Launching a Recovery Home

After overcoming personal challenges with substance abuse, Thea Golden, accompanied by her husband Tyler, established a recovery home named LA Recovery Connect in 2021 within the Jefferson Park neighborhood, west of USC. Initially, they converted an illegally modified garage into a permitted Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) and disseminated information through their informal social services network, announcing the availability of two beds designated for women seeking sobriety.

Impact and Growth

Since its inception, LA Recovery Connect has accommodated five individuals who have successfully transitioned to independent living—two returned to familial settings, while three secured their own homes. With aspirations to expand, Golden aims to either acquire or lease another facility to provide additional beds for those in need. However, her efforts face significant hurdles due to the stringent regulations governing funding for sober living environments.

Policy Challenges

A pivotal barrier stems from a law enacted in 2016 that endorses a ‘housing first’ approach. This legislation prohibits state funding for programs that mandate sobriety as a condition for housing, asserting that no such prerequisites should prevent individuals from receiving assistance. The state’s position is that it seeks to dismantle obstacles for individuals grappling with addiction.

In light of evolving perspectives, some advocates are reconsidering the rigidity of these regulations. Mounting evidence suggests a substantial segment of the homeless population favors sober living environments. Adrian Covert, senior vice president of the Bay Area Council, noted, “When we passed our ‘housing first’ law we were so intent on reducing barriers to addicts that we inadvertently created new barriers to addicts who wanted to get sober.”

New Legislative Efforts

Assemblymember Matt Haney, a proponent of the current ‘housing first’ strategy, is actively pursuing legislative amendments to permit the allocation of funds for sober living facilities. His proposed bill, AB 255, would enable local governments to allocate up to 25% of their state homelessness budgets toward programs that support sobriety. Following recent amendments aimed at easing opposition, this bill has successfully navigated through various legislative committees.

“If somebody wants to get off of a deadly, dangerous drug like fentanyl, they often need to be as far away from it as possible,” Haney remarked. “Yet the state currently prohibits any of our funding to go towards effective, proven models of drug-free recovery housing.”

Debate over Recovery Policies

The discourse surrounding this legislation addresses the perceived clash between models promoting sobriety and the current harm reduction framework, which acknowledges substance use as part of residents’ lives. In 2015, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development asserted that recovery housing plays a critical role in the broader spectrum of homelessness services. However, California’s SB 1380, aimed at ensuring non-discriminatory access to housing, has led to limited funding opportunities for abstinence-based recovery homes.

Practical Implications for Small Providers

For providers like Golden, current laws effectively restrict access to vital state funding streams, such as the extensive Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention program. The proposed amendments have spurred discussions on possible frameworks that reconcile both abstinence and harm reduction approaches, ensuring that recovery housing maintains safe environments for residents.

Golden, who has no formal certification but adheres to guidelines from the California Consortium for Addiction Programs and Professional, provides structured support for her residents and maintains a policy on handling relapses. Her approach includes peer counseling, outpatient treatment referrals, and continued support for those in recovery.

Beyond Funding: The Future of Recovery Homes

While navigating the complex landscape of recovery support, Golden remains committed to advocating for increased access to services. She acknowledges that, even without direct financial backing, the evolution of the policy landscape could open doors for more recovery environments in California.

“I’m an advocate for opening up services to people and if it’s not us—I want it to be—but if it’s not, I’m still here to be an advocate for that to open up to other places that I know it would help,” Golden stated.