What happens in drug rehab matters a lot, which is why we need to carefully select which one we end up enrolling ourselves, or our loved ones into. The first one that pops up may not necessarily be the best one for your situation which means browsing your options is an important part of the process. Unfortunately though, researching inpatient drug treatment programs for yourself or a loved one can lead you down an internet rabbit hole.
We’ve outlined 14 questions that are designed to give you more control over the decision process. Instead of being sold or coerced on the phone, you can use these questions to draw out the most important and relevant information from whichever drug rehab, addiction treatment, or detox facility you are considering. Remember, information is power, and these questions and explanations will equip you with the know-how to find the best rehab match for your unique situation.
1) How long have you been in business? Who is the founder, and who is the current owner? If the founder is no longer the owner, why did they leave?
Asking about the facility’s background is important because you want to choose a rehab that has experience, and also one that is run by a person who genuinely cares. If the founder has left, that doesn’t mean you should automatically rule out the rehab, but you should ask more questions about the new owner. What is their interest? What is their background? If the new owner is equally passionate about recovery, that’s a good sign, but if they are just a business person, you should be cautious.
2) What crimes, if any, in the United States and abroad, have your founder and/or partners been accused and/or convicted of? How many current lawsuits are pending against your center?
This is important information that you should be aware of before putting your time and resources on the line.
3) What is your staff to patient ratio? And how many patients does each primary therapist have on their caseload?
The more staff per patient, the better your odds of having more personalized care.
4) What is your daily rate for month one? Does it change for months 2 or 3?
Financial questions like these are important and ask the facility to clearly respond to you in writing.
5) Do you detox on-site or off-site?
Many small treatment centers operate an on-site detox, which is allowed by law but higher risk, to increase revenue. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration recommends caution with rehabs offering on-site detox because these freestanding facilities may or may not be equipped to fully assess and treat complex cases. If the rehab you’re interested in does provide on-site detox, ask about the amount of medical staff on hand, the treatment protocol for yours, or your loved one’s drug of choice, and whether or not there will be help available 24/7. If the addiction is moderate, this may be appropriate.
For alcohol, benzodiazepine and “G” detox, please seek a hospital-based detox as these substances lead to more dangerous withdrawal.
6) What role do interns play in the delivery of clinical services to patients at your program? In regards to your clinical team, what percentage of them are full-time, and per-diem?
Many treatment centers will cut costs by bringing in clinical interns as their “counselors” who are required to “donate” thousands of hours in order to get licensed. While appropriate for a very low or no-cost program, a clinical team builds their wisdom and experience by practicing over years.
7) Are you an actual treatment center, with a building and staff? or are you a call center fronting for a lead generation company?
Do not sign up with a call center, continue searching and contact treatment centers directly. If you connect online with an unscrupulous phone center the odds of you being “sold” to the highest bidder as a piece of commerce is high. Which makes you wonder; If you are “sold” on the phone and send your loved one to a rehab that lacks clinical care, or has nobody else similar to your loved one present – will it really be the best match?
8) What is your smoking policy? What about Vaping? Do you offer a Nicotine Cessation Program?
Please consider choosing a no-smoking facility, and giving up smoking at the same time that you are treating your main addiction. You will have more support and guidance for smoking-cessation now, while you’re in rehab than when you go back.
10) What are your cell-phone, iPad, and laptop policy?
Treatment centers that allow the free or easy use of digital devices often have a low level of clinical care and a basic program. It’s best to participate in face-to-face interactions and real-world activities during treatment, rather than using your devices.
11) Given the recent wave of problems with rehab fraud around urine testing, and fraudulent lab billing, what is your UA policy, and what do you require the family to pay?
12) What is your refund policy if/when my loved one leaves treatment against clinical or medical advice?
This is known as an “ACA” or “AMA” exit. Many unscrupulous providers will often keep pre-paid fees due to the patient “storming off” or being “bad.” Addicted humans sometimes leave treatment, so a thoughtful refund policy is a necessity. This should be spelled out clearly in their Financial Agreement, but if not, get the refund policy in writing.
13) What is your policy on a patient who relapses? What do you do with him or her?
Different rehabs have different responses to relapse. Some rehabs offer ‘refresher’ courses where the addict can come back for a short time if they feel they’re approaching relapse, and some offer alumni support group meetings.
14) What is the male/female ratio of your community presently? What is the average age range of your community presently? Can you describe the current community members’ “drug of choice” at this time?
Since group work is very important. You need to make sure that your loved one will feel like they are part of the group, not alienated or labeled as ‘different.’ Try to find a rehab working with a group of similar people that you’re loved one can really connect with.
We hope you’ve found this resource helpful, and informative. Since the priority is getting yourself or your loved one into an appropriate, well-staffed, and safe treatment environment, it might be a good idea to consult with an experienced Interventionist if you’re still feeling uncertain. They can help you decide what services are necessary and which ones aren’t, and craft a personalized treatment plan to get your family going in the right direction.
The Power of Language & Labels
A while ago I posted a meme which said, “Better to have lost in love than to live with a psycho for the rest of your life.”
I liked it, of course, otherwise, I wouldn’t have posted it. Eleven others did too, some commenting on Facebook, “Amen to that,” and “Definitely!!”
Then this: “Hate it. It’s beat up on people with mental illness time again. Ever had the amazing person you love tell you that they just can’t deal with your mental illness anymore? Our society is totally phobic about people with mental illness having intimate relationships.”
Woah, that came a bit out of the blue. I hadn’t made the link between “person with a mental illness” and “psycho”, otherwise I wouldn’t have posted it. It didn’t say, “Better to have lost in love than to live with a person with a mental illness for the rest of your life.” I had linked “psycho” with the often weird, unspoken assumptions people make when in relationships, which have kept me out of long-term relationships all my life.
It made me think, though. Suppose it had read, “Better to have lost in love than to live with an idiot for the rest of your life.” Would that have been a slight against people experiencing unique learning function?
Probably a more accurate meme would have been, “Better to have lost in love than to live with an arsehole for the rest of your life.” But that’s not what the image said.
For the record, I have had someone I loved tell me he couldn’t cope with my unique physical function anymore. It was hard to hear, but ultimately he was the one who lost out. And I know intuitively many would-be lovers haven’t even gone there — again, their loss and my gain, because why would I want to be with anyone so closed-minded?
The power we let labels have over us can be overwhelming. If I had a dollar for every time a person called someone a “spaz” in my presence, I’d be wealthy. If I got offended because “spaz” is a shortened version of “spastic”, which is one of my diagnoses, and I got another dollar for that, well — I’d be angrily living in the Bahamas.
I think the evolution of language — and the generalization of words like, “gay,” “spaz,” “idiot” and “psycho” — creates the opportunity for them to lose their charge and liberate us from their stigma. By allowing them to continue having power over us, though, we re-traumatize ourselves every time we hear them. Words are symbols and they change meaning over time and in different contexts.
I celebrate that “gay” means “not for me” rather than “fag”; that “spaz” means “over-reacting”, not “crippled”; that “idiot” means “unthinking”, not “retarded”; and that “psycho” means “someone with weird, unspoken assumptions”, not “a crazy person”.
By letting words change meaning for us, we are redefining diversity and creating social change. It’s not a case of, “Sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me.” It’s recognizing that, unless someone is looking directly at us menacingly, calling us gay, spaz, idiot or psycho, we’re not in their minds — they’ve moved on.
Maybe it’s useful for us to move on with them?
Right from the Start: Investing in Parents and Babies – Alan Sinclair
It is widely accepted the earliest months and years of a child’s existence have the most profound impact on the rest of the lives. Attachment theorists believe the early bonds and relationships a child forms with his/her carer(s) or parent(s), informs that child’s ability or inability to form successful and healthy relationships in the future.
Alan Sinclair’s ‘Right from the Start’ is the latest in the Postcards from Scotland series of short books, which aim to stimulate new and fresh thinking about why us Scots are the way we are.
In my previous book review in the Scottish Journal of Residential Child Care, I commended the author of ‘Hiding in Plain Sight’ (another book in the same series) Carol Craig for her ability to write succinctly and accessibly about a complex subject matter. I feel the same way about Alan Sinclair’s writing in this book.
The premise of this book, put simply, is laying out the bare truths of how good and bad us Scots are at parenting as well as having the appropriate supporting systems in place for parents and carers of our most vulnerable children.
A consistent thread throughout the book is the author arguing that by investing in parents and babies ‘from the start’, governments and the surrounding systems who support children and families can relieve the heartache of tomorrow in the form of poorer outcomes in education, employment and in health.
The book begins by acknowledging the UK’s position on the UNICEF global league table of child well-being, ranking 29 of the world’s richest countries against each other. The UK is placed 16th, our particular challenge being a high proportion of young people not in work, training or education. Although the league table did not single out the devolved nation of Scotland, the author describes the UK as a ‘decent proxy for Scotland’.
The first 1,000 days
The author goes on to explore the theory of the first 1,000 days of a child’s life. This theory suggests this is the most significant indicator of what the future holds for them. He touches on child poverty, which we know from well-cited research can lead to adversities in life, but he also mentions too much money can be an issue as well.
This point is explored more deeply later in the book’s in a chapter titled: ‘Is social class a factor?’. The author is effective at challenging the popular rhetoric that it’s the least educated and most poverty-stricken parents in society who are most likely to neglect their children. He talks about the longitudinal study, Growing Up in Scotland, which tracks the lives of thousands of children and families from birth to teens. Amongst many other findings, the survey shows 20% of children from the top income bracket have below average vocabulary; it also finds problem-solving capabilities are below average for 29% of this group. This proposes child poverty is only a small indicator of the child’s developmental prospects.
Where the Dutch Get it Right
The most intriguing part of the book from my point of view is the comparison the author makes between raising a child in Scotland versus the Netherlands (which ranked first in the UNICEF league table). In Holland, pregnant women have visits from a Kraamzorg, an omnipresent healthcare professional who identifies the type of support required. Post-birth the Kraamzorg plays a very active role and can typically spend up to eight hours a day supporting the new mother in her first week of childcare. The Kraamzorg also becomes involved in household chores including shopping and cooking. And it doesn’t stop there. The Dutch system includes Mother and Baby Wellbeing Clinics, which support families from birth to school age and have been doing so effectively for the last century.
On reading how the Dutch system operates, it’s hard to not make comparisons to the system here in Scotland (and the wider UK) within our NHS where mothers are wheeled in to give birth and very quickly wheeled out again to free up bed space. I exaggerate slightly here and I do not want to discredit the incredible job hard-working NHS staff do, but I’m sure I’m not alone in feeling envious of the Dutch system and thinking they’ve got something right, in comparison with Scotland. This was neatly summarised at the start of the book in a quote from a Dutch woman who had spent time living in both Holland and Scotland when she said: ‘In Holland we love children. In Scotland you tolerate children.’
But it’s not all bad. As the author remarks himself: ‘Scottish parenting is not universally awful: if we were we would not be almost halfway up the global table of child well-being’ (p. 12).
The penultimate chapter explores some real-life examples of parents who are struggling and striving to succeed in bringing up children with some success despite the odds stacked against them. I found the author’s injection of such human stories among the explanation of evidence useful as it allowed a chance for the reader to reflect on how all this is applicable in everyday life in Scotland.
To me, there was, however, a glaring omission in these stories: a voice from the LGBT community. Gay adoption in Scotland was legalised almost 10 years ago in 2009, and at the same time the Looked After Children (Scotland) Regulation 2009 came into force allowing same-sex couples to be considered as foster parents. It would have been interesting to hear from this historically marginalised part of our society what the experience has been like and how different, or similar, this was from the other stories included in this chapter. Are they arguably better equipped as carers of Scotland’s most vulnerable children given their own life experiences of being marginalised?
The book ends with the author setting out his vision for a better future for Scotland’s children where they have better life chances and are fully nurtured. It’s clear we have some way to go but reading this book makes you feel a glimmer of hope that could, one day, become a reality.
8 Common Food Myths Debunked
There are hundreds of common myths and misconceptions about food which may influence your diet choices. However, some foods commonly believed to be unhealthy are actually just fine and some popular “healthy” foods are actually harmful. Here are eight common food myths debunked:
1. Low-fat Foods are Always Healthier.
Some types of fat are unhealthy, but others are an important part of a healthy diet. When foods are made low fat, the fat content is usually replaced with sugar or sodium to improve the taste. This definitely does not make it healthier, but many people associate fat with weight gain and heart attacks. Therefore, they choose “low-fat” foods even though the foods have an unhealthy amount of sugar or sodium.
2. You Need to Eat Dairy for Healthy Bones.
People tend to confuse dairy with calcium, so it’s a common myth you need dairy for strong bones. It’s true that dairy has lots of calcium, but plenty of other foods do as well. You can eat greens, broccoli, oranges, beans, and nuts to get enough calcium to keep your bones healthy.
3. Eggs Raise Your Cholesterol Levels.
Your cholesterol levels are mostly influenced by saturated and trans fats, and eggs contain very little of both. Eggs contain lots of important nutrients, so cutting them out of your diet to lower your cholesterol levels can actually be harmful. It won’t affect your cholesterol and it will prevent you from getting all the health benefits eggs have.
4. All Food Additives are Bad for You.
Some people believe all food additives are made of harmful, toxic chemicals. While some aren’t very healthy, most are completely fine. The panic over food additives mostly stems from a lack of understanding. For example, many people believe the additive carrageenan is toxic because it’s been proven to cause inflammation in lab animals. However, studies show human bodies don’t absorb or metabolize it, so it flows through the body without causing any harm.
5. Restricting Salt Prevents Heart Attacks.
Lowering your salt intake can reduce your blood pressure, but there’s no scientific evidence supporting the idea that restricting salt reduces your risk of a heart attack or stroke. If your doctor tells you to cut back on salt, you should listen. However, it’s a myth everyone needs to lower their salt intake to be safe and healthy.
6. High Fructose Corn Syrup is Worse than Sugar.
Many foods are labeled “No HFCS” as if this makes them healthier and many people buy these items because they’re so afraid of high fructose corn syrup. It actually is very similar to sucrose, or table sugar, in many ways. The composition of high fructose corn syrup is almost identical to that of table sugar and both have the same number of calories. They both have similar effects on insulin and glucose levels. Neither are particularly healthy, but one isn’t worse than the other.
7. All Organic Food is Healthy.
Organic food is free of pesticides, chemical fertilizers, and other additives found in most non-organic foods. Choosing organic produce can reduce your chemical exposure, but junk food labeled “organic” is still junk food. You can buy organic chips, cookies, or crackers, but they’ll still have as much sugar and empty calories as their non-organic counterparts.
8. Coffee Makes You Dehydrated.
Caffeine is a diuretic, which means it does dehydrate you. However, coffee has a very mild dehydrating effect and all of the water it contains will make up for any fluid you lose. Coffee also contains lots of antioxidants, so you don’t have to worry about drinking a cup or two every morning.
As it turns out, the behaviour of people around us is contagious. This is truer the closer these relationships are – we are much more influenced by the attitudes of friends and family than we are by those of strangers. We often think of peer pressure as a bad thing we should resist, but it can also be a powerful influencer in terms of shifting social attitudes for the better as well.
I recently read an interesting article in Scientific American about the power of social pressure and how it can influence our behaviour. For example, one 2003 study found:
- If a person gains weight, the likelihood their friend would also gain weight is 171%
- When smokers quit, their friends are 36% more likely to also quit
- Having happy friends increased the likelihood of an individual being happy by 8%
It’s also true that fitting in feels good. We all want to feel a sense of connection and belonging and these things are hugely important to our personal wellbeing. The difficulty is, of course, when fitting in means feeling pressured to change parts of ourselves in ways we are not comfortable with. And feeling under pressure to force yourself to be something you’re not can cause a huge amount of psychological distress.
It’s a no-win situation – we either change (or pretend to change) for the sake of fitting into the group – and feel awful and uncomfortable about not being able to be who we really are – or we stay courageous about our convictions, but experience ostracisation and pay another kind of emotional price for that, too.
So what’s the answer? I’m really not sure, to be honest. I know that personally when I was younger I felt huge amounts of pressure to hide my nerdy and academic interests because they didn’t seem to be shared by the people around me. I didn’t talk about my love for sci-fi, comic books, or video games with anyone. Or show that I loved attending classes and soaking up knowledge anywhere I could. I simply never seemed to have any friends who had the same interests.
But through my 20s I became a lot more comfortable in my own skin and more confident that being different in some way was okay. Just the other day a colleague pointed out a nice, but expensive, piece of jewellery online. She asked, “Wouldn’t you like to own that?” I replied, “Actually, I’d rather have a new Xbox!” We laughed about it. I didn’t feel like an outcast. I felt like I was being genuine and appreciated for that.
And maybe this is the key. Sometimes a lot of the pressure to conform is external, but I wonder how much of it is internal as well. I wonder if my friends in my younger years would have accepted me for who I was if I had given them the chance to.
Or maybe my hard-won comfort with who I am helps other people to feel more comfortable being themselves around me, too. We’ve removed that pressure, together.
But I’m curious – how affected (or unaffected) do you feel by social pressure?
Is It More Than Just A Shooting?
Several articles in response to the shootings in Minnesota, New Orleans, and Dallas point fingers at racists, PTSD, and mental illness. Although these issues are valid, there is a multitude of factors making this issue far more complex than a singular culprit like mental illness.
Underneath all these shootings and acts of violence is fear, an emotion we don’t often factor in when discussing shootings. Fear causes fight or flight reactions in humans, a strong, protective instinct which can, at times, cause reactions that aren’t typical of our normal behaviors. When we experience fear, whether real or perceived, our adrenaline increases and as an act of self-preservation. Our reactions to fear may cause us to act in ways our “normal” brain might not have. Unfortunately, it can also cause us to react in a way which can take the life of someone in the name of self-protection or justice.
So, imagine the stress of living in a neighborhood where people are killed, gunshots are heard regularly, and those around you are involved in nefarious activities. Long-term stress can have severe consequences – such as physical health issues and problems with cognitive thinking. For children, toxic stress results in behavioral and development issues. Living in a state of constant fear never allows an individual to care for themselves, always on the alert for potentially dangerous situations. Living in fearful conditions where a community’s needs aren’t met and their safety is questionable, a physically and mentally harmful lifestyle is already enough to deal with. Now, factor in racial profiling, police bias and brutality, and classist targeting.
In low-income neighborhoods, police are not always responsive. The police don’t often know you or your family and tend to approach certain neighborhoods with harmful preconceived ideas. Whether it’s internalized hate, racial profiling and learned bias, classism or just plain ignorance, many police officers are not educated about communities different from their own and only have reference points from television and media, which reinforce harmful stereotypes. If this is the basis from which police are viewing the public, it’s highly likely police will target certain groups out of fear.
It is important as a society, we do not downplay the personal responsibility we have for our actions nor the sheer horror of violence. But we are not born disliking people of color, women, immigrants or cultures different from our own. Through our learned experiences with family, school, media, or religious institutions, we learn to be separate and fear groups who are not like us. We look around and see people who only look like us and learn to live in a comfortableness rather than question the status quo which oppresses certain groups more than others.
So, how do we get past this fear? Education, compassion, and empathy are key. As a community, we need to be more responsible to one another and have difficult conversations about race, gender, and class while challenging our own internalized biases. Speaking to our legislators, media representatives, friends, and family is a power to hold ourselves and others accountable for racial profiling, classism, abuse of power, and internalized fears. We need to put our foot down and refuse to settle for superficial conversations or answers to large, complex problems.
Four Ways Neurodiversity Holds the Key to the Future of Special Education
For ages, special education has been developing on its own, together with the development of ordinary education. It emphasizes disorders and the ways special education students are lacking compared to an average student. Those who have a noticeable dysfunction have even been mocked for their lack of focus or skill to learn something – sometimes by teachers too.
And even though the history of the special education has been filled with inappropriate names and terms, the future is bright. More and more scientists and educators are turning to the better ways of conducting special education – and one of those ways is related to neurodiversity.
This term was first used by journalist Harvey Blume in the early 1990s and means that autism, ADHD, dyslexia, and other special-needs conditions are the part of normal variations in the human population. And here is how neurodiversity changes the entire special education system.
1. In theory.
Special education as it is at the moment regards disability categories as something originated from biology, genetics, and neurology. Neurodiversity, on the other hand, focuses on the advantages these disabilities have to offer – they use this to explain why these genes are still here today and why people are still born with disabilities.
This new concept examines how a person with a disability can be lacking in some aspects but even more advanced than regular people in some. During the past decade, university programs such as London School of Economics’ Dyslexia and Neurodiversity program, or the College of William & Mary’s Neurodiversity Initiative are aimed to support neurodiverse students and create positive acceptance and niches for them.
Annabel Gray, neurodiversity specialist and educator at Origin Writings states, “Regarding a person as completely disabled is fundamentally wrong. Whereas a person with, for example, autism can be lacking in some areas of life, on a job which requires focus and attention to detail, this same person would do outstandingly well.”
2. The focus.
The focus of special education so far has been solely on assessing deficits and how to go about educating students based on these deficits. However, neurodiversity relies more on assessing the strengths, talents, abilities, and interests of disabled students. It is a strength-based approach where an educator would use a series of tests to discover the student’s abilities and teach them how to use them to tackle their everyday and educational challenges.
What is so great about neurodiversity approach is it gives the students all the necessary tools to cope with their day to day life by focusing on what they do best. This way the students are not feeling left out and they know there are some things where they can thrive in.
Workarounds are another way the neurodiversity improves the disabled students’ lives. What it essentially means is the educators are supposed to find ways for students to experience and learn which does not include their disabilities. For example, students with ADHD could be allowed to use special tools like stability balls or standing desks in order to focus on studying.
This could be expanded to create an individual education plan for each student based on what they need and in which environment they thrive the most. Placing those students in the traditional learning environment will help them to feel “lesser human being” or a burden.
Lila Christie, an educator at 1Day2Write and WriteMyX confirms: “Workarounds are some of the best ways of teaching the disabled students. We implement this strategy of putting each student in an environment that will allow them to learn without anything in the way. It not only works but also gives students the satisfaction and comfort.”
4. How to communicate with students.
While most special education programs still teach children about their disabilities, neurodiversity teaches them about the value of variation and being different. It teaches them how their brain works and how the environment affects it, how to use their skills to the maximum etc. This kind of mindset can help them realize the growth mindset can improve their performance.
To get the brain to its full potential it is important to get the students exercising in various ways, each suited to their own abilities – writing exercises are excellent ways to improve brain power and it can be easily accessible to students through tools such as Dragon NaturallySpeaking, Windows Speech Recognition, etc.
Neurodiversity is a great new approach to special education. It gives students opportunities and new ways of understanding themselves. This is a fresh take on educating those with disabilities – in fact, it relies more on their abilities and strengths. It can give students confidence and tools to be successful and do more later in their lives.
Connect With SWHELPER
Brick and Mortar Stores and Their Potential Demise
Earlier this year, Business Insider reported almost 4,000 stores in the United States will close. Among those were giant corporate...
How the Internet and Social Media Is Impacting Social Work
Social media and the Internet, in general, have had an immense effect on social work. It enables communication between people...
Virtual Crisis Intervention: Wave of the Future?
Crisis intervention, once primarily delivered over the phone is increasingly being delivered through the computer and via text. Social Workers...
Why Efforts to Hire and Maintain the Best Staff Can Be Critical for Nonprofits
While a well-seasoned and dedicated staff can be a terrific resource for any business, hiring the right professional to fill...
Three Mobile Marketing Strategies to Raise Awareness
Today, mobile marketing is one of the most powerful forms of digital marketing. Social media, email and video marketing are...