Agency
Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services
 
Board
State Board of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services
 
Previous Comment     Next Comment     Back to List of Comments
9/8/26  2:35 pm
Commenter: GreenhouseRVA

Re: Recovery Residence Workgroup draft, 12VAC35-260 (dated August 25, 2026)
 

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

CommentID: 241152