The Myth of Choice: Clearing the Fog Around Recovery Housing Certification

Need a refresher on key terms? A glossary is provided at the end of this article to help clarify acronyms, policies, and definitions related to recovery housing certification.

In recent months, the concept of “choice” has taken center stage in Tennessee’s conversations about recovery housing certification. With the passage of HB1351/SB1240, the Tennessee Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services (TDMHSAS) now holds the authority to designate organizations eligible to certify recovery residences. On its face, this looks like an opportunity to offer more flexibility, more autonomy, and more options for housing providers. However, when it comes to certification, more “choice” does not lead to more quality—it leads to more confusion, less consistency, and weaker protections for the people these homes are meant to serve.

This is not a theoretical problem. The Department will soon have to decide. Organizations with no national affiliation—some newly formed, others with limited operational history—are positioning themselves to be considered as certifiers. While these groups may present themselves as equivalent options, the reality is that they are not operating within any recognized national framework.

To understand why, we must be honest about what certification is—and what it isn’t. Certification is not a participation trophy. It is a formal, standards-based process that ensures recovery residences meet objective, evidence-informed benchmarks for safety, ethics, governance, and recovery support. Recovery residences represent a distinct category within the broader continuum of supportive housing—defined not merely by who resides there, but by how the environment is intentionally structured to support sustained recovery from substance use disorders.

According to the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) 4th Edition Criteria, recovery residences should be clearly differentiated from other types of housing and are best understood as recovery support services embedded within housing—not as clinical or custodial care. SAMHSA defines recovery housing as “a safe and healthy living environment that promotes abstinence from alcohol and other drugs while providing peer support and connection to recovery services and activities.” HUD’s 2015 Recovery Housing Policy Brief reinforces this, describing recovery housing as “a type of housing in an abstinence-focused and peer-supported community for people recovering from substance use disorders.”

Certification serves as the backbone of quality assurance for this unique model, especially in a housing ecosystem where terms like “supportive,” “transitional,” or “behavioral health” are often used interchangeably despite serving fundamentally different functions. Without clearly defined standards and a consistent framework for recovery residences, providers, policymakers, and residents alike are left to navigate a landscape riddled with ambiguity and risk.

Currently, TNARR is the only organization in Tennessee affiliated with the National Alliance for Recovery Residences (NARR)—the most widely recognized national standard-setting body for recovery housing. NARR’s framework is built on the social model of recovery and is the only recovery housing standard supported by SAMHSA, aligned with the ASAM continuum of care, and endorsed by the National Council for Mental Wellbeing. These are not fringe institutions; they are the national bodies shaping treatment, recovery, and mental health policy across the country.

Another standard, the National Sober Living Association (NSLA), also exists, but it lacks the same national adoption, federal recognition, and cross-state infrastructure. Distinctions matter. Recognized standards are not interchangeable simply because both are “national.” One has a network. One has precedent. One has scale.

It is also important to clarify that neither the Joint Commission (JCO) nor CARF International certifies recovery housing. These organizations accredit clinical programs and medical institutions—such as hospitals, addiction treatment centers, residential out-patient programs, and behavioral health providers. Accreditation of a parent organization does not automatically extend to a recovery housing component. That assumption is not only inaccurate, it is a categorical mismatch and inconsistent with Tennessee statute. Recovery housing, by both definition and law, is non-clinical and must be evaluated under standards specific to its structure and function. What’s more, neither CARF nor JCO meets the requirements to qualify them as certifying bodies under Tennessee law which was codified in the recently enacted HB1351/SB1240.

Some organizations may attempt to blur that line by pointing to their CARF or Joint Commission (JCO) credentials as proof of compliance. Clinical accreditation is not a stand-in for recovery housing certification. Under the new law, certifying bodies must demonstrate the capacity to enforce recovery housing-specific standards—not general healthcare oversight frameworks.

It’s one thing to adopt a standard. It’s another to demonstrate the capacity to enforce it. Certification, by definition, is not just about what a provider claims to follow, it’s about how consistently and credibly those standards are applied across homes. That requires more than a framework on paper. It takes trained evaluators, documented procedures, site inspections, complaint resolution protocols, and a system of oversight that holds the certifier itself accountable. Without that infrastructure, what’s called “certification” amounts to branding—and that’s not what the law envisioned.

Under the statute, the responsibility of designating certifying bodies now rests with the Commissioner. And while many organizations may say they follow a standard, only those that can show how they implement, verify, and enforce that standard can truly fulfill the role. In that light, the presence—or absence—of a robust, documented process often speaks for itself.

Some have argued that NARR’s framework excludes certain models of recovery housing. To date, no one has identified any recovery housing model currently defined in Tennessee law that falls outside of the NARR standard. The NARR framework includes four levels of support, ranging from peer-run homes to highly structured residences with paid staff. Two other features of the NARR Standard are also relevant here. First, it does not dictate any particular recovery philosophy or pathway, as long as it is abstinence-based. Second, compliance is achievable by even small, low-cost providers and residences. If a provider believes their model is excluded, the burden falls on them to name the model—and explain why it cannot meet minimum expectations for safety, ethics, and resident care.

Framing certification as a matter of provider “choice” is like suggesting a surgeon can choose between being board-certified or just promising they’ve read the guidelines. It might sound like flexibility—but it guts the very purpose of quality assurance.

The same would never fly in other regulated systems. Drivers don’t get to pick between licensing through the DMV or getting a laminated card from a friend with a clipboard.

Restaurants can’t write their own inspection forms and opt out of health codes just because they believe they follow “good practices.”

These standards exist because the risks aren’t theoretical. They’re measured in lives, liability, and public trust. Certification in recovery housing should be no different.

The stakes in this system are even higher. Recovery housing serves people exiting treatment, incarceration, or homelessness—individuals at one of the most volatile and vulnerable points in their lives. Their housing is not just about shelter. It is about structure. It is about accountability. It is about community. Every corner cut in certification becomes a risk passed on to residents, to the courts, to the systems that refer them, and to the neighborhoods where they live.

These risks are not hypothetical. In Florida, during the development of its recovery housing legislation, the state’s Department of Children and Families designated a single certifying body—FARR, Florida’s NARR affiliate—based on its credibility, infrastructure, and alignment with national best practices. In Virginia, only homes certified by VARR (Virginia’s NARR affiliate) are permitted to operate legally as recovery residences. These were not turf wars. They were policy corrections. State leaders acted after recognizing that allowing multiple certifiers would result in no meaningful standards at all.

Tennessee can avoid that outcome entirely by acting now, not later. By formally designating TNARR as the state’s recognized certifier—based on its NARR affiliation, long-standing operational history, and alignment with evidence-based best practices, the state can preserve the integrity of a system it has already worked hard to build.

Some may say the argument for “choice” sounds fair and inclusive. In this context, though, it is a smokescreen. Providers will naturally select the certifier with the fewest requirements, the loosest oversight, or the most familiar faces. That is not innovation. It is regression. It also shifts the burden of quality assurance onto residents—individuals with no real way to evaluate whether their housing meets safety or recovery standards.

Certification is not about offering a buffet of options. It is about ensuring a single, vetted, high-quality pathway—one that protects lives, builds trust, and sustains public confidence in the recovery housing system. Tennessee has already invested in that pathway by supporting TNARR and aligning legislation with the NARR standard. To abandon that now, under the banner of “choice,” would be to trade a functioning system for a fractured one.

There is only one widely recognized national standard. One evidence-based framework. One certifying body in Tennessee aligned with both. While other groups may emerge, alignment with best practices, federal credibility, and lived recovery experience is not something that can be improvised.

Certification must mean something—or it means nothing at all.

The Tennessee Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services has an opportunity to choose clarity over confusion, alignment over fragmentation, and standards over slogans. Not for politics. Not for appearances. For the people who live in these homes—and the recovery journeys they are fighting to protect.

Glossary of Terms

HB1351/SB1240 Tennessee legislation passed in 2025 that grants the Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services (TDMHSAS) the authority to designate certifying bodies for recovery residences.

TDMHSAS (Tennessee Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services)The state agency tasked with overseeing mental health and substance use services in Tennessee.

Certification A structured process to verify that a recovery residence meets clearly defined standards for ethics, safety, governance, and peer support. True certification includes inspections, grievance procedures, documentation, and certifier oversight.

Recovery Housing A non-clinical, peer-supported recovery residence environment designed to promote long-term recovery from substance use disorders. Residents live together in a substance-free setting and are encouraged to engage in mutual accountability and community.

Supportive Housing A broad category of housing that combines affordable living with support services. While recovery housing is a type of supportive housing, not all supportive housing includes abstinence-based recovery models or peer-driven environments.

ASAM (American Society of Addiction Medicine) A national organization of medical professionals specializing in addiction. ASAM’s Levels of Care are used to classify types of treatment and recovery services, helping differentiate between clinical and non-clinical models.

SAMHSA (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration) A federal agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that leads public health efforts on behavioral health. SAMHSA recognizes NARR’s framework as the national standard for recovery housing.

HUD (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development) The federal agency responsible for national housing policy. In its 2015 Recovery Housing Policy Brief, HUD acknowledged the importance of recovery housing as abstinence-based and peer-supported housing for people in recovery.

NARR (National Alliance for Recovery Residences) The national standard-setting body for recovery housing. NARR's standards are built on the social model of recovery and are supported by SAMHSA, ASAM, and the National Council for Mental Wellbeing.

TNARR (Tennessee Alliance of Recovery Residences) The only certifying body in Tennessee affiliated with NARR. TNARR certifies homes based on the NARR standard.

NSLA (National Sober Living Association) Another organization offering its own recovery housing standards. While it uses a “national” label, NSLA lacks the widespread federal support, infrastructure, and adoption that NARR holds.

Joint Commission (JCO) A national accreditor of hospitals and clinical programs. The Joint Commission does not certify recovery residences. Its focus is on healthcare and clinical treatment environments.

CARF (Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities) An accrediting body for clinical programs, including behavioral health and rehabilitation facilities. Like JCO, CARF does not certify recovery housing.

Social Model of Recovery A non-clinical recovery approach emphasizing peer support, mutual accountability, and lived experience. It contrasts with medical models by focusing on community rather than clinical treatment.

Accreditation A review process for clinical programs (like hospitals and treatment centers) conducted by bodies like CARF or the Joint Commission. Accreditation is not the same as certification and does not apply to recovery housing.