Another excellent program to help get the seriously ill back in the community are clubhouses. The Fountain House in New York is an incredible model that all communities should attempt to recreate. Keep in mind that these clubhouses are actually physical places, not just an online nonprofit. The seriously mentally ill knock on their door, and are instantly closer to recovery. The clubhouse staff have the recovering people’s backs at all times, even if they revert back to old symptoms, or become hospitalized and incarcerated. The clubhouses not only let them recover, they reintroduce them back to the real world. In clubhouses, members are a part of the decision making team, although the staff is necessary. The workers try to find jobs for the recovered and even can help in enrolling in schools. Members, as the healing patients are called, complete a variety of tasks that will make their transition back to the community easier. They make meals, clean, talk to various people on the phone, manage their finances and learn how to pay bills, shop, and much more. The Fountain House, operated under Kenn Dudek, has helped many get well and stay that way. The stats show what stabilized patients are saying: it works. Fountain House’s numbers in particular are incredibly positive. 40 percent of their members who were homeless or not in good housing went out to have a 99 percent success rate of finding houses. Out of the 24 percent who were at one point in jail, fewer than 5 percent went back to jail. These numbers should convince everyone that clubhouses work, but SAMHSA (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration) does not seem to care. In fact, it hasn’t promoted the models that Fountain House produced. In addition, it doesn’t change that clubhouses aren’t refundable with Medicare and Medicaid. This not only raises costs for the clubhouse, but tears its attention away from those it serves. DJ Jaffe wrote in his book, Insane Consequences, that, “The Clubhouse Model is stellar, and every community should have at least one” (237.)