Three Springs wilderness camps

[Deborah]

Have you compared Grove Street?s DBT method with Three Springs, or any other BM warehouse?s method? You can start here:

First GS is small, 9 participants.
DBT posits that borderline personality disorder is caused by pervasive emotional dysregulation. Symptoms of borderline personality are thought to result when an adolescent who is biologically and emotionally vulnerable is placed in an environment that repeatedly communicates to the child that his or her reactions, feelings, and thoughts are faulty or inaccurate.[Have to wonder how many kids come out of programs with BPD]  Self-injurious behaviors may serve to regulate emotions and to elicit help from an environment that is otherwise unsupportive. The core dialectic of DBT treatment balances acceptance of the patient and the simultaneous need for change. DBT treatment uses validation strategies that require the therapist to search for, recognize, and reflect to the patient?and to each family member?the validity inherent in his or her response to events and the environment. Linehan described six levels of validation: listening nonjudgmentally; accurate reflection; mind-reading, or articulating unspoken thoughts and feelings; understanding the historical background of a behavior; confirming thoughts, behaviors, and feelings on the basis of current circumstances; and radical genuineness, which requires the therapist to speak authentically to the patient and his or her family.

Fact: The progenitor of FFT has acknowledged residential treatment (including boot camps, of all things) have produced positive results in cases.

He did no such thing. ?In contrast [to residential/boot camp programs], evidence programs such as FFT and multisystemic therapy deal directly with those natural environments.? Natural environments referring to the HOMES the kids were removed from.

Alexander/FFT presents an alternative to residential treatment. Claims 20% recidivism, vs 90% in residential.

And I'm just saying that it is NOT that clear by the APA, by Dr. Alexendar or any other source.

I doubt you?ll find an APA position paper that opposes RTCs. That?s the industry?s Bread ?n Butter. The APA supported restraints in RTCs a few years ago. Like any other industry club, they need to be taken with a grain of salt. There's significant research posted here on the negative effects of aggregating distressed kids.

Why do I have a membership to sage? Because it is free, and I wanted to do my research to find out what FFT really is all about. It is a very positive and appears to be a successful treatment. And I believe, contrary to you, that Dr. Alexander would approve of it as a systematic and multi-phase approach to treatment which might even include residential therapy.

Where did you first hear of FFT?
Why is Sage free for you? It?s not free to the rest of us. http://www.sagepub.com/journalsSubscrib ... rnal200924

If you have the article, post it.

[Troll Control]

A NATSAP seal on a website should be a sign to a parent to look elsewhere.

Well said. A NATSAP seal on a website is a big red flag.

NATSAP's a SADSACK.  Organized Crime.

[Deborah]

PS. You will find a position paper on RTCs/"Behavior Modification Boarding Schools" by the Assoc of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nurses here:
http://www.teenliberty.org/ACAPN.htm

[Troll Control]

Association of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing
The following Declaration was passed by the Board and membership of the Association of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing at their September 1998 annual meeting *****

A position regarding the detention of minor children in psychiatric treatment facilities, drug and alcohol treatment facilities, residential treatment facilities, and "behavior modification boarding schools."

§ All children have the right to be treated with dignity and free from mistreatment, abuse, neglect, and exploitation.

§ ACAPN opposes the abduction and involuntary transport of children to facilities for confinement unless such measures have been clinically justified in specific, operational terms by a licensed mental health professional with the legal authority to do so. In the event that such tactics are necessary for the immediate protection of the child and/or society, the child must have access to an appeal process commensurate with the same right of habeas corpus available to every citizen of the United States of America.

§ Children have the right to appropriate treatment in the least restrictive available setting in the event that treatment is necessary.

This setting must be one that provides the highest likelihood for improvement and that is not more restrictive of their physical liberty than is needed for their own protection or for the protection of society.

§ Prior to the child's admission a copy of their rights (written in clear and understandable language) should be given to them and explained to them verbally by a licensed staff member. A duplicate copy should be given to the child's family members(s) or guardian(s). If owing to the child's condition at the time of admission, the child has not understood his/her rights, a licensed staff member will provide an explanation to the child within 24 hours and periodically until some degree of understanding is reached. The necessity for repeating the rights communication process will be documented, signed, and dated. In the event that the child is very young, the rights should be explained to them in a way commensurate with their level of understanding.

Professional registered nurses, as directed by the A.N.A. code of ethics, are obliged to assure that the rights of children and families are in no way violated.

§ Prior to admission the child and his/her family or guardian(s) has the right to be informed of all institutional rules and regulations and consequence/reward structure concerning their conduct and course of treatment. These should be clearly stated in writing and a copy should be provided to all parties for reference purposes.

§ Treatment (including behavior modification procedures, therapies, educational activities) provided by any facility, including psychiatric hospitals, drug and alcohol treatment centers, residential treatment facilities, and "behavior modification boarding schools") must be professionally and clinically justifiable. This means that procedures to which children are subjected must be defensible as being within the realm of professional psychiatric standards of practice and affirmed by empirical research data as being appropriate.

§ ACAPN affirms the right of children to talk and write to persons outside the detainment facility at any time during their detainment without having such communication censored or monitored unless such monitoring is clinically justifiable (and justified) for the safety of  the child or others. This right includes the right to contact an attorney.

§ ACAPN opposes any prohibition on barriers to communication imposed by any facility including rigid and restrictive visiting policies, policies that restrict parents from visiting their children, limited access to telephones, and barriers to mail service.

§ ACAPN opposes any and all punitive measures. Children should not be physically restrained (restriction of body parts by device or by placement in an isolated, locked room) unless every avenue of prevention of harm to themselves or others has been exhausted. The successive steps employed in the prevention of aggressive behavior must be clearly stated in specific operational terms. In the event that such restraint becomes necessary it should be done humanely and in accordance to standard aggressive behavior management (ABM) protocol by persons who have been trained and who have received instruction in ABM prior to their exposure to clinical situations. Children's face and head must never be obstructed at anytime. The restraint must be applied while the child is in a supine position. Any medication administered to the child must be ordered by (physician or advanced practice nurse) and administered by a licensed professional. Children should never be left alone while in restraints or while secluded. The duration of physical restraint of any kind should extend only until the child is sufficiently in control of him/herself to no longer pose a threat to themselves or to others.

Restraints must be "broken" every 2 hours at a minimum, the child should be offered fluids, toileting, and vital signs should be taken. Restraint orders must be re-written every 24 hours after the child is evaluated by a licensed professional with legal authority to do so. All restraint procedures must be justified in writing and in specific, individual, operational (as opposed to general) terms.

§ Children have the right to be cared for in a developmentally appropriate way by competent certified professionals who have had both the salient education and experience commensurate with working with a pediatric population. They have the right to therapies that are rendered by persons who have the appropriate education and training in those therapies. Treatment and therapies must be temporally and developmentally geared in such a way that they are meaningful to children.

§ Children have the right to have access to an advocacy group (such as Advocacy Inc.) as well as access to support groups such as the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill. Advocacy groups and their telephone numbers should displayed in a prominent place where all patients can see them. When advocates are called, they must have free access to patients/clients.

§ Children have the right to review the information in their medical record with supervision. The right extends to the child's family or guardian.

§ Children have the right to have their records kept private and to be told about the conditions under which information about them will be disclosed without their permission.

§ Children and their families have the right to a treatment plan that is individually developed for their situations as well as the treatment plan for care after they leave the facility. This treatment plan should be developed in collaboration with children and families and should be monitored for appropriateness and for patient progress with their participation on a specified, regular basis by a team of therapists.

§ Children and families have the right to be told about the care, procedures, and treatment that they are given in terms that they will understand.

§ Children and families have the right to be informed about the staff members who are their caregivers. This means information such as professional discipline, job title, and responsibilities. In addition, they have the right to know about any proposed change in the appointment of professional staff members who are responsible for their care.

§ Custodial parents may request that their voluntarily admitted child(ren) be released from any hospital or institution within 72 hours without any delay on the part of the facility. ACAPN opposes the use of any coercive tactics designed to compel parents to reverse their decisions to withdraw their child(ren) from treatment.

§ Custodial parents may request that their involuntarily admitted child(ren) be released from any hospital or institution within 72 hours without any delay on the part of the facility. ACAPN opposes the use of any coercive tactics designed to compel parents to reverse their decisions to withdraw their child(ren) from treatment. Children and families have the right to a copy of the institutional billing that is done directly to the third party payer. This billing must clearly specify in specific lay terms what service was rendered, when it was rendered, and what was charged for the service.

--This Declaration was received by email and reposted on the Teen

Registry web site by Alexia Parks alexia@votelink.com)

**********************************************************************************

i've been saying the same things here for years while StrugglingParents told me i wasn't "living in reality," or some such other disqualifier.

interesting, huh?

[mbnh31782]

Quotes were taken from the article and related to how my facility ran.

ACAPN opposes the abduction and involuntary transport of children to facilities for confinement unless such measures have been clinically justified in specific, operational terms by a licensed mental health professional with the legal authority to do so. In the event that such tactics are necessary for the immediate protection of the child and/or society, the child must have access to an appeal process commensurate with the same right of habeas corpus available to every citizen of the United States of America.

The children at my facility were committed to the state of Georgia for a period of two years by the juvenile courts.  We recieved juvenile justice training from the state in order to "deal" with the children that came to the facility.  These children, while never fomally escorted, were always transported by their Probation Officer (PO) and left at the facility against their wills.  Many of the children would rather have been in an Regional Youth Detention Center (RYDC).

Children have the right to appropriate treatment in the least restrictive available setting in the event that treatment is necessary. This setting must be one that provides the highest likelihood for improvement and that is not more restrictive of their physical liberty than is needed for their own protection or for the protection of society.

While no walls or fences were at my facility, it was far enough out (8 miles) from town that escape was impossible.  There were neighbors with guns who had no trespassing signs on their property and that included escapee's.  There was more than one time that we had to call the sheriff's office to assist us in handling the children out at the facility.  Most of the "offenses" of children at the facility was truancy (not attending school).

Prior to the child's admission a copy of their rights (written in clear and understandable language) should be given to them and explained to them verbally by a licensed staff member. A duplicate copy should be given to the child's family members(s) or guardian(s). If owing to the child's condition at the time of admission, the child has not understood his/her rights, a licensed staff member will provide an explanation to the child within 24 hours and periodically until some degree of understanding is reached. The necessity for repeating the rights communication process will be documented, signed, and dated. In the event that the child is very young, the rights should be explained to them in a way commensurate with their level of understanding.  Professional registered nurses, as directed by the A.N.A. code of ethics, are obliged to assure that the rights of children and families are in no way violated.

Didn't happen.  Not at intake, not at strip search, not at meal times, not anywhere.  Nor was it posted anywhere publically that the children could see.  The children had to recite "creeds" which are found on the Three Springs website as part of their treatment.  These creeds in no way resembled the rights of the children in the facility.  The nurses were nice, but were brainwashed as well into thinking what the administration wanted them to think.  They wouldn't believe the children and would take any form of reporting as the counselors would as "manipulation".

Prior to admission the child and his/her family or guardian(s) has the right to be informed of all institutional rules and regulations and consequence/reward structure concerning their conduct and course of treatment. These should be clearly stated in writing and a copy should be provided to all parties for reference purposes.

On our side, many of the parents wouldn't be notified their child had been transfered until the weekly sunday night phonecall to approved people (family).  I am not sure if the families recieved any written rules or regulations.

Treatment (including behavior modification procedures, therapies, educational activities) provided by any facility, including psychiatric hospitals, drug and alcohol treatment centers, residential treatment facilities, and "behavior modification boarding schools") must be professionally and clinically justifiable. This means that procedures to which children are subjected must be defensible as being within the realm of professional psychiatric standards of practice and affirmed by empirical research data as being appropriate.

This is my favorite quote because it was the one that was most often violated.  "Treatment" could hardly be considered what they would deem the standard.  I am not a licenced clinician nor am I a licenced psychologist, however I was expected to act as though i knew how to handle these children psychologically and clinically.  I did recieve training by the facility, most of which was juvenile justice rules and regulations and how to properly restrain a child using the "SAMA" method.  I do have a bachelors degree, but does that make me qualified to administer "treatment" by standards of psychological and clinical means?  NO!  Any counselor or psychologist in their right minds would NEVER send a child to the Three Springs facilities.  As a matter of fact, a psychiatrist told a counselor who worked at my facility that it was psychologically damaging for her to continue to work there.  I can only imagine what it was like for the children.

ACAPN affirms the right of children to talk and write to persons outside the detainment facility at any time during their detainment without having such communication censored or monitored unless such monitoring is clinically justifiable (and justified) for the safety of  the child or others. This right includes the right to contact an attorney.  ACAPN opposes any prohibition on barriers to communication imposed by any facility including rigid and restrictive visiting policies, policies that restrict parents from visiting their children, limited access to telephones, and barriers to mail service.

People the children wrote and talk to had to be on the "approved" list.  Incoming letters had to be monitored and searched for "contraband".  Visitors were never left alone with the children.  Short of visitation being behind plate glass, it was very similar to being in a prison.

ACAPN opposes any and all punitive measures. Children should not be physically restrained (restriction of body parts by device or by placement in an isolated, locked room) unless every avenue of prevention of harm to themselves or others has been exhausted. The successive steps employed in the prevention of aggressive behavior must be clearly stated in specific operational terms. In the event that such restraint becomes necessary it should be done humanely and in accordance to standard aggressive behavior management (ABM) protocol by persons who have been trained and who have received instruction in ABM prior to their exposure to clinical situations. Children's face and head must never be obstructed at anytime. The restraint must be applied while the child is in a supine position. Any medication administered to the child must be ordered by (physician or advanced practice nurse) and administered by a licensed professional. Children should never be left alone while in restraints or while secluded. The duration of physical restraint of any kind should extend only until the child is sufficiently in control of him/herself to no longer pose a threat to themselves or to others.  Restraints must be "broken" every 2 hours at a minimum, the child should be offered fluids, toileting, and vital signs should be taken. Restraint orders must be re-written every 24 hours after the child is evaluated by a licensed professional with legal authority to do so. All restraint procedures must be justified in writing and in specific, individual, operational (as opposed to general) terms.

Most of Three Springs policies were "hands off" and restraints were discouraged, but they failed to provide us with enough training to deal with situations where it could have escalated into having the need for restraints.  Durations of restraints were limited to 10 minutes whether or not the child was in control of themselves or not.  If they were not, they had to be released then re-restrained.

Children have the right to be cared for in a developmentally appropriate way by competent certified professionals who have had both the salient education and experience commensurate with working with a pediatric population. They have the right to therapies that are rendered by persons who have the appropriate education and training in those therapies. Treatment and therapies must be temporally and developmentally geared in such a way that they are meaningful to children.

Bachelors degree in Outdoor Education and Leadership (not certified and out of realm of taught college classes)

Bachelors degrees in business, science, math, social work, education, and any other given field that is appropriate or not appropriate to handling children.  Many times they needed the warm bodies.  When I was being interviewed, I felt coerced into coming to the facility to work there immediately.  I had just graduated college and they wanted me 2 weeks from when I graduated.

Children have the right to have access to an advocacy group (such as Advocacy Inc.) as well as access to support groups such as the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill. Advocacy groups and their telephone numbers should displayed in a prominent place where all patients can see them. When advocates are called, they must have free access to patients/clients.

Nope, didn't happen.  Most that was available was a "grievance" form which was viewed as a form of manipulation by most of the children.

Children and their families have the right to a treatment plan that is individually developed for their situations as well as the treatment plan for care after they leave the facility. This treatment plan should be developed in collaboration with children and families and should be monitored for appropriateness and for patient progress with their participation on a specified, regular basis by a team of therapists.  Children and families have the right to be told about the care, procedures, and treatment that they are given in terms that they will understand.

Yeah, didn't happen either.  "Treatment" was decided by the facility.  Aftercare was available but hardly ever used.

Children and families have the right to be informed about the staff members who are their caregivers. This means information such as professional discipline, job title, and responsibilities. In addition, they have the right to know about any proposed change in the appointment of professional staff members who are responsible for their care.

"Don't tell the children too much about yourself or you will find they will use it to manipulate you."  Any staff members who left the facility was not spoken of again.  The staff who left was forbidden from speaking to the children even once to tell them why they needed to leave.  In some cases the children were prepared, in others they were not.  I've felt guilty about leaving the facility the way I did, but I have since come to terms with what happened and why I needed to get out of the facility.  

Custodial parents may request that their voluntarily admitted child(ren) be released from any hospital or institution within 72 hours without any delay on the part of the facility. ACAPN opposes the use of any coercive tactics designed to compel parents to reverse their decisions to withdraw their child(ren) from treatment.  Custodial parents may request that their involuntarily admitted child(ren) be released from any hospital or institution within 72 hours without any delay on the part of the facility. ACAPN opposes the use of any coercive tactics designed to compel parents to reverse their decisions to withdraw their child(ren) from treatment. Children and families have the right to a copy of the institutional billing that is done directly to the third party payer. This billing must clearly specify in specific lay terms what service was rendered, when it was rendered, and what was charged for the service.

While the parents were not advised about their children admitted, they were warned about manipulation by their children.  Many children would talk to their Probation Officer and want to be removed from the facility.  We were made to make sure the children didn't manipulate.  I remember many times a probation officer would look at me after something a child said and I'd shake my head no.  Now, I want to warn PO's that the facility is not suitable.

[Deborah]

I don't think the APA would/could publicly support "Behavior Modification Boarding Schools" if they knew the methods being employed.

http://cafety.org/index.php?option=com_ ... &Itemid=35

APA President Gerald P. Koocher, Ph.D., stated, "Our intention is to empower and encourage members to do everything they can to prevent violations of basic human rights - at Guantanamo Bay or anywhere else they may occur. It is not enough for us to express outrage or to codify acceptable practices. As psychologists, we must use every means at our disposal to prevent abuse and other forms of cruel or degrading treatment (APA Press Release, August 10, 2006)."
~~
To place the current concerns in context: Note that it is now illegal to use any of the following practices with regard to the treatment of U.S. detainees in Guantanamo Bay and other facilities:

o Use of phobias & fears to induce stress
o Physical training (forced calisthenics)
o Exposure to cold weather
o Sleep Deprivation
o Nutritional Deprivation
o Slapping face or stomach
o Stress positions (e.g. prolonged standing)
o Isolation greater than 30 days
o Forced Labor
o Denial of Use of Bathroom

However, each of these practices is being used to "modify the behavior" of U.S. adolescents in unregulated, private residential facilities, in the name of "therapeutic" schooling and programming.

~~Unfortunately, some of these same techniques are used in programs that are licensed and regulated.

[Nihilanthic]

Quick comment here.

Restraints broken every 2 hours?!?!

Uh it dont take two hours of being tied up to get under control. Thats way too long. Its pretty clearly used as a punishment.

Shit, what about claustrophobic people whod panic from that?

[Deborah]

Juvenile Forensic Evaluation Resource Center
Effective Treatment of Conduct Disorder

Community-based residential programs (i.e., group homes, wilderness programs) for aggressive and delinquent adolescents have been the treatment of choice for many decades. However, few are subjected to rigorous evaluation to determine if they are effective. There are several drawbacks to the use of residential treatment. First, these programs are quite expensive and require the development of a service that provides for control and security. Second, research has shown that behavior-problem adolescents assigned to groups composed of other deviant peers do not evidence a decrease in delinquent behavior and may, in fact, expand their repertoire of delinquent behavior. Finally, the behavior changes that occur during the program frequently do not generalize beyond the treatment center. Even a program like the Teaching-Family Model, with over 250 "certified" group homes and multiple outcome evaluations demonstrating significant effects while the youth is in the program, has not been able to consistently show long-term treatment effects. As a result of these disappointing outcomes, treatment foster care models are beginning to have wider use for youth who can not live at home.

http://www.ilppp.virginia.edu/Juvenile_ ... onDis.html

[Deborah]

And back to the NATSAP "study"

It is a fact that NATSAP presented their study to the APA. It's not like they are secretly trying to hide something. Sure they have a financial interest. Does that discount the findings completely and totally? When a pharmaceutical company presents clinical studies to the FDA, they likewise have a financial interest. It seems to me sometimes this is the way the world works.

No, NATSAP didn?t present ?their? study at the APA Convention, Behrens did.

Just as is true with the FDA and BigPharm, negative aspects of the studies are occluded, hidden. Years later they surface, only after many have had adverse effects and/or died. The FDA doesn?t protect consumers and NATSAP doesn?t protect parents or their children. They hired a woman (Behrens) with strong connections to the industry to gather surveys from (hand selected?) parents of 9 Aspen programs, then applied her findings to the entire industry.

Why only 9 programs?
Why only Aspen programs? Did Sainer completely or largely fund this study?
Where are the controls?
Where are the negative experiences? (Fornits and other survivor sites)
This is not research, it?s the results of a survey of hand-selected participants.

Results showed that teens attending licensed private residential treatment programs experienced significant improvements in all psychological and behavioral problems studied.

Where isthat list of 9 programs.  I can?t seem to find it, but it would be interesting to check on their licensing status. We know what we?d fine if we put all NATSAP member programs to this test.

"This research demonstrates what we've always believed - that research-driven and evidence-based private residential programs can help turn around teens in trouble. This information will give new hope to thousands of families who have been struggling with the difficult decision of how to best help a child."- Jan Moss, NATSAP

What research-driven and evidence-based techniques are they using?
http://www.nida.nih.gov/NIDA_notes/NNVo ... uping.html

[Anonymous]

When parents come to fornits and make statements in favor of RTC's such as Three Springs, they get blasted... as in slandered, and sometimes even threatened with physical injury - as I have been on this forum.

My point is simply this... if you all want social reform... the way to get it is NOT to slander, ridicule, and much worse, threaten people with harm or their lives.  Isn't that just as wrong as what you are accusing Three Springs of doing?

Then you act as if we as parents are intentionally trying to harm our kids by these "horrible" choices we've made to put them into a facility.  And what I'm saying is... I'm not trained in psychology and I have sought, to the best of my ability, professional guidance in these matters.  The APA itself doesn't even come out with a clear voice in these matters.  And yet, you expect me as a parent to make a perfect choice?  And if I don't, you want me to - what was said to me? - stop breathing your oxygen?

On top of that, some of you even chose to work for some of these institutions.  What?!  You didn't know better?  Does that mean you made a decision worthy of.... what.... death?

Do you see how hypocritical it is when you take such a strong position against parents who are trying to do their best for their kids?  These kind of attacks - and I'm not saying ALL of you do them - but it is certaintly prevalent and perhaps even majoritive - on these forums are not going to encourage people to think you taking a rational and effective approach.  Frankly, it turns me off.  No, worse... it makes me think you're foolish radicals and that I likely DID make all the right choices.

Indeed, some of you worked for these places for several years.  And when a parent admits their child and is half way into the program... simply coming to this forum isn't going to make them run over and pull their kid out immediately.  Maybe the choices we made might have been different were we being guided by a different set of professionals.  But we're in the middle of this thing - and some of us believe the best thing to do is ride it out.  You didn't quit your job after the first month... it took TIME.  But now that you are so "enlightened" you expect everyone else in the world to be where you are.  Guess what?  Life doesn't work that way.  I will not, in an instant, be as "wise" and "all knowing" as you are.  So what are you going to do - come gut me?

What has been said on this forum is that NO RTC has ever demonstrated a single success.  The reason I quoted Alexander is NOT because he recommends RTC, but that he acknowledges they produce positive results - but then come back into the same enviornment and the child fails.  He even includes Boot Camps in that list.

Yes, I showed a strawman RTC the APA awarded.  You have pointed out how that RTC differs from others.  But there has also been some discussion about how sometimes it is difficult to tell the good ones from the bad ones.  I think someone even said the only people who know are those who work there!

There was a time when you didn't hold this strong of position.  Think about how you would have felt if someone threatened you the way you have threatened me when you were describing this wonderful new job you got trying to help teenagers at a facility called Three Springs.  

Why is it so bad...or hard... for us to acknowledge that ONE child has been helped by Three Springs?  Are you afraid that if you acknowledge that, your position will come tumbling down like a house of cards?  It won't.  Not if your position is as strong as you say it is.

[Anonymous]

I got my sage account by registering here...

http://https://online.sagepub.com/cgi/register

Enter your email...click for new registration.  I just entered all the required fields...and it gave me an account.

The Dr. Alexander interview is a PDF file.  I don't know how to post a PDF file here... and the text is sort of long.

[Deborah]

Are you attempting to set the rules of engagement for an open forum? That would be a waste of your time. Either the venue works for you or it doesn't. Somehow, I don't believe this forum will ever cater to program parents needs. They're too narrow.

Why is it so bad...or hard... for us to acknowledge that ONE child has been helped by Three Springs?  Are you afraid that if you acknowledge that, your position will come tumbling down like a house of cards?  It won't.  Not if your position is as strong as you say it is.

Anyone here would acknowledge that a child has "changed", pretty much guarenteed for 20-40%. The question is, does the means justify the ends? What has happened to cause the change? Is it a positive change, and if so, will it last?  How have 'clinical' issues been dealt with? Have they been resolved or just punished into submission? No one, including yourself, could say a child has been "helped" while still in a program. The meer fact of being incarcerated against your will is highly stressful and potentially damaging. Time will tell.

[Anonymous]

I would never attempt to set the rules of engagement to an open forum.  I'm just giving you my perspective - as you are giving yours.

I'm not suggesting this board should ever cater to the needs of parents.  But the topics at hand should be of interest to them.  I've seen posts encouraging parents who have had bad experiences to join in.  But what would be so bad about bringing parents in whose experiences weren't that bad?  Don't we all want social reform to make things better?  Or is your goal merely vendictive?

Maybe it's something to think about...maybe not.  That's all I'm saying.

Look, I have received some good information from some of you.  Indeed your posts have provided A LOT of links and good resources.  Truthfully, it has helped to shape some of my thinking.  Given me some things to watch out for - signs to look for of abuses and ways that I can try to make our journey more successful.

Your position in this last post is a more reasoned position than most of what I've run up against here.  I don't think you've ever threatened me, either.  Sure you've said some strong things - but that's different.  And it is in that vein where (in my opinion) parents in my situation CAN find useful information to apply to their situation.

I'm convinced that one day I will speak about our experiences.  And just like many of you, my position will be shaped by those experiences I have had.  And if any of you think I would encourage a parent to do what we did... well, you just don't understand what THIS parent feels and thinks.  But that's probably not relevant or significant here.

As society grows in our understanding of human behavior, and as we accumulate evidence about what works and what doesn't - I hope we can find solutions that are more effective than what we're doing today.  And yes, the works of Dr. Alexander and others are providing positive and successful alternatives.  I applaud FFT and will continue to learn more about it.

What makes this whole issue even more difficult is the continuing shift in our society itself.  When we think we've solved one set of problems - the problems change and now old solutions don't work.

This country seriously needs reform in so many areas related to how we lock people up and treat social ills.  Yes, we must battle the obvious abuses... but more than that, we must reach those children who believe they are a piece of crap, and when that's reinforced by their own parents, they are locked up in a different way.  Or when they are abused by their own peers in their own schools, they become damaged freight and will carry that with them for the rest of their lives.  And when our own laws make it impossible to go after the abusers - to give THEM the help they need - then we are producing a new set of problems.

I am not asking for your sympathy.  I am asking for your compassion as you present and debate.

Then again... maybe I don't belong here....

[Anonymous]

Also... now that the attacks have died down for a bit... I've had a little more time to process what some of you are saying about Behavior Modification.  I never really thought it about it that way before.  I mean... I believe in Behavior Modification.  But now I think I understand why you are saying a program built around it does not produce lasting results.

About half way through our program experience... I reached a point with my daughter when we could finally starting talking about all those really bad nasty events that happened to her.  And we did talk about them.  That's when, in my opinion, the healing reallly began.

But then I started communicating with her about the topics I got from Albert Ellis and REBT - and there's another site called SMART - an alternative to the 12 steps.  The topics were all about helping us to understand rational thinking versus irrational thinking as a basis for our feelings and behavior.  I do believe this is a part of the program that's weak in these programs.  The topics we discussed were about how to develop skills in rational thinking - and then we applied them to our experiences and events of the past and in the present.  She would then use those in her processing and topics.  And we talked about these extensively in conferences, home visits, etc.

And I've always sort of wondered why these programs don't emphasis this kind of therapy.

[Deborah]

I personally like REBT, with one caveat. One shouldn?t assume that all therapists advice and interpretations are accurate- they?re human too and don?t always think rationally. My experience is that it?s best if the therapist asks leading questions and lets the client determine if a belief is rational or not.
Ex: A rape victim might conclude that all men are aggressive and hurtful. A therapist isn?t going to talk someone out of that belief, advice and criticism is useless. They can ask leading questions to help the person arrive at the rational thought that some men are, and some aren?t. And, how one might identify and avoid those who are.

You raise a very poignant question about why programs don?t use this, or other therapies.
Take a look at this industry survey. http://www.strugglingteens.com/archives ... /oe02.html
In which ?Therapy? in programs was rated 1.67 on a scale of 0-5, indicating that parents expected more ?therapy? and/or were promised more than could be delivered. As others have tried to tell you, useful therapy in programs is almost non-existent. They are more like BM production lines, ?treating? large numbers of kids with punishment and reward- reward may be adequate nutrition or contact with parents, or extra TV time. Try as they may, they will never ?heal? the emotional issues underlying their behaviors, with BM.

If you want to know more about the methods and techniques used in programs, read about CEDU, Synanon, est/Lifespring. Almost all programs use these ?experimental? techniques.  You can Google or search here. There is a wealth of documentation here as well as participants personal experiences. You may have thought my comment about your daughter being made to re-enact a rape as the ?victim? was a sarcasm, but there are several accounts of this on these forums. Although, I haven?t read of this happening at Three Springs.

What does Ellis say?

REBT practitioners are very concerned about establishing a helpful, supportive, and facilitative alliance with people. They realize that not all people come to therapy ready for action and change, and that some people?because of their personalities and problems?require a great deal of support and empathy before they are ready to change.

That is the antithesis of what happens in programs. I would add trust to the list of needs. Typically, kids are thrown into group ?therapy?(raps/reals) and forced to divulge their thinking and emotional distresses which are then used to punish. Bait and punish. Their weaknesses are used against them and as validation that they ?need? the program. It?s typical for these ?evaluations? to be exaggerated.
Ex: smoking pot = addict. Sex with boyfriend= promiscuous.
The label assigned by the ?counselor? sticks throughout the program.
They are punished for peers allegations which are reported in ?Fall Outs?, where kids report violations of rules (ironically called ?agreements?), their own and others. Following a lengthy period of disorientation and confusion, kids begin to learn how to manipulate the system. Programs are highly effective at teaching deception, manipulation, and dishonesty- ironically what they profess to ?treat?. Those who continue to reject the program are the ones who receive the most abusive treatment and/or are expelled.
A good analogy of programs is that they lecture 24/7 and keep testing the kids until they produce the correct answers. That is no indication that any lasting internal change has occurred, simply that they have learned to ?act? as their program staff has deemed appropriate.

Ellis also says

For example, rational self-acceptance?which involves people giving up the self-rating game?seems to help people significantly reduce anxiety and increase feelings of self-acceptance. High frustration tolerance, which encourages people to accept (not like) life's hardships and other people's imperfections, leads to greater perseverance, patience, and the ability to get along with others.

Giving up the self-rating game is crucial and again the antithesis of what happens in programs. A kid?s every thought and action is analyzed, evaluated, criticized, punished 24/7.  Kids are told out-right they are a piece of shit, worthless, and worse. This charade has to be maintained, again to justify their austere and irrational placement in isolation from the world. Some have been told that their parents don?t love or care about them, and condone the abuse being used.

Ellis mentions confrontation, which is not inherently a bad thing. We do it with our friends and family all the time. The way it is done in programs is a different matter. There is a difference between, ?My observation about your belief about men is that it?s limiting your life experience and potential happiness? and ?You are responsible for being raped. There are no accidents. You are at cause in your life. Get over it.?

What I know of Three Springs methods is what I?ve read from ex-staff and participants. If you want to know how your daughter is being ?treated?, she is the one to ask. And you need to consider that the program may have already conditioned her not to speak about the specifics, otherwise labeled ?manipulation?, which will be punished.

I particularly like this

According to Ellis, healthy people are usually glad to be alive and accept themselves just because they are alive and have some capacity to enjoy themselves. They refuse to measure their intrinsic worth by their extrinsic accomplishments, materialistic possessions and by what others think of them.

Contemplate that last comment in regards to your reaction to some of the posters here.

I agree, FFT sounds like it could be useful. It would never be effective in a program because it addresses family dysfunctions in the home, which is what I?ve always supported. Kinda like a ?SuperNanny? for parents/teens. And, if you?ve ever watched any of the nanny programs, you?ve noticed that changes only occur when parents begin to demonstrate respect for their children and set reasonable and rational boundaries, complemented with a good helping of one-on-one interaction. Isolating one family member should only ever be used short-term (preferably with a relative) until more resource can be brought in to help the parents figure out what the hell they?re doing. I would venture to guess that Alexander wouldn't support programs because you can't address and work on family dynamics over the phone, once a week for 10 minutes. I particularly like his approach because results can be acheived after 12-30 sessions vs 18 months to 2 years in a program, and he prefers keeping the family together. I do too.