Walk around Granite Creek Park, north of downtown Prescott, Arizona, around dusk and stories of relapse and recovery are commonplace.
“I got felonies for possession for paraphernalia, and I went to jail. Got out of jail, and relapsed,” explains one young man from Las Vegas who we are calling John, because he does not want his real name used.
Like so many young people, he left home and came to the picturesque community of Prescott to get clean.
He ended up on the street and in the court system. Then eventually in one of the many so-called “sober living homes” here.
“It’s hard, you know, because of course I get triggered sometimes because I’m like really well-known around these parts,” he said.
People still come up to him and ask whether he wants to get high. But he resists. That instant gratification isn’t worth it, he said, in part because he likes his treatment program, which is well-run.
“But there are so many not all are going to be virtuous. Like I feel a lot of them is kind of just like — not a scam necessarily because they try to help people — but it is just for the profit,” he said.
With more than 150 of these group homes at last count, that’s an accusation leveled both by those within the recovery industry and outside it.
In recent years, Prescott has become a national destination for those trying to get sober. But some in the community say government oversight has not kept up with the explosive growth of programs there and that has raised a host of issues.
MORE: Prescott Grappling With Costs Of Becoming National Destination For Addiction Recovery
“We don’t know. We know nothing about it, and I doubt the parents know anything about it. I doubt if the insurance industry knows anything about it,” said Noel Campbell, a Republican state representative from Prescott.
“So we’re in murky water and we have to take some form of action,” he said.
Campbell is pushing legislation to bring these homes under more government oversight. He and other residents in Prescott say these homes are disrupting the community with drugs, unsavory behavior and homelessness.
But even more problematic is the quality of care in some of these programs, he said.
“They’re bringing in these young men as shills to get at the insurance. That’s my opinion. They get the money and they take it and when the insurance runs out those kids are gone,” Campbell said.
These group homes are basically unregulated other than some local ordinances and code enforcement rules. Many of the treatment programs follow what’s known as the “Florida model” — recovering addicts go to state licensed outpatient treatment centers and then stay in affiliated group homes. Many of the programs, therefore, rely on insurance to some degree, often to help subsidize the residential side.
As KJZZ has reported, some programs kick clients out on the street when the insurance dries up.
MORE: As Prescott's Rehab Industry Grows, So Do Concerns
“We want to know more. We want to make sure that when a complaint is made that we can look at the records through the city or state and see if there really is good treatment,” Campbell said. "If there is, fine. If we find irregularities, they need to be corrected.”
The legislationwould essentially give local governments more latitude monitoring sober living homes where residents attend outpatient programs. If passed, cities could require more disclosure about who runs the houses and what goes on there, discharge plans for clients, and that supervisors undergo training.
The bill is currently making its way through the Legislature.
All of these requirements, Steve Collins argues, are unnecessary.
“There is a self-regulation. Because if you are a poorly run establishment, people don’t come to your business. You’re going to fall out naturally,” said Collins, citing the free market as the best way to resolve sub-par programs.
Collins is with the Arizona Recovery Housing Association (AzRHA), which is against the proposed legislation. For one, their association, representing about 50 programs statewide, already inspects its members’ homes for safety and other issues.
It also goes back to federal fair housing laws, Collins said.
“An alcoholic and a drug addict are considered handicapped so long as they’re sober. So we have to look at that real closely and make sure we keep that standard,” he said.
In other words, you can’t discriminate against a protected class, which includes recovering addicts. That makes many lawmakers nervous that heaping too many requirements on homes will invite lawsuits.
Unlike Prescott, many sober living homes in the Phoenix area do not have clients in outpatient programs. So while this specific legislation wouldn’t affect them, Collins worries about regulatory creep. That said, he does have concerns about the proliferation of homes there, but said Prescott should have done more to avert this with local ordinances like other cities including Mesa and Tempe.
“People in Prescott need to look at why this is an issue. And it’s an issue because they’ve let it become an issue,” he said.
Collins said he gets calls from operators in Florida who are interested in expanding to Prescott because it has garnered a reputation as a hub of recovery.
“Because it’s labeled as one of the nicest areas around, you know mountains, and blue skies, all that stuff,” he said. “I almost feel like Prescott created this by having all this legislation, making a big deal."
Collins also said that this regulation is not feasible for many program because of the costs associated with licensing — but not everyone in the recovery industry holds that view.
Peter Thomas is the executive director of Chapter 5 Recovery, a state licensed residential facility in Prescott that offers a continuum of care and is different from a group home.
He said these programs under the Florida model separate the residential side from the treatment to save money. But for those struggling with addiction, that can be a problem.
“It’s a disease, and if you send somebody to an outpatient clinic for treatment that you’re billing for, and then you are sending them home to these sober living homes that are part of their services, you need to view that as a medical service. It’s part of their treatment,” said Thomas.
Not doing so, he said, is a disservice to the clients, the community and the industry as a whole.
He also worries about the house managers; they usually don’t have qualifications or even much sober time themselves and, as a result, are still fragile. That’s why there should be some training and standards, said Thomas.
“[House managers] don’t have their own ability to be an entirely productive member of society integrated” into the community, he said. “How can you expect them to teach that to a group of new clients?”
The saturation of sober homes in Prescott is out of hand, said Thomas, and not necessarily good for recovering addicts who are trying to readjust to a world where most people are not users or former users.
Still, he cautions that Prescott’s recovery programs should not all simply be labeled as profiteers.
“Like many industries, there are a few players that are operating out of bad motives. That they are trying to get money and it’s not about the quality of care,” he said. “I think those providers really cast a bad name on the rest of the treatment centers.”
And that’s the real question: with more than 20 million Americans struggling with addiction, and an industry rushing to keep pace, how do you ensure they get what they need?
A real shot at recovery.
