events require reporting.
The definition should distinguish reportable incidents from routine events and minor behavioral or operational issues.
The draft requires each operator to designate a staff person at each recovery residence as a community liaison.
ZFC supports positive relationships with neighbors, law enforcement, local government, and the community.
Requiring a specific staff designation at every location may burden smaller nonprofits.
Rather than prescribing an organizational position or staff assignment, regulations should require operators to:
Maintain accessible community contact information;
Respond appropriately to legitimate neighborhood concerns; and
Maintain procedures for addressing community complaints.
Operators should retain flexibility regarding how those responsibilities are assigned internally.
The regulatory framework appropriately focuses on enforcement against noncompliant operators, but it should also address what happens to residents when enforcement results in suspension, revocation, or closure.
Except where immediate evacuation is necessary to protect residents from imminent danger, DBHDS and the operator should develop an orderly transition process that:
Provides reasonable notice to residents;
Protects resident belongings and records;
Facilitates referrals to appropriate alternative recovery residences;
Coordinates with VARR and other recovery resources;
Minimizes disruption to employment, recovery supports, transportation, and family relationships; and
Prevents unnecessary homelessness.
ZFC supports stronger accountability and resident protection in recovery housing.
Virginia should build on the existing recovery residence system rather than create a duplicative facility-licensure model.
ZFC respectfully recommends that the final regulations:
Virginia can provide meaningful governmental accountability while preserving the recovery-oriented principles that make recovery residences effective.
Zoe Freedom Center appreciates the opportunity to participate in this process and welcomes continued collaboration with DBHDS, VARR, recovery residence operators, residents, and community stakeholders as these regulations are further developed.
I am writing on behalf of the Alamo Recovery Center, Inc., a residential recovery home in historic Petersburg, Virginia. We are a small recovery home which serves eight residents including a house manager. We have operated our recovery residence for over 40 years and have established close relationships with the Tri-Cities recovery community as well as our regional correctional and community services board agencies. We operate on an extremely limited budget and value our relationships with DBHDS, the Cameron Foundation, and the City of Petersburg’s Community Development Block Grant office, and our various donors in the community.
We were pleased and excited to see DBHDS considering amendments to the 12VAC35-260 regulations to expand the certification options for recovery residences. The existing regulations requiring credentialing by VARR or Oxford House, Inc. were, candidly, significantly too costly (in the case of VARR), or not directly applicable to us (in the case of Oxford Houses), so as to effectively make the credentialing process impossible for a small residence like ours, and we imagine, for many other residences.
The amendments that have been proposed will allow recovery residences like ours to become credentialed directly through DBHDS rather than through the current VARR/Oxford House certification paths. We believe that the proposed DBHDS application process is both meaningfully demanding and practically achievable. Furthermore, the DBHDS oversight proposed in the amended regulations is appropriate and manageable for a small facility like ours.
Accordingly, we commend DBHDS for preparing those amendments and support adoption of the amendments after the current public comment period has ended. The Board and staff of the Alamo look forward to applying for certification as soon as the new regulations are adopted.
Better Men of Virginia, Inc. is a Virginia nonprofit corporation preparing its first recovery residence, an eight-bed monitored (NARR Level II) house in Petersburg for men in recovery, including men returning from incarceration. Our accreditation application is with the Virginia Association of Recovery Residences, and our full policy set is written to the credentialing standard. We comment as a new operator building to this chapter before opening, not as one asking to be excused from it.
We support the draft. Minimum standards, a real complaint process, the prohibition on resident brokering, and clear grounds for decertification protect residents and protect honest operators from being undercut by houses that sell beds and call it recovery. The eight comments below are offered to make the chapter easier to comply with, and easier to enforce.
1. Say what "submitted to the credentialing entity" means for conditional certification
Conditional certification turns on an applicant's policies being with a credentialing entity. We ask the department to state the proof it will accept, such as a dated written acknowledgment from the credentialing entity, and to commit to a decision timeframe on a conditional application. New operators sign leases, bind insurance, and raise capital against that date. A published timeframe costs the department little and prevents an empty, paid-for house from sitting closed.
2. Make the local zoning requirement workable
Certification requires local zoning compliance, but no Virginia statute classifies a certified recovery residence as a single-family use, and § 15.2-2291 reaches licensed group homes rather than certified residences. Localities answer this differently. We ask the department to state that a written zoning determination from the locality, or documentation of a pending reasonable-accommodation request under fair housing law, satisfies the requirement at application, with final compliance confirmed before certification. Without that, a compliant operator can be stalled indefinitely by a locality that simply does not answer.
3. Tie the 50-square-foot bedroom standard to the building code
The draft sets no less than 50 square feet of floor space per resident. We ask the department to say how the space is measured, whether closets and required means of egress count, and how the standard reads against the Uniform Statewide Building Code, including § 36-105.4 and egress for basement bedrooms. Operators measure rooms before signing leases. One sentence here prevents a house from being furnished to one standard and inspected against another.
4. Put an outer limit on "timely and fair review" of complaints
We support the 24-hour response for abuse allegations and the rule that no agreement may restrict a resident's right to complain. We ask the department to add a plain outer limit for all other complaints, such as a written response within ten business days, and to publish a model complaint form and a resident-facing poster. Small operators will comply with a form the department writes far more consistently than with a form each of us drafts alone.
5. Publish the data-reporting fields before January 1, 2027, and keep them de-identified
Reporting obligations take effect January 1, 2027. We ask the department to publish the fields, format, and cadence at least 90 days ahead, and to require counts rather than resident-level records wherever counts will do. Recovery residences serve people whose treatment records are protected under 42 CFR Part 2, and many residents arrive under court or probation supervision. A reporting scheme built on counts protects residents and keeps small operators out of the business of building record systems they cannot secure.
6. Say plainly how state bed funding relates to conditional certification
Operators are told that state-funded beds require accreditation, certification, and use of a recovery capital assessment. We ask the department to state in the chapter, or in guidance issued with it, whether a conditionally certified residence may receive state bed funding, and on what terms. New houses in the months before full accreditation are exactly the beds the Commonwealth says it wants, and the current silence makes them impossible to budget.
7. Address medical cannabis in one place
The draft requires a policy on marijuana consistent with the Medical Cannabis Program. Residences must be drug-free by statute, and some residents hold valid written certifications. We ask the department to publish model language that reconciles the two, including whether a residence may require storage off site and how a residence declines an applicant without running into fair housing exposure. This is the single question new operators ask counsel about most, and one model paragraph would settle it statewide.
8. Publish a compliance checklist and name one point of contact
Much of this chapter will be met by operators with no compliance staff. A one-page checklist in the order the chapter reads, the required postings listed in one place, and a named contact in the Office of Recovery Services would raise compliance more than any additional requirement in the draft.
One more, on the community liaison
We support requiring a designated community liaison. We ask that the chapter state what the liaison must be able to do, such as receive and log neighbor complaints, acknowledge them within one business day, and provide a posted phone number. Our own policies already work this way, and it is the least expensive thing an operator can do to keep a house welcome on its block.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment, and for building a floor under this field before it grows.
Sho-Don Gilliam, Founder
Better Men of Virginia, Inc. · Petersburg, Virginia · (804) 790-9169
I've lived in an Oxfordhouse for over 2 years. I've been sober from the day I moved in. I've been to 5 rehabs and other programs and failed in each one. Except Oxfordhouse. The model is the success for me and many others. The unique structure of no "managers" requires Oxfordhouse members to take responsibilty for their own finances, house finances, living area, chores and basic house duties that some members have never been required to undertake.
I support the rules that keep people safe, but rules that require staff or assume every home is a commercial business would keep Oxfordhouses from operating in Virginia, even though our model get the best results. Please change those rules, and please clarify whether house members are considered the operator.
Being accountable to other members is a vital piece of this structure. Rotating officer positions provides opportunities for members to gain experience in team building and collaboration. Many of the skills learned in this model transfer to other relationships and employment.
Oxfordhouse not only keeps me and others sober, it teaches life lessons in conflict resolution and handling money. Two skills that are criticial in sobriety.
Running the house under Roberts Rules of Order and every member being an equal part of the success, is an invaluable tool.
I have regained trust from family, gainfully employed, have a savings and feel a part of something I haven't had all my life. A bond and kinship to others who have the same issues I do.
Without the Oxfordhouse model, I would not be sober today.
I moved into to Oxford House Neptune in VA. Beach September 5th 2024. I had just returned from a rehab with no job and no family who would deal with me. I went to an AA meeting, a person there knew about Oxford and gave me the information. I called Neptune house, a member answered, and asked where I was. Two men came and picked me up. They called an emergency meeting, interviewed, and accepted me into their Oxford home. That scenario only could have taken place in a peer run recovery house model . The brotherhood of Oxford and peer accountability has saved my life. Speaking freely only for myself, men and women who have suffered the grips of active addiction, CAN recover with the help and love from each other.
Im a member of Wisdom Oxford House.Im president and secretary for my house.We like the Oxford model and dont want to have house managers.It will change Oxford House completely.
I moved into Oxford housing in October of 2025 and still have a home here. It’s played a major role in me staying sober. Learning to be responsible with my finances which I’ve NEVER been good at. Securing and maintaining employment and even taking the right steps to getting my license. I’ve connected with other people in recovery whom i would have never met let alone live with and learn this life’s lesson. I’m just all around very grateful and appreciative of Oxford housing.
I have lived in oxford for 2 years now. The oxford model has taught me so much about how to be an adult and a responsible member of society. Because of the way oxford is modeled without having a manager is how we've built communities of responsible individuals. I am the president of my oxford house now and I dont know what I would have done without oxford. I couldn't imagine being 2 years clean and sober today if I didn't gave oxford to help me develop and grow into the person I have become today.
Oxford house not having a house manager has taught me how to handle my confrontation, how to handle money, being in Housing service committee chair has not only kept me sober but has taught be how to really become my own woman in sobriety. I’ve learned how to be a leader and a team player and how to bring unity. This model is so important I can’t express how key it’s been since I relapsed after loosing my daughter to her relapse last year.
I currently live in an Oxford house in Chesapeake Virginia for past 18 months. This organization has given the time to recovery from addiction and mental health issues. Closing this organization would be detrimental to my mental health as well my recovery from drugs. Please reconsider closing this type of environment that has made possible to make my recovery safe.
I live in Oxford house Aayla in Lynchburg, Va. This is my second Oxford house I’ve lived in. Both times have done wonders for my recovery. It gives me a stable and safe place to live. It also gives me the structure to help rebuild my life.
I live in Oxford House - Aayla in Lynchburg. Oxford Houses are democratically self-governing and self-supporting under the Oxford House system of operations.
Peer support has supported my recovery by having people I have gotten to know and trust to help keep me clean. I have a sense of family and comradeship that gets me through the tough times.
Running the house has given me a sense of responsibility and trust.
I support rules that keep people safe, but rules that require staff or assume every home is a commercial business would keep Oxford Houses from operating in Virginia, even though research shows our model gets the best results. Please change those rules, and please clarify whether house members are considered the operator.
I live in Oxford House - Aayla in Lynchburg. Oxford Houses are democratically self-governing and self-supporting under the Oxford House system of operations.
Oxford House has always been the only format of recovery housing that has worked for me.
With Oxford House I have been able to rebuild my life and regain independence and control of my life.
I support rules that keep people safe, but rules that require staff or assume every home is a commercial business would keep Oxford Houses from operating in Virginia, even though research shows our model gets the best results. Please change those rules, and please clarify whether house members are considered the operator.
Ive been living in Oxford houses for years now and its the only thing thats been able to keep stable sobriety. My housemates are like family to me
I’ve had a family never get sober from Oxford houses and i want Everyone to have that opportunity for a good clean life
I live in Oxford House - Aayla in Lynchburg. Oxford Houses are democratically self-governing and self-supporting under the Oxford House system of operations.
Oxford has given me my life back and it can also give many of other people there life back if they want to truly recover. I have made many of friends while iv been in the Oxford it's truly a blessing to be apart of it.
I support rules that keep people safe, but rules that require staff or assume every home is a commercial business would keep Oxford Houses from operating in Virginia, even though research shows our model gets the best results. Please change those rules, and please clarify whether house members are considered the operator.
I lived in several Oxford Houses in Lynchburg and the Metro-Richmond area. Oxford Houses are democratically self-governing and self-supporting under the Oxford House system of operations.
Living in Oxford House gave me the foundation, support, and accountability I needed to build a life I never thought was possible as a woman in recovery. After spending four years in an Oxford House, I’m now approaching six years sober, and today I have my own home, a fiancé, a family, a daughter, and a life that I’m incredibly grateful for. Oxford House didn’t just help me get sober—it gave me a purpose, and now I have the privilege of helping other women find the same hope and recovery that changed my life.