Sample Federal Representatives Letter
Dear _________________________,
We are writing from San Juan Capistrano to remind you that California faces a very real crisis in the current implementation of Residential Recovery Facilities. This crisis is fueled by loose federal and state health insurance money chasing unproven treatments. It is exacerbated by low standards for owners and employees that enable criminals to prey on the vulnerable. Under a perceived “shield” of the Fair Housing Act and coupled with loose banking oversight, these businesses have seized the opportunity to acquire properties for short term rental in residential neighborhoods--properties that were previously exclusively for long term owners and tenants, competing unfairly against all types of neighbors, including long-term Congregate Care homes.
Now is the time to tighten regulation and improve outcomes for the addicted. We urge you to work with the senators from Florida, which has also been disproportionately affected by the absence of oversight and regulations. At a federal level, you must:
1) Through amendments to the Fair Housing Act,
a) declare that a Residential Recovery Facility is any “home” in which two or more people residing are under contract for any treatment more often than two days per week or supervision related to addiction recovery, so to distinguish RRF from Sober Living Homes.
b) clarify that the right of an addict to treatment (specifically in residential neighborhoods) is not the dominant right when that person is also a felon, probationer or parolee. In other words, businesses should not be allowed to place child molesters in neighborhoods with children, merely because the molester is also an addict.
c) ensure that recovering addicts are entitled to living places: “completely free from illegal drugs, alcohol, harassment, abuse, harm, firearms and weapons.”
d) ensure that all Residential Recovery Facilities must be fully ADA compliant.
2) Through restrictions on Federally provided insurance:
a) ensure that federal insurance money should only be provided when:
- the treatment is proven effective,
- the Residential Recovery Facility is inspected by a governmental entity and proven to comply with all local, state and federal standards.
b) ensure that owners, operators, employees and consultants must be fingerprinted and not have criminal backgrounds
c) ensure all RRF’s provide an employee/consultant with a minimum of EMT certification on site whenever recovering addicts are present.
d) ensure that recovering addicts are entitled to living places “completely free from illegal drugs, alcohol, harassment, abuse, harm, firearms and weapons.”
e) ensure that all recovering addicts, who by definition are vulnerable adults, name an external advocate at the time they sign their contract for treatment. The advocate shall have the right to communicate with that person, to inspect the facilities where the person lives and is treated, and to be notified immediately in the event the addict departs or relapses.
f) require all Residential Recovery Facilities obtain an up-front Departure Deposit to return their client to his original domicile. At the end of treatment or in the event of relapse, the RRF shall be responsible for making arrangements and ensuring the client is thus transported.
3) Through refinements of regulations of the Federal Trade Commission, ensure all forms of misleading advertising of these businesses should carry heavy fines. Examples of currently occurring misleading advertising include:
• advertising a success rate that cannot be proven
• "guaranteeing" success
• showing photographs that are not indicative of the actual location or facilities
• claiming employees have “years of experience in the industry,” when a significant percentage of those years were spent as an addict
• references to the ocean, sea or beach, such as “by the sea,” “shore,” “beachside,” “sea cliff,” “oceanside,” “coast,” “waterfront,” when the properties are not located proximate to the ocean.
• advertising (in testimonials, videos or photographs) people as recovered who have since relapsed
• posting of fake reviews
• claiming someone is a “doctor,” when they have a PhD—inappropriate because of the context of medical treatment.
We recommend that the fine be split 50/50 with the person who reports the false advertising.
In short, we ask that the you make these important changes to protect the vulnerable and restore the faith of citizens in the validity of addiction treatment.
Sincerely,
We are writing from San Juan Capistrano to remind you that California faces a very real crisis in the current implementation of Residential Recovery Facilities. This crisis is fueled by loose federal and state health insurance money chasing unproven treatments. It is exacerbated by low standards for owners and employees that enable criminals to prey on the vulnerable. Under a perceived “shield” of the Fair Housing Act and coupled with loose banking oversight, these businesses have seized the opportunity to acquire properties for short term rental in residential neighborhoods--properties that were previously exclusively for long term owners and tenants, competing unfairly against all types of neighbors, including long-term Congregate Care homes.
Now is the time to tighten regulation and improve outcomes for the addicted. We urge you to work with the senators from Florida, which has also been disproportionately affected by the absence of oversight and regulations. At a federal level, you must:
1) Through amendments to the Fair Housing Act,
a) declare that a Residential Recovery Facility is any “home” in which two or more people residing are under contract for any treatment more often than two days per week or supervision related to addiction recovery, so to distinguish RRF from Sober Living Homes.
b) clarify that the right of an addict to treatment (specifically in residential neighborhoods) is not the dominant right when that person is also a felon, probationer or parolee. In other words, businesses should not be allowed to place child molesters in neighborhoods with children, merely because the molester is also an addict.
c) ensure that recovering addicts are entitled to living places: “completely free from illegal drugs, alcohol, harassment, abuse, harm, firearms and weapons.”
d) ensure that all Residential Recovery Facilities must be fully ADA compliant.
2) Through restrictions on Federally provided insurance:
a) ensure that federal insurance money should only be provided when:
- the treatment is proven effective,
- the Residential Recovery Facility is inspected by a governmental entity and proven to comply with all local, state and federal standards.
b) ensure that owners, operators, employees and consultants must be fingerprinted and not have criminal backgrounds
c) ensure all RRF’s provide an employee/consultant with a minimum of EMT certification on site whenever recovering addicts are present.
d) ensure that recovering addicts are entitled to living places “completely free from illegal drugs, alcohol, harassment, abuse, harm, firearms and weapons.”
e) ensure that all recovering addicts, who by definition are vulnerable adults, name an external advocate at the time they sign their contract for treatment. The advocate shall have the right to communicate with that person, to inspect the facilities where the person lives and is treated, and to be notified immediately in the event the addict departs or relapses.
f) require all Residential Recovery Facilities obtain an up-front Departure Deposit to return their client to his original domicile. At the end of treatment or in the event of relapse, the RRF shall be responsible for making arrangements and ensuring the client is thus transported.
3) Through refinements of regulations of the Federal Trade Commission, ensure all forms of misleading advertising of these businesses should carry heavy fines. Examples of currently occurring misleading advertising include:
• advertising a success rate that cannot be proven
• "guaranteeing" success
• showing photographs that are not indicative of the actual location or facilities
• claiming employees have “years of experience in the industry,” when a significant percentage of those years were spent as an addict
• references to the ocean, sea or beach, such as “by the sea,” “shore,” “beachside,” “sea cliff,” “oceanside,” “coast,” “waterfront,” when the properties are not located proximate to the ocean.
• advertising (in testimonials, videos or photographs) people as recovered who have since relapsed
• posting of fake reviews
• claiming someone is a “doctor,” when they have a PhD—inappropriate because of the context of medical treatment.
We recommend that the fine be split 50/50 with the person who reports the false advertising.
In short, we ask that the you make these important changes to protect the vulnerable and restore the faith of citizens in the validity of addiction treatment.
Sincerely,