During a committee hearing on Thursday, a bill aimed at introducing oversight to addiction recovery residences in Montana was met with strong opposition. This opposition poses challenges for supporters of the bill who are worried about the lack of consistent safety and ethical standards within the industry.
Conceived by the state’s Criminal Justice Oversight Council in response to the recent increase in sober living homes in Billings, Senate Bill 94 would establish a statewide registry of residences and provide a certification requirement for homes that want to accept referrals from judges, prisons, or probation and parole authorities.
In February, the bill received amendments and overwhelmingly bipartisan support as it successfully passed through the Senate. This bill represents a groundbreaking statewide policy that aims to establish protections for the unregulated recovery homes industry, which currently lacks consistent standards regarding safety and resident support.
At their best, supporters say, recovery homes that operate with the principles of peer support and resident empowerment can be a valuable alternative to medical or correctional settings. But ethical concerns have surfaced in Montana and in other states over residents working for little or no pay in exchange for room and board. Other homes have barred residents from using certain medications, including suboxone for treating opioid-use disorder.
On Thursday, county attorneys and state officials from the health and corrections departments expressed their support for SB 94 to the House Judiciary Committee. They emphasized that this legislation aims to prevent operators from exploiting or jeopardizing individuals striving for sobriety, thus promoting a safe and supportive environment for them.
According to Pam Purinton, a member of the Billings City Council, the problem with sober living homes in Billings started when their numbers grew exponentially. During her testimony on Thursday, she mentioned that these homes shifted from being a model of healing and recovery to a mere business model.
However, home operators expressed their criticism of the bill, stating that the section regarding certification lacked clarity and failed to specify the authorized national organizations, like the National Alliance of Recovery Residences or the National Sober Living Home Association, that could accredit residences. In response, a representative from the state health department suggested that these decisions should be addressed through ongoing discussions between the bill sponsor, state officials, and community providers.
SB 94 has garnered opposition from various sources, such as approximately twenty-four individuals associated with the Christian, work-based recovery program Hope Center Ministries. These opponents expressed concerns that the bill could force them to close their homes in Montana if they are unable to obtain certification. Such certification would prevent them from accepting referrals from courts and the Department of Corrections, which currently constitute over fifty percent of their residents, as testified by administrator Carolyn Belling.
Based on their commitment to sobriety, she and other supporters of Hope Center Ministries raised concerns about a section of the bill that would mandate certified operators to allow all treatment and medication prescribed by a qualified healthcare professional.
Belling expressed agreement with the purpose of Senate Bill 94 and acknowledged the necessity to regulate sober living homes. However, Belling pointed out that the current wording of the bill poses a significant risk of terminating their program and all other transitional recovery programs across the state.
Both current and former residents gave testimonies highlighting the crucial role that Hope Center played in their journey to recovery. They acknowledged the program’s contribution in helping them achieve and sustain sobriety, as well as thrive in various aspects of their lives.
Lauren Montoya, a resident of Helena, proudly declares her newfound independence, stating, “Ever since I completed the program at Hope Center, I have been employed full-time and responsibly managing my own expenses. Thanks to Hope Center Ministries, I can confidently label myself an independent woman, and I am not alone in this life-changing transformation that they have facilitated for many individuals.”
Senator Barry Usher of Laurel, R-Laurel, who sponsored SB 94, countered the claim that the bill would force sober living homes to close if they don’t pursue accreditation. Additionally, he emphasized that the bill does not specifically target religious programs. Senator Usher also highlighted the significance of the bill’s mandate to accept prescribed medications.
Usher noted that if someone with schizophrenia relies on medication and is unable to function without it, they may not be permitted at the Hope Center. This would consequently disqualify them from obtaining certification. However, Usher acknowledged that if medication is deemed medically necessary for an individual’s stability, the state government will prioritize the guidance of medical professionals and prioritize the safety of both society and the person in question.
On Tuesday morning, lawmakers showed interest in incorporating amendments to address the concerns raised by Belling and other providers. However, no vote was taken on the bill.
