State doesn't regulate recovery homes and city can't do it

THERE IS NO formal state oversight of recovery homes. No regulations. No certification. No licensure.

And for a city like Philadelphia, where addiction is endemic and hundreds of recovery homes operate largely off the grid, the lack of controls creates a free-wheeling landscape rife for abuse.

"Right now, you have recovery homes that are actually good stewards in the sense that they are in it for the right reasons and provide sober, clean and safe living environments because they want people to be successful in their recovery," said state Rep. Frank Farry, R-Bucks County. "Then you have others that essentially just hang out a shingle and call themselves a recovery home, but they are really nothing more than an illegal boarding house. They're just in it for a fast buck."

Farry is part of an effort to regulate recovery homes and set safety standards.

There are only 31 officially recognized recovery homes in the city: 17 are city-funded and another 14 are federally subsidized. Those homes must adhere to certain standards, including proper licensing, safe and clean environments, treatment services and on-site support staff.

But an estimated 300 self-described "recovery homes" in Philadelphia go unchecked, according to city officials and addiction-recovery experts.

The only agency that provides oversight is the city's Department of Licenses and Inspections.

The agency, however, can typically only cite operators for housing-code violations and lack of proper licenses and zoning. And the homeowner is not required to let L&I inspectors inside.

"We have limited access - we can't just walk in," said L&I Deputy Commissioner Ralph DiPietro.

On top of that, L&I is reluctant to shut down homes that don't pose an immediate threat to human life because the agency doesn't want to run afoul of federal laws. Those include the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, which protects people with disabilities, including recovering addicts, DiPietro said.

Under federal law, local governments can't use zoning codes to prevent a group of people recovering from addiction from living together. Instead, local governments are required to make a "reasonable accommodation," the law says.

Robert P. Fairbanks, a fellow in urban studies at the University of Pennsylvania, said the current lack of regulation creates a "double-edged sword."

The cash-strapped state has no money to fund these homes and therefore lacks a carrot-and-stick approach to oversight, he said.

Yet the city's health-care system relies heavily on these unregulated homes to shelter recovering addicts, who are often one step away from homelessness. As a result, hospital social workers, in-treatment addiction facility staffers and parole officers often refer people to illegitimate recovery homes, knowing there are few options, according to Fairbanks, who is an expert on recovery homes.

Councilwoman Maria Quinones Sanchez also said lack of oversight is a problem.

"We have no capacity to do it locally," she said. "The only thing we have is code enforcement through L&I and even that is limited."

Farry said he hopes a new task force, created by the state's Department of Drug and Alcohol Programs, will offer some solutions.

Task force members, who met for the first time earlier this month, hope to come up with a certification process. Under one proposal, only certified homes would be eligible for state money, and in-patient treatment facilities - though only those that receive state funds - would be barred from referring clients to uncertified homes, Farry said.

"The ones that are going to be flophouses are still going to be flophouses; they are still going to have a client base," Farry said. "But if we could move the bulk of the people who are in recovery to clean and sober homes, it will hopefully reduce the amount of people who are relapsing."