Our response to an upcoming Tribune article

The Salt Lake Tribune published a story about us recently. Overall it was not bad, but as is their way, they took a couple of cheap shots at the Academy on their way out. We will be the first to the table any time anyone wants to have a serious conversation about results. In the brief decade since we started we have visited dozens of programs around the world world to study anything anyone anywhere is doing that comes with evidence of improved outcomes. The Tribune article did nothing to advance that purpose, but perhaps it sold some newspapers—because they’re coming back for more.

We found out a few weeks ago that the Tribune was “shopping“ for former students who left the Academy unsuccessful and unhappy, along with others willing to call themselves “experts” as a platform to criticize us.

Spoiler alert #1: Not everyone who comes to the Academy succeeds, and some blame us for their failure.

Spoiler alert #2: Some who have done this work for many years a certain way disagree with us.

After speaking with a handful of disgruntled students and other critics, the Tribune sent us a list of “questions“. If you know anything about us, you know that we welcome accountability. We welcome questions. But if you know anything about us, you also know that we call out BS when it’s there. While we haven’t read the article, yet, we trust that you’ll note that it was not “investigative reporting”, but rather a conclusion in search of justification. If it were a serious attempt to find truth, the Tribune would have done two things:

1. Ask critics for data. If you want to quote someone who knows a better way of doing things, ask them for evidence that their way works better.

2. Look for patterns rather than anecdotes. If the Tribune truly wants to question what we do for the public interest, which method would it use:

a. Scour the community to find those who came and quit.

b. Compare our outcomes to other programs

The Tribune, either ignorant of the scientific method, or committed to an agenda, chose A.

There are hundreds of former Academy students and supporters the reporters could seek out (they are not that hard to find!) to learn more about outcomes, or to put failures in context, but they have a chosen narrative and they are going to stick with it. It’s really kind of sad. But that’s fine, we are all adults here. We welcome criticism. Freedom of the press means Tribune reporters have freedom of speech. Fortunately, so do we. We gather their story will be coming out next weekend. So, we thought we should take some time this week to tell our side first. This is an open letter to our community and other friends – and enemies, for that matter – to share “the other side” of The Other Side now, rather than wait for the hatchet job.

Some may raise an eyebrow at our use of the word “enemy.” We feel no animosity toward other service providers, but we would be less than forthcoming if we didn’t acknowledge that our repeated calls for greater accountability in Utah’s rehab community has so far resulted in more tantrums than transparency. To date, not a single service provider has responded to that call and published their outcome statistics. What has happened, instead, is eerily timed pot shots like the Tribune’s.

Most of the Tribune’s questions to us in assembling their story were requests to respond to assertions made by four former students. While there is much more to most every situation than their interviewees shared, these are people we have loved and continue to love. We will not risk hurting them in an effort to defend our work. While we refused to engage in the Tribune’s game of he said/she said, we told them that we would respond to the underlying issues.

This week we are planning to do podcasts, radio interviews and social media posts to talk about our side of the story before they publish theirs.

We ask our Academy community — supporters, customers, partners, students, former students, or anyone who understands what we do and why we do it — to share this information far and wide. Post about it, write about it, share the links, share how The Other Side has benefited you and the people you love, share our website and talk to your friends and family.

Once again, we will be first at the table any time the Tribune wants to write a piece about results. Our dearest hope is not that the Academy be celebrated, but that all of us who claim to want to help a deeply troubled population find a way to help more succeed. Should the Tribune ever be interested in a truly objective investigation of the outcomes of the major service providers, count us in. And should that investigation discover we could be doing better, we will pivot in a heartbeat. Below we publish the “Gotcha“ questions submitted to us by the Tribune. Though the interviewees probably spoke on the record, we are omitting the names of those individuals. If the Trib wants to print the names, that is their business.

Below the “questions”, you’ll find our responses.

Thank you to our entire community for your support over the years and in the future.

Questions for The Other Side Academy from The Salt Lake Tribune

We have spoken with RT who said he felt betrayed and upset when he learned that Dave Durocher directed that a photograph of him lying in a hospital bed after an overdose be projected for participants at The Other Side Academy to see. RT said he understood the message to be, “This is what’s going to happen to you if you don’t do what they say.” Do you dispute that the photograph was shown to participants at the academy? If not, who decided to display it, and what was the purpose of doing so?

What policies, if any, does The Other Side Academy have regarding the use or sharing of current or former participant; personal medical information or photographs?

RT said that when he left the academy, Durocher yelled at him that he was a “low-level dirt bag” who deserved to “rot in prison.” He also said Durocher threatened to have him sent to prison or fired from his job. ----- said someone at the Academy did contact his boss in an effort to have him fired. What is your recollection of the conversation that Durocher or staff had with RT as he left the Academy? Did anyone at the Academy ever contact RT’s boss after he left? If so, what was the purpose of that conversation?

We interviewed BK, who said he was at the Academy for six hours before he decided to leave. He recalled Durocher telling him that if he left the building he was “going to die” and that he’d be “lucky” if he made it back to prison. Does Durocher remember this conversation? What is his recollection of what happened?

BK also said he felt Durocher was “trying to set me up for failure” by not allowing him to contact his probation officer. Do you remember if BK was allowed to contact his probation officer? Did anyone at The Other Side Academy prevent him from doing so, and if so, what was the rationale or reasoning for that? 

We also spoke with another former student, MD, who said The Other Side Academy contacted his boss after he left the Academy and he was fired as a result. He described this as feeling like the Academy staff were “trying to force a rock bottom.” Did anyone at the Academy contact MD’s boss? If so, what was the purpose of that conversation?

MD said he saw staff threaten to contact a student’s probation officer or yell insults at them or tell them to “just go down the street and die” when they leave. He said he felt the Academy doesn’t try to get participants into programs that might help them better or could address any mental health needs. Does the Academy offer any resources or support if a student determines the program is not a good fit for them, and if so, can you describe those? 

Do you dispute that staff has yelled at students when they’ve left, or told them to “go down the street and die”? If that has happened, what’s the purpose of using that type of approach with those who are leaving?

How does the Academy determine when its model is not the best fit for a participant, and what responsibility does it believe it has to help those individuals transition to another form of treatment or recovery support?

MD also said that Academy staff discouraged him from having a relationship with his girlfriend, BR, and said that was because BR supported medication-assisted therapy in recovery. What are The Other Side Academy staff’s thoughts or opinions about medication-assisted therapy?

MD and BR both described a confrontation at last year’s Recovery Day where they say Durocher yelled at them, calling MD a “piece of crap addict” and telling BR that MD was using drugs and ruining her life. What is Durocher’s recollection of this interaction? We also spoke with MJ, who said she fought with Durocher on social media and defended team members he spoke negatively about, which she felt was rooted in the fact that she had a different approach to recovery than The Other Side Academy. How does Durocher characterize his interactions with MJ? Does he dispute her account of those exchanges or the reason she believes they occurred?

MJ also said Durocher told former Academy students to not support her or her efforts, and had messaged speakers at events she organized to tell them not to participate. Does Durocher dispute that he took those actions? If not, what was his reasoning for doing so?

 MJ also described a coffee meeting with Durocher where she said he told her that The Other Side Academy “runs the recovery industry.” What is Durocher’s recollection of this conversation? Does he dispute that he said this, and if not, what was the context of this statement?

Our response to the Tribune’s questions

First, The Other Side Academy (Academy) will not involve itself in a tit-for-tat game of “he said, she said” with former students or current critics. We will not comment directly about the individuals interviewed by The Tribune. Their perceptions are their own and they are welcome to them. We will, however, comment on the underlying issues raised. 

If The Salt Lake Tribune’s “Big Reveal“ is that sometimes long time addicts, many with long criminal histories, who with full knowledge enroll themselves into a demanding program sometimes become unhappy with our demands, chafe at accountability, quit the program and blame us for their failure, we’ll just have to hitch up our trousers and try to soldier on through the “bad press.”

Headline: FORMER CONVICT DRUG ADDICT DISLIKES STRUCTURE AND ACCOUNTABILITY!!! 

Each enrollee is given a two-week period to live in the facilities and learn the rules before they are accepted to the program. They are fully advised of the demands and restrictions, and the fact that harsh language is sometimes used to reinforce norms and restrictions. They are given two weeks to decide whether to stay. 

We make no apology for that process. 

There is a word for people who have long arrest records and significant periods of incarceration -- that word is “unemployable.” And yet, 100% of our graduates find employment. How does The Tribune suppose that happens? Over years, the Academy has developed trusted relationships with employers that make this possible. Students placed in jobs through the Academy channels are fully advised that if a graduate is failing to live up to their commitments (for example, using drugs), we will inform that employer. To do otherwise would be for the Academy to destroy opportunities for future the Academy students who DO keep their commitments.  

The Academy makes no apology for that policy.

Many of our students come to us with obligations to state correctional authorities like Adult Probation and Parole. Students make certain commitments to the Academy community, and the Academy community makes certain representations to AP&P. Sometimes compliance with the Academy’s requirements is a condition of release. If the Academy learns a student with those obligations has left the program and may be using again, will the Academy report it to the proper authorities? Absolutely and without fail. Not to do so would CLOSE doors for future the Academy students who hope to put their past behind them, fully recover, gain employment and become productive members of their community. 

The Academy makes no apology for that policy. 

When a student makes destructive and even life-threatening decisions, might you hear loud and even profane language when passing our campus? Yes. Absolutely and without fail. Is it done out of hate or vengeance? Just ask the hundreds whose lives were saved from their own worst impulses from this very radical honesty. Our foundation principles are truth and love. For people with problems like ours, sometimes loves means high volume truth. 

The Academy makes no apology for getting loud when soft isn’t working. 

Does the Academy work for everyone?

Of course not. For example, we do our best in initial interviews to determine whether prospective students have diagnosed mental health problems that require treatment we do not provide. At times applicants lie about their needs. That might not sound pretty, but it’s true. If it becomes clear that a student has mental health challenges they did not disclose in their initial interview, our typical response is to assist them in securing other treatment options. On multiple occasions we have paid for travel to distant options when needed. 

We do not charge our students any money, but some may not be willing to pay the real price. Our program is hard. It may be the most restrictive, most demanding and difficult program of its kind in Utah. It may not work for some, but for those who do the work and pay the price, our program pays off. More than 7 out of 10 of our graduates remain drug-free, crime-free, and employed. We welcome any other program to publicly share its outcomes. So far, we have not seen others willing to do the same.

Addiction is a brutal, treatment-resistant disease. Around 100,000 Americans die each year from overdose. Too many people we love and care about have died as a result of their addictions.  Every time we lose someone, we are heartbroken and have greater resolve to try harder. The full cost of addiction, however, is far greater than that annual overdose number. If we add the toll of years lost to jail or prison, mental illness, chronic diseases, lost productivity, broken families, abandoned children… Well, then maybe you’ll understand the real reason the former addicts who lead The Other Side Academy sometimes get worked up.

PHOTO

Mr. Durocher had no direct role in the incident with RT. But that kind of thing is often shared widely in recovery communities as a reminder that sobriety happens one day at a time and that all of us are subject to relapse. 

Furthermore, anyone who complains that their mistakes are used as teaching opportunities for our larger community is pretending not to know that this is precisely how our therapeutic community works. We learn both from each others’ successes and failures. RT knew that when he came. He knew that the entire time he was with us. 

MEDICATION-ASSISTED

The Academy recognizes that research shows benefits from medication-assisted therapy for the general population of those with substance use disorder in early recovery. We are unaware of any research that demonstrates benefits outweighing risks for participants in a rigorous, abstinence-based recovery community like The Other Side Academy. Should research specific to our context prove otherwise, we will reconsider that policy.

OTHER

Most addiction treatment programs discourage the formation of new romantic relationships during treatment and early recovery. That is based on the combined wisdom and common experience of decades of recovery efforts and has proven itself valid over time. The Academy is far from an outlier.

Mr. Durocher is not accountable for another person’s perception of a particular past conversation and will not comment. Mr. Durocher stated he has had no “coffee conversation” with the individual who claims he did.