Residential Recovery - How The Real Victims Experience It
California presently fails its Recovering Addicts in three ways:
1) Low Residential Recovery success rates;
2) Prohibitive Costs; and
3) Inadequate Regulation and Inspection.
First and foremost, the elephant in the room of recovery is the low success rates of "social model" recovery. Most recovery programs are based on the 12-Steps program developed by AA, which has a success rate between 5 and 12%, depending on the source. Nevertheless, rehab businesses will advertise significantly higher rates or "guarantee" long term sobriety. How can an addict seeking treatment compare the relative value of programs? What are steps our government could take to ensure Recovering Addicts are fully informed?
1) Government could require that all addicts entering Recovery sign a form that indicates they have read and understood the low success rate that is agreed upon by scientists and the government. We all sign forms about our confidentiality rights... why do addicts not receive this information up front? This would be FAIR.
2) Government could aggressively shut down the false advertisers and fine them to pay for evidence-based Addiction Recovery.
3) Government could fund research into treatment techniques, not just pharmaceuticals, that actually work. What factors, including genetic ones, make a difference in the outcome?
Second, in exchange for this small potential for success, the Recovering Addict in for-profit, Residential Recovery is often charged exorbitant rates. Operators brag that they can get $3000+ per person per bed per day for services that should cost a fraction of this price. How does a Recovering Addict afford this? Treatment Centers advocate that, to handle costs above those that insurance pays for, the Recovering Addict hit up relatives and friends, sell their possessions and start a Go-Fund-Me campaign. "Your life is worth it!" is the message they convey, even if in reality the Treatment Center's services are usurious without much hope of results.
Third, California's Residential Recovery, in particular, is under-regulated and under-inspected. Owners, operators, "counselors" and employees are not required to have background checks of any kind. Addicts with histories of violence or accused of drug distribution are housed with more vulnerable Recovering Addicts. They may be packed into homes that have two or three times the number of people legally allowed. People who are paying for supervision to prevent relapse are getting access to the substances they abuse... landlords either let them continue living onsite, under the influence, or kick them out on the street. The operator often keeps their possessions: computers and/or identification, for example.
At its worst, Recovering Addicts die in Residential Recovery. As a grassroots organization, we can only access publicly available information. Nevertheless, we have created an In Memoriam Page to ensure that their names are remembered in the fight for better treatment.
What could California do to improve the situation for Recovering Addicts?
1) Require fingerprinting and background checks of everyone involved in this industry. Preclude people with inappropriate backgrounds from working in it. This is already done for elder care and foster care. Either Recovering Addict are vulnerable and deserving of protection or they are not disabled.
2) Separate criminals with a history of endangering others from non-offenders in treatment.
3) Ensure Recovering Addicts have a way to get home when they leave Residential Recovery, however they leave it.
4) Ensure Recovery Residences are regularly inspected... with drug dogs as well.
5) Ensure that all properties where vulnerable people have active contracts for treatment must be licensed.
6) Shut down all the properties of businesses found in violation of important regulations.
The State simply must stop this rip-off of the vulnerable. It must acknowledge that industry has put its interests first and deflects investigation of its bad practices by claiming discrimination against their customers.
1) Low Residential Recovery success rates;
2) Prohibitive Costs; and
3) Inadequate Regulation and Inspection.
First and foremost, the elephant in the room of recovery is the low success rates of "social model" recovery. Most recovery programs are based on the 12-Steps program developed by AA, which has a success rate between 5 and 12%, depending on the source. Nevertheless, rehab businesses will advertise significantly higher rates or "guarantee" long term sobriety. How can an addict seeking treatment compare the relative value of programs? What are steps our government could take to ensure Recovering Addicts are fully informed?
1) Government could require that all addicts entering Recovery sign a form that indicates they have read and understood the low success rate that is agreed upon by scientists and the government. We all sign forms about our confidentiality rights... why do addicts not receive this information up front? This would be FAIR.
2) Government could aggressively shut down the false advertisers and fine them to pay for evidence-based Addiction Recovery.
3) Government could fund research into treatment techniques, not just pharmaceuticals, that actually work. What factors, including genetic ones, make a difference in the outcome?
Second, in exchange for this small potential for success, the Recovering Addict in for-profit, Residential Recovery is often charged exorbitant rates. Operators brag that they can get $3000+ per person per bed per day for services that should cost a fraction of this price. How does a Recovering Addict afford this? Treatment Centers advocate that, to handle costs above those that insurance pays for, the Recovering Addict hit up relatives and friends, sell their possessions and start a Go-Fund-Me campaign. "Your life is worth it!" is the message they convey, even if in reality the Treatment Center's services are usurious without much hope of results.
Third, California's Residential Recovery, in particular, is under-regulated and under-inspected. Owners, operators, "counselors" and employees are not required to have background checks of any kind. Addicts with histories of violence or accused of drug distribution are housed with more vulnerable Recovering Addicts. They may be packed into homes that have two or three times the number of people legally allowed. People who are paying for supervision to prevent relapse are getting access to the substances they abuse... landlords either let them continue living onsite, under the influence, or kick them out on the street. The operator often keeps their possessions: computers and/or identification, for example.
At its worst, Recovering Addicts die in Residential Recovery. As a grassroots organization, we can only access publicly available information. Nevertheless, we have created an In Memoriam Page to ensure that their names are remembered in the fight for better treatment.
What could California do to improve the situation for Recovering Addicts?
1) Require fingerprinting and background checks of everyone involved in this industry. Preclude people with inappropriate backgrounds from working in it. This is already done for elder care and foster care. Either Recovering Addict are vulnerable and deserving of protection or they are not disabled.
2) Separate criminals with a history of endangering others from non-offenders in treatment.
3) Ensure Recovering Addicts have a way to get home when they leave Residential Recovery, however they leave it.
4) Ensure Recovery Residences are regularly inspected... with drug dogs as well.
5) Ensure that all properties where vulnerable people have active contracts for treatment must be licensed.
6) Shut down all the properties of businesses found in violation of important regulations.
The State simply must stop this rip-off of the vulnerable. It must acknowledge that industry has put its interests first and deflects investigation of its bad practices by claiming discrimination against their customers.