We agreed to develop a presentation for NARR’s Summit 2025 about potentially conflicting issues in NARR’s Levels 3 & 4 Recovery Residences since they contain both clinical features and the social model standards. I looked on the NARR website and they defined Level 3 as employing nonclinical staff but it said nothing about clinical features. Level 4 was defined as an institutional setting with credentialed staff and integrated clinical services. So now I am unclear as to what clinical features Level 3 would have. However, we have all agreed that the combination of clinical demands through funding, etc., and the social model practices in a recovery residence can clash, be paradoxical, and problematic. Beth Sanders and Susan Blacksher, both with advanced clinical degrees and solidly grounded in social model practices through recovery, are exemplars who remind us all the time of the complexities and challenges of combining the two perspectives. Both have extensive experience operating Recovery Residences. Let me explain where I am now. I think it will be important for me to begin my presentation by showing the characteristics of the clinical/medical and the social model standards and how they can clash when combined. Beyond that, I need to do some research. I do not think I have ever seen or systematically studied a Level 3 or 4 Recovery Residence. of limited value. In contrast, I’ve had a lot of experience studying Oxford Houses, the exemplar of Level 1. I have studied some Level 2 ones such as some Sober Living residences in California also. I’ve read a lot of the research about Oxford Houses and Sober Living houses and some of the more general research about recovery residences. I’ve interviewed residents of Oxford Houses and Sober Living places.