Susan Sanderson, executive director of the Realistic Success Recovery Society stands for a photograph in one of the society's Trilogy Houses that help men recovering from addiction, in Surrey, B.C., on Wednesday January 8, 2014.DARRYL DYCK/The Globe and Mail
Provincial corrections officers are allowing clients in court-ordered recovery programs to switch locations without checking why they want to move or whether they have completed treatment, says the operator of three registered recovery homes in Surrey.
Those changes mean clients are less likely to finish treatment and more likely to reoffend, Susan Sanderson, executive director of the Realistic Success Recovery Centre, says in a recent letter to provincial Justice Minister Suzanne Anton.
Ms. Sanderson's concerns are part of a bigger picture involving unregulated recovery houses, which have been a lightning rod for public-safety concerns.
"I am writing to you to express our organization's concern for the safety of our community," Ms. Sanderson says in the letter, which is dated Jan. 23.
In the letter, Ms. Sanderson says her concerns relate to clients who decide they do not want to follow the rules set by her group, which runs three sites – each serving up to 10 clients – known as the Trilogy houses in Surrey.
Clients agree to those conditions – which include daily meetings at Alcoholics Anonymous or other groups and counselling sessions – verbally before they are released from custody and in writing once they are admitted, the letter states.
Once enrolled, some clients decide "another facility or his parents or his girlfriend's residence would be more suitable to his recovery," Ms. Sanderson said, adding that Community Corrections staff give permissions to clients to move without asking Trilogy staff about clients' progress or trying to verify "the nature of his desire to change addresses."
Such moves have been approved "numerous" times in recent months, she said.
Jim O'Rourke, executive director of VisionQuest Society, has similar concerns.
"We are known as one of the toughest ones in North America," said Mr. O'Rourke, whose group runs seven abstinence-based treatment centres in the Lower Mainland. "They [clients] will get out to us because the judge wants them to have accountability.
"Then the [probation officers] let them go – and they go out and pick a place where they can do dope or whatever they want. So that wasn't the judge's intent, but that's what is happening."
Ms. Anton was not available for an interview.
In response to an inquiry about Ms. Sanderson's letter, the Ministry of Justice sent an e-mailed statement attributed to B.C. Corrections spokesperson Cindy Rose.
"B.C. Corrections probation officers are trained to work closely with offenders in the community and to manage the risk they may pose to the public by holding them accountable and supporting their rehabilitation.
"Probation officers continually reassess a client's needs and adjust case management plans to address their changing circumstances," the statement said, adding, "these changes are always in line with the conditions imposed by the court and must respect privacy laws."
The statement also said Community Corrections would contact Ms. Sanderson to discuss the working relationship between staff and the Realistic Success Recovery Society.
Between 1998 and 2002, B.C. recovery homes were regulated along the same lines as seniors' residences. The Liberal government deregulated them in 2002, citing the costs and complexity of the licensing regime for operators. Since then, there has been a proliferation of unregulated recovery houses and repeated calls for regulation.
In 2012, the province put a registration system in place.
As of this week, there are 89 registered supportive recovery homes in B.C. with another 39 applications in process.
Last year, a blue-ribbon panel on crime reduction said there was "a significant issue in some communities with the proliferation of unlicensed and, in some cases, predatory recovery houses." The Fraser Health Authority reported 240 recovery houses in the area it serves – which includes Surrey – of which only eight were properly licensed, the panel said in its report.