Arlington County Board Meeting, October 19, 2024.
Suzanne Sundburg has raised serious concerns about the operations of Oxford House, which wants the County to allow it by right to operate recovery a/k/a sober houses with up to 8 occupants, as follows:
“I’d love to know how [Oxford House] makes its money and what “services” it provides. It went from pulling in $11.7 million in revenue in 2019 for “program services” to pulling in $27 million for “program services” revenue in 2023:
“That’s nearly a 3-fold increase in just 4 years. Very unusual growth for a nonprofit.
“We also don’t know who the “investors” are who own these [sober houses] or how they are or are not related to Oxford House, as most of these homeowners’/investors’ identities are shielded by LLCs. Does the organization benefit financially when there are more occupants? . . . [Does] Oxford House [have a] financial stake in the number of occupants in each of these dwellings.
“Under the agreement each tenant must sign, each home’s occupants must attend an AA support group (or church) three times a week—at their own expense for travel. There is no screening for occupants of these houses for criminal convictions. . . According to the organization’s website, 78% of occupants in these houses have a criminal record (from a “few days to 10 years”).
“[There should be] additional changes to the Zoning Ordinance to discourage other licensed but not certified (by Oxford House or VARR) operators — operators that that may engage in patient brokering — to open up shop here because we were forced to increase the occupancy. Federal law is inadequate if there is no enforcement. And in Virginia, at least, there appears to be no meaningful enforcement mechanism to prevent patient brokering or other exploitation of the occupants in these homes.
“If there is no licensing and only 3rd-party certification of these facilities in VA, then that likely means the state has no role in identifying and correcting noncompliance.
“Because we have such a lax regulatory framework in Virginia, with little or no enforcement, these facilities and their occupants are able to operate with impunity and above the law, as it would normally apply to others who are similarly housed. This situation would seem to encourage fraudulent conduct and the exploitation of recovery residence occupants.”
Until Sundburg’s concerns are addressed, I agree with Terri Armao that extending sober house occupancy beyond 4 residents should be by special use permit only.