I am submitting this comment as someone who works directly with people in recovery and work directly with VARR-accredited recovery residence.

I absolutely believe there should be standards. People living in recovery housing deserve to be safe, respected, and protected from exploitation, unsafe housing, brokering, and other harmful practices. But I also believe we need to be careful about what we are asking recovery residences to become.

Recovery housing is not treatment. It is a home. It is a place where people are learning how to live differently, rebuild relationships, find jobs, attend meetings, take responsibility, and become part of a community again. That Social Model matters.

From the boots-on-the-ground side of this work, I see how much time and energy already goes into supporting residents. Many of these homes are run by people with lived experience who are giving back and helping others because they know what it feels like to need that support.

VARR-accredited homes are already held accountable through NARR standards and the accreditation process. Adding another layer of paperwork, reporting, inspections, policies, and compliance can become overwhelming, especially for smaller community-based residences.

And honestly, we need to ask ourselves what we are gaining from every additional requirement.

Is it actually making residents safer, or are we just creating more paperwork?

Because every hour spent chasing documentation and managing duplicate requirements is an hour that could have been spent helping someone get to a meeting, find a job, reconnect with their family, get to an appointment, or simply having a conversation with someone who is struggling.

I also worry about what happens to recovery housing if the cost and administrative burden become too much. We need more safe recovery housing—not fewer places for people coming out of treatment, incarceration, homelessness, or unstable living situations.

And we need to be careful not to create a system where people with lived experience are pushed out because they aren't trained to navigate a clinical-style regulatory system.

There is absolutely a place for accountability. But recovery residences should not be turned into treatment programs just because we want to make sure they are safe.

I am asking DBHDS to look at this from the perspective of the people actually doing this work every day. Protect residents. Hold bad actors accountable. But don't lose the heart of what recovery housing is supposed to be.

Recovery housing should remain a home, a community, and a place where people learn how to live in recovery—not another version of residential treatment.