CAFETY Concerns - Dr Drew and DRA

E-mail Print
CAFETY's Concerns

 

DRA's polished website claims the following:  “All aspects of our program are integrated and designed to be therapeutic in purpose.” Yet the only information given to support such a claim are consumer testimonials, not unlike reviews you might read on a restaurants website. Unlike DRA, however, a restaurant using selective positive reviews to support their claim of deliciousness does not have to show that what they are serving is, in fact, food. A parent considering placement at DRA is not given any reason to make such a presumption.  DRA  does not provide sufficient information to verify that outcomes support the claim that a student graduating from DRA is better off because of DRA. For example, how might a reasonable parent further investigate what it is about DRA's 'therapeutic milieu' that 'facilitates change' to determine that this is actually 'therapeutic' and not a run-of-the-mill private detention center that forces change, which is distinguishable from growth, by making most or all privileges and rights conditional upon those changes and cloaking these practices in language of healing? By our survivor accounts, the latter is true.

 

It appears the 'integrated', therapeutic all-the-time, program design is simply a euphemism for a program that is rigid, tightly controlled, highly coercive and punitive. Because DRA does not offer any scientific basis that would give merit to their claim and anecdotal evidence can not provide any assurance as to what might be the actual effect and outcome of placing a child at DRA, the anecdotes of survivors should be given significant weight by any parent or referral source concerned with children's welfare.


Dr. Phil and Dr. Drew

Two peas in the industry's pod

Some might be accustomed to TV personalities setting a low ethical bar. Most analogous to Dr. Drew providing DRA with a platform is Dr. Phil and his very public televised referral relationship with Aspen Education Group – a corporation responsible for 27 of the largest residential programs for youth in the U.S.

Somehow Dr. Drew appeared to be different, the voice for a new generation. One might even expect him to be a forward thinking TV doctor, perhaps promoting all the new and innovative community-based solutions that bring families together. If you had such expectations, you will be  disappointed to find that promotion and preference is instead given to interventions that needlessly tear families apart. Drew, like Dr. Phil, continues to look backwards for solutions.

Institutionalization is an intervention with a long and sordid history. It is now widely known to be a woefully inadequate response to meeting the needs of anyone, regardless of age. But this is especially true of children working through their emotional, behavioral or mental differences who are placed into long term care. The separation from family is inherently traumatic precisely because a parent or guardian's love and support, the single most important factor influencing a child's positive growth, cannot be replicated in an institution.

Our society and our nations current laws have long affirmed this understanding: community inclusion, not institutions, are the solution to providing care for those we love who are in need. Despite this, entrepreneurs of today have worked hard at re-branding the concept. Their success amidst failures of epic proportions is only one of the many benefits to having such high profile promoters. Yet the message implicit in the repetition of historical patterns couldn't be more clear - institutions then, like now, are not the solution.

The viewers of Drew and Phil are entitled to know what the shows have failed to reveal when promoting modern institutional care. It is the business interest of those who, directly or indirectly, stand to gain and those who have been swayed by the scary stereotype of the out-of-control youth perpetuated by and beneficial to the industry.  Not accounted for is the actual needs and best interest of the youth and their family. It's time we set the record straight.

What we know:

 

· Outcomes: Evidence through actual research of long term group placement at programs (not DRA) does exist. Based on those outcome studies, there is no reason to believe that the emotional, behavioral or mental health needs of youth like Alont'a are likely to be met by DRA as it promotes itself and certainly not as described in practice. For Dr. Drew to claim otherwise is irresponsible at best. For DRA staff to make such claims to consumers is misleading, if not outright fraud.


o Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law: Residential Care Factsheet



 

· Risks: What minimal chance might exist for a positive outcome is easily undermined by the high risk of harm and death. Congressional hearings in 2007 and 2008 highlight this risk by offering a detailed account of the many problems associated with programs just like and, arguably, including DRA. The account, based on the findings by the Government Accountability Office’s investigation and report include: the widespread problem of abuse and maltreatment of children, inadequate state regulation, oversight and monitoring, the use of fraudulent marketing by and poor staff training.

o 2007 Congressional Hearings

o 2008 Congressional Hearings

The former MTV doctor of a new generation doesn’t appear to give a second thought to advancing our nations discourse in the interests of youth rights and protection. This despite our own Supreme Court’s recognition over a decade ago that segregated placement perpetuates fear-based stereotypes, is discriminatory and deemed community inclusion a right. Instead, Dr. Drew looks backwards for solutions. We hope you agree and will use your words to let Dr. Drew know why this is unacceptable to you and ask that he reconsider his decision to become one more psychiatrist that is part of the problem and invite him to join us in being a part of the solution.

 

< Prev   Next >