The Pioneer Press had a confounding story last Monday called Sober Homes Oppose Bill. The DFL-controlled legislature is working on legislation that would begin to the state's regulate sober homes, which I gather have been self-regulating until now.
It sounds like that's not a bad idea in general, and I can imagine there is some particular abuse of trust or finances that have happened that prompted it, though nothing specific was mentioned in the story. There was mention of "bad actors" who have harmed people, but no examples given, even anonymized.
However, the arguments presented by the people who run a number of sober houses seemed pretty compelling.
First, they say sober homes are not institutions. They consider themselves to be supportive communities for people coming out of rehab, a place that's different from wherever a person was living before they went into rehab that most likely will not be a good place to go back to if sobriety is to continue.
The bill in the works would require all of the homes to register with Department of Human Services. If the home receives federal funding, it would have to be certified, which includes assessing all residents' individual needs. Staff would have to distribute any medications to residents. And the homes would have to provide 24 hours notice before evicting anyone.
DHS did a study, which is being used to guide the legislation, but its results have not been seen by the Minnesota Association of Sober Houses, which was a partner in the study. MASH represents 166 sober houses in the state of the estimated 200–300 that exist. The organization had been told it would see the results last fall, but it has not.
Not surprisingly, MASH wants a pause on the bill. It wants the state to support the organization's existing certification process, rather than create a new one. This has been done in some other states.
MASH resists the idea of staff administering medications. Staff, they say, are often residents themselves, or part-time managers. If a drug is classified as restricted, it's in a lock box that only the specific person can access. A sober home is not treatment, essentially. Documenting and tracking everyone's medication is not part of its mission.
According to one person quoted in the PiPress story, the 24-hour eviction notice is the biggest problem of all. On the face of it, it sounds extremely reasonable. But going through a specific eviction would create a public record, which would make it much harder for the person to find housing in the future, just at a time when they have relapsed. It also costs money and takes time to do.
And on the 24-hour notice specifically:
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.”
The final point of contention:
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.”
It's hard to believe DHS's claim, from midway through the article that "...the bill was drafted considering MASH’s feedback and participation provided during the study."
Or maybe they considered their feedback and rejected it. I think the two sides can work this out, but I agree it sounds like a pause is needed on the legislation, both to make up for the bad process and to find solutions that don't destroy what has been working in the sober house system.
No comments:
Post a Comment