BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2335
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 22, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HEALTH
Richard Pan, Chair
AB 2335 (Mansoor) - As Amended: March 28, 2014
SUBJECT : Sober living homes.
SUMMARY : Exempts a sober living home or supportive housing from
licensure as an alcohol and drug treatment program.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Defines sober living home or supportive housing as any
independent, residential property that provides a transitional
living environment for adults who are recovering from problems
related to alcohol, drug, or alcohol and drug misuse or abuse
that does not require participation in alcohol or drug
recovery treatment or detoxification services as a condition
of tenancy.
2)Requires sober living homes or supportive housing, to meet
this definition, to satisfy certain requirements, including:
a) There are no more than six residents living on the
property, each of which has his or her own room or
apartment and a lease or rental agreement in his or her own
name, and pays his or her own rent; and,
b) Owners, managers, operators, and residents do not
provide any of the following contractual medical services
onsite: recovery services, treatment services,
detoxification services, routine home visits for medical
checkups, diagnostic evaluation of medical and
psychological problems, and prescription and delivery of
oral medication.
c) Owners, managers, operators, and residents ensure that
the property and its use comply with applicable federal,
state, and local laws.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Gives the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) licensing
authority over adult alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or
treatment facilities, which include any facility that provides
AB 2335
Page 2
24-hour residential non-medical services to adults who are
recovering from problems related to alcohol, drug, or alcohol
and drug misuse or abuse, and who need alcohol, drug, or
alcohol and drug recovery treatment or detoxification
services.
2)Requires a treatment facility that serves six or fewer
residents to be considered a residential use of property and
not subject to special taxes or fees, conditional use permits,
zoning ordinances, or other clearances.
3)Prohibits, under the California Fair Employment and Housing
Act, discrimination against any person in any housing
accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion, sex,
marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, or
disability. Specifies that discriminatory land use
regulations, zoning laws, and restrictive covenants are
unlawful acts.
4)Under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act, prohibits
discrimination by any public entity by reason of an
individual's disability. Under the federal Fair Housing Act,
makes it unlawful to make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to
any buyer or renter because of a disability.
FISCAL EFFECT : This bill has not yet been analyzed by a fiscal
committee.
COMMENTS :
1)PURPOSE OF THIS BILL . The author asserts that this bill is
needed to clarify a blurred line between medical care
providers and the sober living home model by separating the
two if a sober living home is to be unlicensed by DHCS. The
author asserts this problem was highlighted in a report
published in September 2012 by the Senate Office of Oversight
and Outcomes (SOOO) entitled "Rogue Rehabs: State Failed to
Police Drug and Alcohol Homes, With Deadly Results." The
author contends that this bill will ensure that there is a
separation between treatment providers and an unlicensed
residential rehabilitation facility, thereby allowing the
state to provide better oversight and guarantee an appropriate
quality of care.
2)BACKGROUND . Sober living homes are alcohol and drug free
AB 2335
Page 3
living environments for individuals attempting to maintain
abstinence from alcohol and drugs. They offer no formal
treatment but either mandate or strongly encourage attendance
at 12-step groups. Sober living homes provide a resource for
individuals completing residential treatment, attending
outpatient programs, leaving incarceration, or seeking
alternatives to formal treatment. Sober living homes are
financially sustained through resident fees and individuals
can typically stay as long as they wish. Because they do not
offer formal treatment services, they are not monitored by
state licensing agencies. However, many sober living homes
are members of sober living home coalitions or associations
that monitor health, safety, quality, and adherence to a
social model philosophy of recovery that emphasizes 12-step
group involvement and peer support.
3)LICENSED RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT PROGRAMS . The state's
residential treatment facilities are authorized to provide
nonmedical services to individuals recovering from alcohol and
drug addiction. Residential treatment programs must be
licensed by DHCS, with licensing criteria that are focused on
health and safety rather than treatment program content.
Under state regulations, licensure is required when at least
one of the following services is provided: detoxification,
group sessions, individual sessions, educational sessions, or
alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment planning.
4)SOOO REPORT . The SOOO report focuses on two key problems in
state oversight of licensed residential treatment programs.
First, the SOOO report identifies a pattern, over the past
decade, of state regulators failing to identify potentially
dangerous problems and, when problems are identified,
neglecting to follow up to assure that they have been
corrected. Second, the SOOO report found evidence of the
widespread provision of medical treatment by licensed
residential treatment programs, in direct violation of state
law. The SOOO report focuses on licensed facilities and does
not identify a problem in sober living homes.
5)OPPOSITION . The California Association of Addiction Recovery
Resources (CAARR), in opposition, writes that it would be
detrimental to the addiction recovery continuum of care to
limit a sober living home to six residents or to require that
each resident have his or her own bedroom, or to require each
resident to have a separate lease. CAARR writes that these
AB 2335
Page 4
requirements would effectively doom most sober living homes
based on financial considerations.
6)RELATED LEGISLATION .
a) AB 395 (Fox) would have allowed licensed residential
treatment facilities to provide medical services by a
physician to residents to assist in detoxification and
treatment, under certain conditions. AB 395 was held on
the suspense file in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
b) AB 40 (Mansoor) would have required licensed residential
treatment facilities to report deaths and other unusual
events to the state within specified time frames. AB 40
was held on the suspense file in the Assembly
Appropriations Committee.
c) AB 2374 (Mansoor) requires licensed residential
treatment facilities to report deaths and other unusual
events to the state within specified time frames and
requires organizations that certify alcohol and other drug
counselors to check databases of other counselor certifying
organizations prior to registering or certifying a
counselor. AB 2374 is pending in this Committee and is set
for hearing April 22, 2014.
d) AB 2491 (Nestande) exempts sober living homes, meaning a
residential property that is operated as a cooperative
living arrangement to provide an alcohol and drug free
environment for persons recovering from alcoholism or drug
abuse, from licensure as an adult alcoholism or drug abuse
recovery or treatment facility. AB 2491 is pending in this
Committee and is set for hearing April 29, 2014.
7)PREVIOUS LEGISLATION .
a) AB 1983 (Mansoor) of 2012 would have required integral
facilities, meaning any combination of two or more
facilities that collectively serve seven or more persons
and provide housing in one facility and recovery
programming, treatment, meals, or any other services at
another facility, as specified, to be subject to state
licensure as an alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or
treatment facility. AB 1983 died without a hearing in the
Assembly Health Committee.
AB 2335
Page 5
b) AB 1284 (Huffman) of 2009 would have required the state
to notify the appropriate city or county planning agency of
a proposed facility's application for licensure as a
residential treatment facility if it operates as an
integral component of an existing licensed facility managed
by the same licensee and is located within 300 feet of the
existing facility. AB 1284 was held on the suspense file
in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
c) SB 268 (Harman) of 2009, which was substantially similar
to SB 1000 (Harman) of 2008, failed passage in the Assembly
Health Committee and was subsequently amended to a
different topic.
d) AB 2903 (Huffman) of 2008 would have authorized state
licensing authorities to require any person or entity
applying for licensure to provide specified information
before a license is issued. AB 2903 was held in the Senate
Health Committee.
e) SB 1000 (Harman) of 2008 would have required applicants
seeking a treatment facility license to certify that the
facility is consistent with local zoning ordinances. SB
1000 failed passage in the Senate Health Committee.
f) AB 724 (Benoit) of 2007 would have exempted sober living
homes, meaning a residential property that is operated as a
cooperative living arrangement to provide an alcohol and
drug free environment for persons recovering from
alcoholism or drug abuse, from licensure as an adult
alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility.
AB 724 failed passage in the Senate Health Committee.
g) SB 530 (Dutton) of 2007 would have prohibited licensure
of a treatment facility if another treatment facility was
located within 300 feet. SB 530 was held in the Senate
Health Committee.
h) AB 370 (Adams) of 2007 would have permitted a local
government to include a residential care facility serving
six or fewer persons, including a sober living facility,
within the definition of single family residence. AB 370
was held on the suspense file in the Assembly
Appropriations Committee.
AB 2335
Page 6
i) AB 3007 (Emmerson) of 2006 would have prohibited
licensure of a treatment facility if another treatment
facility was located within 300 feet. AB 3007 was held on
the suspense file in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
8)POLICY COMMENTS . Under current law, sober living homes do not
provide treatment services, so there is no requirement that
they be licensed as treatment facilities. Therefore this
bill, since it provides a licensure exemption for certain
facilities that are already exempt from license, is
unnecessary. In addition, this bill, to the extent that it
may be interpreted to require licensure for sober living homes
that do not meet the narrow definition supplied in this bill,
could create confusion. Moreover, federal law and court
decisions prohibit discrimination against the disabled,
including those recovering from substance abuse. This bill,
to the extent that it is interpreted to create special
restrictions on housing arrangements for individuals who are
recovering from substance abuse problems, could be in
violation of this prohibition.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
None on file.
Opposition
California Association of Addiction Recovery Resources
Analysis Prepared by : Ben Russell / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097