The Who

[Anonymous]

Based on the GAO report and here on fornits there are a handful of abusive places so lets double that to be conservative.  There are 300 - 500 TBS's and 2 to 3 times as many RTC's and bootcamps , wilderness etc.  So a conservative estimate would be 2% of the facilities are abusive.

[Anonymous]

Based on the GAO report and here on fornits there are a handful of abusive places so lets double that to be conservative.  There are 300 - 500 TBS's and 2 to 3 times as many RTC's and bootcamps , wilderness etc.  So a conservative estimate would be 2% of the facilities are abusive.

So...you wanna start naming off some tried and true, safe as milk programs?  No one's asking for a complete list.  Where are you getting those numbers for facilities?  You've got a pretty wide gap in your estimate of the number of facilities: 900 - 2,000, yet you can nail down 2% as a conservative estimate?

Re-read the GAO report. Its noted they could not gauge the number of programs in operation, so don't take the "handful of abusive places" in the GAO report as all they could find.  Greg Kutz's testimony makes it clear the GAO's findings were the tip of the iceberg. Also, how do you define an abusive program?  One that's mentioned on Fornits or in the GAO report?  Programs have been known to settle lawsuits to avoid publicity and attach a non-disclosure agreement.  Is a program not abusive as long as it has the money to buy silence from victims?

[Anonymous]

::deadhorse::

[Che Gookin]

double post

[Che Gookin]

Based on the GAO report and here on fornits there are a handful of abusive places so lets double that to be conservative.  There are 300 - 500 TBS's and 2 to 3 times as many RTC's and bootcamps , wilderness etc.  So a conservative estimate would be 2% of the facilities are abusive.

So...you wanna start naming off some tried and true, safe as milk programs?

You gave yourself away there dude. Still good point..

Show us the "Safe" programs dudes.. and I'll show you a bucket of festering monkey shit. There is no way.. Absolutely no way a program can promise the complete safety from abuse, neglect, death, or injury of a child.

So what they do is play the fear game.. So you want your kid deadorinjail or more or less safe here at this program? Then they underscore the potential dangers of restraints, verbal battering, physical abuse, and the whole rigamarole of bullshit a kid can or does face everyday in the pay for play torture system.

[TheWho]

Show us the "Safe" programs dudes.. and I'll show you a bucket of festering monkey shit. There is no way.. Absolutely no way a program can promise the complete safety from abuse, neglect, death, or injury of a child.

Exactly, the same way an airline cannot promise your plane will not crash or a public school system cannot promise the teacher will not sleep with your child or abuse them.  We all know the risks involved with any decision.  So we look at the numbers and weigh the risks and realize the low risk involved in getting your child help versus doing nothing and allowing the child to continue down their present path.

[Anonymous]

Show us the "Safe" programs dudes.. and I'll show you a bucket of festering monkey shit. There is no way.. Absolutely no way a program can promise the complete safety from abuse, neglect, death, or injury of a child.

Exactly, the same way an airline cannot promise your plane will not crash or a public school system cannot promise the teacher will not sleep with your child or abuse them.  We all know the risks involved with any decision.  So we look at the numbers and weigh the risks and realize the low risk involved in getting your child help versus doing nothing and allowing the child to continue down their present path.

Yeah, but a plane crash is reported to the public and there will be a Federal investigation.  Caveat emptor, an airline with a record number of crashes will not last because the information is widely reported.  This program mindset - "A few kids die or suffer abuse, but we help so many" is bullshit.  I see no reliable evidence that adolescent RTC's are effective, but there's a long list of kids who have died, and you're aware of the number of abused patients, you argue with them on Fornits and other forums.  

You've offered nothing to prove RTC's are low risk.

[Froderik]

God, why is this person here???

Day in, day out..for years now, the same old malarkey.

[TheWho]

Show us the "Safe" programs dudes.. and I'll show you a bucket of festering monkey shit. There is no way.. Absolutely no way a program can promise the complete safety from abuse, neglect, death, or injury of a child.

Exactly, the same way an airline cannot promise your plane will not crash or a public school system cannot promise the teacher will not sleep with your child or abuse them.  We all know the risks involved with any decision.  So we look at the numbers and weigh the risks and realize the low risk involved in getting your child help versus doing nothing and allowing the child to continue down their present path.

Yeah, but a plane crash is reported to the public and there will be a Federal investigation.  Caveat emptor, an airline with a record number of crashes will not last because the information is widely reported.  This program mindset - "A few kids die or suffer abuse, but we help so many" is bullshit.  I see no reliable evidence that adolescent RTC's are effective, but there's a long list of kids who have died, and you're aware of the number of abused patients, you argue with them on Fornits and other forums.  

You've offered nothing to prove RTC's are low risk.

I havent seen evidence that RTC's are a high risk or higher than our public school system.  Any RTC which allows abuse to accur will eventually fold due to public pressure just like any other business.  Regulation will insure a reporting system is in place.

[Anonymous]

You miss the point of the airline analogy.  What public pressure will be put on an abusive program if no one investigates?  There is no organization like the FAA to insure a proper investigation is done.  The general public is clueless about RTC's, unlike plane crashes.  Look at Thayer and how difficult it is to get any investigation going in Reyes' death.  Regulation will not insure a reporting system if Bush gets his way and states are accountable, the status quo will remain.  Tennessee has strict regulations for licensed facilities, and the comptroller's audit/Board of Licensed Facilities released three months ago blasted the department of mental health for negligence in investigating abuse.

Public school system?  For fuck's sake, parents are paying out the ass to put their kids in an RTC and avoid the public school system, expecting to keep the kids safe.  There's the hackneyed programee cliche about preventing kids from ending up "dead or in jail".  You have programs failing on that "dead" thing.  No, parents expect the RTC's to be safer than public schools, that's why they pay for them.  Not a valid comparison.

[TheWho]

You miss the point of the airline analogy. What public pressure will be put on an abusive program if no one investigates? There is no organization like the FAA to insure a proper investigation is done. The general public is clueless about RTC's, unlike plane crashes. Look at Thayer and how difficult it is to get any investigation going in Reyes' death. Regulation will not insure a reporting system if Bush gets his way and states are accountable, the status quo will remain. Tennessee has strict regulations for licensed facilities, and the comptroller's audit/Board of Licensed Facilities released three months ago blasted the department of mental health for negligence in investigating abuse.

So it sounds like we need an FAA type association to oversee RTC’s.  Thats not a bad idea!

Public school system? For fuck's sake, parents are paying out the ass to put their kids in an RTC and avoid the public school system, expecting to keep the kids safe. There's the hackneyed programee cliche about preventing kids from ending up "dead or in jail". You have programs failing on that "dead" thing. No, parents expect the RTC's to be safer than public schools, that's why they pay for them. Not a valid comparison.

Well sure, they should expect them to be safer than public schools.  The public schools today carry a very high risk and thousands of kids are killed, commit suicide, abused by teachers who shouldn’t even be teaching.  If a parent can afford it a boarding school is a much better option and if the child is at risk then a TBS is still a better option then tossing your kid into a public institution pretending no problem exists and expecting the teachers to deal with them because the kids problems will never get addressed in the public sector.

[Anonymous]

We have a difference of opinion, and you have no desire to debate and reach resolution.  I see you are a troll.  My mistake.  I'll waste no more time with it.

[Anonymous]

I havent seen evidence that RTC's are a high risk

Bullshit, you've seen plenty of it.  You just refuse to acknowledge it, especially on here

or higher than our public school system.  Any RTC which allows abuse to accur will eventually fold due to public pressure just like any other business.  Regulation will insure a reporting system is in place.

Sure.  Just like Straight, right?  They don't close.  They change names, sometimes locations, shift staff around, disperse the kids off into other programs but they don't close.  Especially the larger ones like WWASPS, Aspen and Straight.  They "close" the one place down and just transfer all the kids to another one of their programs.

http://psychobulletin.blogspot.com/2008 ... ssion.html

Because of the behavior problems that often co-exist with adolescent depression, many parents are tempted to send their child to a "boot camp", "wilderness program", or "emotional growth school."
These programs often use non-medical staff, confrontational therapies, and harsh punishments. There is no scientific evidence to support such programs. In fact, there is a growing body of research which suggests that they can actually harm sensitive teens with depression.

[TheWho]

Bullshit, you've seen plenty of it. You just refuse to acknowledge it, especially on here

Well , I guess we need to define high risk.   I have seen individual cases and accounts of abuse written here on fornits, but there is no evidence that RC’s have a higher incidence of abuse then the public school system.  

Sure. Just like Straight, right? They don't close. They change names, sometimes locations, shift staff around, disperse the kids off into other programs but they don't close. Especially the larger ones like WWASPS, Aspen and Straight. They "close" the one place down and just transfer all the kids to another one of their programs.

If there was an FAA type of organization then programs would not be able to do this.

[TheWho]

Test