Big Brothers Home AFH

Pros

• The Big Brothers program was good to them and staff helped them without mistreatment.
• The place saved their life and is seen as well needed for troubled youth.
• The staff offered help and support to the youths.

Cons

• The place is described as too easy, leading poor kids to prison because it's easy and fun.
• Workers are accused of taking parents' hard-earned money for the kids and then selling the cell phones.
• The reviewer urges that the facility be closed down or at least checked on, indicating strong distrust.
• The environment is portrayed as a regular house with six bedrooms where kids run the home more than staff, implying it does not help.
• It is stated that the place is not a place that helps.

Review

The set of comments about this youth program presents a wide spectrum of experiences, emotions, and concerns. Some former residents describe it as a place that helped them when they needed it most, while others view it as a system that's too easy to manipulate, with misuses that undermine its stated purpose. Taken together, the notes paint a picture of a facility that is deeply polarizing: praised by some for its life-changing impact, criticized by others for lax oversight, potential exploitation, and a structure that feels more permissive than protective.

One person recounts positive memories from 2009, noting that the staff were not treated as friends but were nonetheless helpful and not abusive. This account stresses a boundary of respect - staff who provided guidance without crossing into mistreatment, even if the relationship wasn't intimate or friendly. The writer emphasizes that they were never mistreated, which suggests a level of care and safety in their specific experience. For this reviewer, the experience is framed as a stepping stone that helped navigate difficult days, underscoring that not all interactions were negative and that some staff made a meaningful difference.

Yet another voice shifts the tone dramatically, arguing that such places are too easy and can set up trouble rather than prevent it. The reviewer suggests that "these poor kids" end up in prison because the system feels easy and appealing, almost as if the program itself lowers the stakes. They allege that staff turned access to money into a problem, describing a scenario where parents were pressured to provide funds for the children and where even cell phones were sold off. This critique implies a corrupt or at least poorly managed environment where monetization of basic needs undermines the program's mission and harms families who are trying to help their kids.

In stark contrast to the above, another individual expresses a strong positive verdict, claiming the place "saved my life" and arguing that such facilities are needed for troubled youth. This perspective highlights the life-changing potential of structured settings, suggesting that, for some youths, a well-run program provides stability, resources, and pathways that can steer them away from more harmful outcomes. The language here conveys gratitude and a belief in the essential role these programs can play when functioning properly.

There is also a forceful, urgent call for action from another reviewer who believes the facility should be closed or at least subjected to serious scrutiny. The critique centers on a perception of lax control: a parent recounts their son returning home bragging about how "basically you can do anything and get whatever you want there." The description of the place as "a regular house with 6 bedrooms" where "kids run [the] home more than staff" paints a picture of insufficient supervision and an environment that feels like it lacks clear boundaries. The reviewer argues that, instead of helping, the setting seems to enable behavior that works against the stated goals of rehabilitation and safety.

Taken together, these reviews reveal a tension at the heart of many youth programs: the same structure that can provide safety, accountability, and life-changing support can also become a setting where boundaries are unclear, oversight is weak, and resources are misapplied. The positive accounts point to the potential for mentorship, discipline, and resilience-building when staff are competent, compassionate, and consistent. The negative accounts warn of systems that are exploitable, with parents pressured to pay and with very little emphasis on safeguarding, proper supervision, and accountability.

Overall, the collection suggests that outcomes in such programs are highly contingent on specifics: who runs the facility, how staff are trained and supervised, how funds are managed, and how permissions and privileges are allocated. For some youths, the program provides structure, hope, and a path toward better decisions. For others, gaps in oversight, easy access to rewards, and inconsistent enforcement of rules can undermine trust, encourage rule-breaking, or even enable shortcuts that do more harm than good. The common thread is a call for stronger checks and balances, clearer policies, and greater accountability so that the program can fulfill its intended purpose without becoming a source of harm or exploitative practices.

In the end, the narratives reflect a broader plea for reform and vigilance: these facilities can be valuable when properly run and properly funded, but they can also fail catastrophically when oversight erodes, when financial pressures distort priorities, or when staff capacity is outmatched by the demands of keeping youths safe and directing them toward healthier futures. The underlying message is not that all such programs are inherently bad or good, but that reliable outcomes depend on rigorous supervision, ethical conduct, real consequences for misuse, and a steadfast focus on the youths' best interests rather than convenience or profit.

This part of Dothan, Alabama, offers a variety of amenities and services that cater to seniors looking for convenience and accessibility. With several restaurants within walking distance, such as Ggg Foods and KBC on Foster, there are plenty of dining options to explore. Nearby places of worship, including First Missionary Baptist Church and Harvest Church, provide opportunities for spiritual fulfillment. For medical needs, there are pharmacies like CVS Pharmacy and Northcutt Drug Co., as well as healthcare providers like Extended Care Medical Associates and Southern Sleep Center. The proximity to SE Alabama Medical Center - SAMC ensures quick access to quality medical care in case of emergencies. Overall, this area provides a comfortable and well-equipped environment for seniors considering senior living in Dothan.

Restaurants

• Ggg Foods (0.3 miles)
• KBC on Foster (0.4 miles)
• The Thirsty Pig (0.6 miles)
• Ray's Restaurant (1.7 miles)
• Red Elephant Pizza & Grill (1.9 miles)
• Metro Diner (1.9 miles)
• McAlister's Deli (1.9 miles)

Places of Worship

• First Missionary Baptist Church (0.4 miles)
• Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (2.1 miles)
• Harvest Church (2.2 miles)

Cafes

• Mural City Coffee Company (0.5 miles)
• Panera Bread (2.3 miles)
• Starbucks (2.7 miles)

Pharmacies

• CVS Pharmacy (0.6 miles)
• Northcutt Drug Co. (1 miles)
• Northcutt Drug Company (1 miles)
• Walgreens (2.1 miles)
• Walgreens (2.9 miles)
• Winn-Dixie (3 miles)
• Doctors Center Pharmacy (3.3 miles)

Physicians

• Extended Care Medical Associates (0.7 miles)
• Speech Therapy & Associates (0.9 miles)
• Shedden Pain Relief & Sports Medicine (1 miles)
• Dothan Ophthalmology (1 miles)
• Dothan Plastic Surgery (1 miles)
• Southern Sleep Center (1.5 miles)
• Wiregrass Wellness Center (1.6 miles)

Hospitals

• SE Alabama Medical Center - SAMC (0.9 miles)
• Surgery Center South (2 miles)
• Flowers Hospital (3.5 miles)
• Flowers Hospital Radiology (3.5 miles)

Transportation

• Enterprise Rent-A-Car (1.6 miles)