In parts of rural Missouri, Christian recovery and sober-living centers are expanding faster than the state can regulate them.
Many homes are filling gaps where accredited treatment beds are scarce - but because they operate without formal oversight, advocates and courts are weighing the risks alongside the benefits.
Advocates for recovery housing emphasize the picture isn't black and white.
Merna Eppick, housing committee chair for the Missouri Coalition of Recovery Support Providers, said while accreditation offers important safeguards, the lack of it doesn’t automatically mean a program is unsafe - especially in parts of the state where options are limited.
"Certainly not all non-accredited homes are bad players," said Eppick. "I talked recently with someone from probation and parole. What they said was, obviously, we would like the people under supervision to only go to accredited homes. There aren’t enough."
Missouri does not require recovery houses to be accredited unless they seek state or federal funding.
Supporters of accreditation say clearer standards can help protect residents and improve accountability, but in many rural communities, unaccredited homes may be the only available option.
Eppick emphasized that accreditation is meant to provide clarity for residents, families, and courts - not to single out unaccredited homes.
"If it’s accredited, what it means is they meet health, safety, and ethical standards," said Eppick. "I don't think it's black and white, that's where I stand. I think [there are] some good homes out there that choose not to be accredited."
Eppick also stressed that it's important for the homes to be transparent about their worldviews, such as faith and expectations.
The National Alliance for Recovery Residences sets standards for recovery housing, from peer-run sober homes to more structured programs with added oversight.
This story was originally published by Missouri News Service, a news partner with KRCU Public Radio.
