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.