The Supportive-Recovery Residence Program.
The bill mandates that any supportive-recovery residence funded must not exceed 25% of the total inventory of permanent supportive housing within the county, which aims to maintain a diverse array of housing types. It requires counties to verify this condition as part of the funding application process, thereby introducing a framework for local oversight and compliance. Additionally, the bill stipulates that supportive-recovery residences cannot evict tenants based solely on relapse, promoting a more approachable recovery environment. The overarching goal is to encourage long-term housing stability and minimize return rates to homelessness through increased accessibility and monitoring of recovery residences.
AB255, titled the Supportive-Recovery Residence Program, introduced by Assembly Member Haney, seeks to enhance the provisions for supportive housing targeted at individuals experiencing homelessness who also have substance use disorders. This bill establishes guidelines that allow state funding for supportive-recovery residences that focus on abstinence-based recovery, aiming to provide stable housing while minimizing the chances of relapse. It is framed within the existing California Interagency Council on Homelessness and aligns with the Housing First policies intended to provide immediate access to permanent housing without prerequisites such as sobriety or participation in treatment programs.
The discussion surrounding AB255 may highlight potential concerns from local governments about the financial implications of managing additional supportive-recovery residences. The bill places certain responsibilities upon counties to certify compliance with set criteria, which may lead to increased operational demands. While the intent is to bolster local support systems and integrate more holistic approaches to recovery housing, some opponents might argue that this introduces complexity into existing housing frameworks and could lead to potential strains on local budgets. There is also the concern that an increased focus on abstinent living might limit choices available for individuals who could benefit from harm reduction models.