This year’s Minnesota House human services omnibus bill includes a series of restrictions to sober homes across the state. Operators warn some of them could shut down sober homes and prevent more from opening.
Sober homes are not currently defined or regulated under state law. They are commonly understood as supportive communities for people recovering from substance use issues to live drug- and alcohol-free after completing inpatient rehab or while in outpatient programming.
“Typically [residents] come to us because the environment they left 30 days ago is not a recovery-friendly environment,” said Patrick Flanagan, co-founder and chief recovery officer at the Lion House women’s sober homes in St. Paul. “They have the support of 15 other women every day that they can have a meal with, that they can go to a meeting with, that they can share with, so it creates an environment to give back and build your life back.”
Major provisions in the bill that sober home operators oppose include requiring all homes to register with the state Department of Human Services and permit the use of all prescribed medications. The bill also would establish a certification program necessary for all sober homes receiving federal funding, adding standards such as an assessment of all potential residents’ specific needs, house staff distributing resident medication and 24-hour notice before filing an eviction action.
Flanagan said the new regulations outlined in the omnibus bill, which emerged from a study into sober living conducted by DHS, are ill-informed and would force some sober homes to shut their doors as well as dissuade others from entering the business.
“My opinion is that the proposed changes are coming from people that truly don’t understand what sober living is all about,” said Flanagan. “Sober living homes are just that — they’re homes — not treatment facilities.”
Sober homes feel blindsided
The goal of adding regulations to sober homes is to get rid of “bad actors” in the business, said co-author of the bill Rep. Mohamed Noor, DFL-Minneapolis.
“We’ve seen people who’ve been harmed by sober homes,” Noor said. “It puts some guidance and requirements under the law. I know it’s tough for people to accept that now you have to follow legislation rather than what you want when treating individuals.”
The DHS study on sober homes provided the recommendations for change the bill follows, Noor said. However, the study results still have not been released to the public or to the Minnesota Association of Sober Homes, or MASH, a partner of DHS in the development of the study. MASH is a 66 member organization covering approximately 166 sober house homes and 1,850 beds. Officials with MASH estimate there are 200-230 sober homes in Minnesota.
MASH was told they would be able to review the results by September of 2022, said John Curtiss, a MASH co-founder and board member and owner of The Retreat, a set of Twin Cities recovery centers and sober homes.
“So now this bill shows up without the group really having the chance to look over the study and say, ‘Does the DHS’ presentation of the study results represent what those of us in the study group felt as well?’” he said.
Jen Sather, director of the DHS’ substance use disorder services, said the study is going through final approvals and will be published after those are met. She said the bill was drafted considering MASH’s feedback and participation provided during the study.
‘We know what we’re doing’
Curtiss said MASH does not oppose adding regulations to sober homes to create a better experience for residents. But MASH advocates for a pause on the bill so the DHS can work with sober homes to develop one that better reflects the goals of all who would be impacted.
“They see people living in sober homes as vulnerable individuals that need protection from the state, and we’re saying, ‘we’re all for that.’ We want safe homes, well-run homes, ethical homes,” he said. “We just don’t think the state should be the one doing it.”
MASH works as Minnesota’s affiliate of the National Alliance of Recovery Residences, or NARR, which provides specific standards of its members. Curtiss estimated about 60% of the state’s sober homes are certified under MASH.
The bill would establish a DHS certification program mandatory for sober homes receiving any federal, state or local funding. MASH advocates for the state to instead support their existing certification process instead of trying to start over.
Chris Edrington, owner and founder of St. Paul Sober Living and NARR vice president, noted the certification process outlined in the bill is similar to what MASH already does.
“We inspect houses, we give you the stamp of approval, we check your house, we train your staff,” said Edrington. “Many other states have funded their state affiliate, and they’re doing it in a much bigger, better way … And you can have oversight, but let us do it, because we know what we’re doing.”
In an email statement, the DHS said oversight should be conducted by a neutral party as opposed to a provider association, like MASH.
“If state funds are to be used in sober home settings, the state has the obligation to assure that the settings meet state-defined standards,” the DHS said in the statement.
Certified homes under the proposed legislation would need “house staff providing medication at specified times to residents,” which Curtiss said places too large a burden on sober home staff, who are often residents of the house or manage the house part-time.
“They’re not going to have time to go and count everybody’s prescriptions,” he said. “This is a self-administration home … If there’s a classification of a drug that is protected, then there’s a lock box in the home where they can keep their medication safe. But to ask the staff of a sober home to count everyone’s medication and document what they’re taking — that’s what treatment does.”
The DHS disputed the interpretation that the bill requires that staff administer medications and said they communicated with MASH the opportunity to ask clarifying questions on April 10 but have not yet received a response.
24-hour notice, eviction requirements
What Curtiss considers the most intensely damaging part of the bill is a requirement for certified homes to provide 24-hour notice before they expel an resident. Expelling a resident would then be considered an eviction action, “including a warning that the eviction action may become public as soon as it is filed, making finding future housing more difficult.”
Curtiss said keeping people who relapse in the home for the 24-hour period is risky. Currently, if somebody shows up at the sober home intoxicated, the home makes “every effort” to ensure that person is removed from the house and taken to a higher level of care, such as back to a treatment center or family’s home, he said.
“And when you bring a drunk person into a sober home, the trauma reaction that happens with the other residents is something to behold,” Curtiss said. “We made a contract with everyone who lives in a sober home and with the neighborhood around the sober home that these will be safe alcohol- and drug-free environments.”
In addition, filing a formal eviction against a resident takes money and time as well as adds unnecessary punishment to the resident for relapsing, Curtiss said.
“They not only have to move out of the house because they’ve violated the expectation of the home and they’ve relapsed, they also now have a record of a form of eviction, which will make it impossible for them to rent on their own down the road,” he said.
Sather said because individuals are exchanging money for housing, the sober home operator and resident agreement should be considered a lease under state law, which the bill’s provision simply codifies. She also said 24-hour requirement allows individuals to leave “on their own will” and “provides some dignity.”
“We don’t want to see people being discharged or evicted to the streets, where more harm can potentially come,” she said.
The bill also requires all sober homes to register with the DHS and have trained staff that can administer potentially life-saving naloxone, have written policies regarding access to all prescribed medications and evictions, and have staff training and policies regarding co-occurring mental illnesses.
Curtiss said about a quarter of MASH-certified sober homes prefer to prohibit certain addictive, mood-altering drugs because patients have a history of “doctor shopping” to get hold of drugs that feed their addiction.
“A lot of their residents may have abused that at some point in their lives, and what we’re saying is what we want in Minnesota is choice. We want a variety of homes,” he said.
Any sober home that violates any provision in the bill would be entitled to bring legal action, during which the court would award a resident who prevails “double damages, costs, disbursements, reasonable attorney fees and any equitable relief the court deems appropriate.”
Curtiss said because sober homes are usually small operations, “one disgruntled resident could put a home out of business.”
“Is that really the heavy hammer they want to put on sober people trying to live together to be happy and free?” he asked. “This will scare a lot of people out of the sober house field.”
