Program Participant Survey / Parent Survey

[chaking]

Some of what you say is relevant, some isn't --
The czech school was not under international scrutiny when it was shut down - and the others were under 'light' scrutiny, but hardly anything that would force a government into action - It is true, though, that public scrutiny helps in these cases.

The employee pool - people are people - as is evidenced in the case you pointed out earlier in Florida - I can say from first hand experience the climate in TB is much more conducive to violence than it is at SCL, not because of the staff, but because of the lack of oversight and the willingness of people like Jay Kay to permit it. I have been to both, and am well aware of the operations.  Of course, comparing, does at times, trivialize another person's experience, so I wouldn't want to get into an over-reaching statement or an absolute - It is, though, pretty evident to anyone who has attended both facilities which has more room for violence.

There is also the aspect of the country it is in obviously.  What happens at TB would not make it in the U.S. Why? Because of protective statutes. Which is exactly what we would like to expand on. that's all...

You say there were kids who weren't treated bad at TB or Samoa. That is patently false.  Every single kid at these fadcilities had to encounter the same mental anguish as every other kid.  You don't get separated from everything you know, and listen to your friends screaming in pain day in and day out, without being treated poorly.

You bring up the fact that SCL might transfer kids to other facilities.  What you might not realize is that this can be covered in regulations.  Such as: The place the kids gets sent to has to abide by the same child protective laws as the place he came from --just an example --

Do I think the regulation is meaningful? No. I think its a start - Department of Health and Human Services wanted regulation that would have accomplished a good bit more. I think you might have actually liked the Department of Health and Human Services regulations.  But again! the point is not it being regulated, but it seems more to be the quality of the regulation.  And again! that is a separate issue.

[Anonymous]

Do I think the regulation is meaningful? No.

Then why waste your time fighting for it? For those of us who have been to both unregulated programs and so-called regulated programs, and have been abused in both, your argument really carries little weight. I know a lot of folks have good intentions, however the result is not always what they intended. It's been seen again and again in this industry.

[Anonymous]

You bring up the fact that SCL might transfer kids to other facilities. What you might not realize is that this can be covered in regulations. Such as: The place the kids gets sent to has to abide by the same child protective laws as the place he came from --just an example --

So your solution is to make more rules? What good are rules without enforcement? When I was locked up they didn't follow criminal law, they physically abused kids. So, if staff in American regulated facilities are willing to break criminal law, what good would new regulation do?

Besides, SCL is now already 'regulated'. However, we have absolutely no say in how this operation takes place, remember, we get outvoted everytime, even if you were able to secure all public voting positions. So, do you intend to regulate the regulation? I just don't get it really.

[chaking]

Do I think the regulation is meaningful? No.

Then why waste your time fighting for it? For those of us who have been to both unregulated programs and so-called regulated programs, and have been abused in both, your argument really carries little weight. I know a lot of folks have good intentions, however the result is not always what they intended. It's been seen again and again in this industry.

You took my quote out of context; It was referring to montana's in particular, not regulation as a whole.  And it was not an absolute statement.



Next poster asks if my solution is to make more rules. First of all, I'm working to make sure kids don't get hurt anymore. period. I have no wonder solution, but I do see a path that looks promising.  One way of doing that is, yes, to create more comprehensive rules to govern these facilities. Do you have a problem with that?

Yes, they don't mean anything without enforcement. And your point is?

As I've said 3 times now in this very thread: Enforcement or quality of regulation is a different issue than regulation! If we feel enforcement is lacking, then we should address that in a different manner. If we feel that the industry is nearly completely unregulated (which it currently is), then we also need to address that individually.

[chaking]

I wouldn't mind hearing what exactly the alternatives are?

[Anonymous]

I have no idea, I am just throwing up questions to the whole theory of regulation. Maybe it would be a good thing, I don't know. I do believe If an idea is good, it should be able to stand up to criticism. Since the goal is to keep kids from getting hurt, it seems that all that is necessary would be to enforce the existing child abuse laws. In order for that to happen, the kids would have to have access to report abuse. I think that is the problem right there, the kids who are locked up are not considered to have the same rights as adults. You cannot keep an adult locked up against their will without court intervention, and even then, the individual has explicit patient rights, and access to advocates and the police if necessary. The irony though, is since most individuals who are deemed incpable of making these decisions, and is locked up, probably is so messed up they could be abused and not know what recourse to take anyways.
We all know the kids locked away at these camps are coherent, so why don't they have rights? Take the power away from parents to lock their kid up in private jail, close the loophole. This illegitimate industry would collapse overnight. The private kidnapping business would go under immediately, and starting with the least legitimate camps first would slowly fall. Believe it or not, teens who have bad drug problems and are suicidal are not completely adverse to receiving help. They do tend to mind being locked away in a boot camp or torture center like WWASPS though. End forced treatment by parents. In extreme cases, the proper route is in place, you go to a judge and plead your case, as the kid can theirs. This is fair, this is just.
So, my theory of the day for stopping abusive programs, end coercive treatment. If the kid doesn't want to be there, call the parents and tell them the kid is on his way home. It is ridiculous that a 17.5 year old can be locked away against their will just because one parent decides so (in cases of divorce). Kids are people too, give them the same rights everyone else has. If parents think their kid needs to be locked up, they either need to be conviced of a crime, or they need to convince a judge their kid can't make decisions for themselves, or call 911 if their suicidal. Other than that, suck it up and parent, like the rest of us.

[katfish]

Again, not taking sides, but I could make the argument that regulation in Montana, for programs like Spring Creek Lodge, are a total sham. So, since 'regulation' in place, parents take more comfort and trust them more and more placements result, when in reality nothing has changed. In fact, it might have gotten worse, because the regulatory board comprises two 'citizens' and three reps from the industry (ie owners of programs).
Personally I don't really know, and don't really argue for either side. But, like I said, it seems the regulation thing can be used for bad just as easily as good.

That's 'self regulation' - in MT, handled by the Dept. of Labor.  Let us not confuse semantics with reality and the meaning behind intent.  In working to assure safety of youth, efficacy and ethics, the beautiful state of Montana is NOT an example of these principles, period--- it's a joke... see  CAFETY's position on that here:

ok, once cafety link is working, I can link it... see the piece titled the Montana Example... not that you need that to recognize the laughable thing called regulation in that state- if you read into comments in the media by ASTART members you'll see explicit commments about this being problematic as well--- I beleive Charley huffine, MD said something about this being a case of the 'fax guarding the hen house'-- see article in New Standard, it's there.

No one thinks that self regulation is a good idea... except NATSAP & (i think) WWASPS.  They're part of the problem.  I can't speak for ASTART in terms of pointing fingers directly, but certainly the group of people CAFETY represents stands firmly on that.  Unregulated is ALWAYS a bad idea b/c of the risk and NATSAP and WWASPS are not in support of regulation and have not provided any data showing evidence based care is happening.

NATSAP can talk innnovation all they want, the bottom line is regulation secures some semblence of rights for youth... not as comprehensively as we (speaking for CAFETY) would like given this new and what  Lon woodbury at Strugglingteens.com would call 'innovative' facilites (also newly regualted in some states- where polciy makers are apparently ill-equipped to understand- far as we can tell given lack of data) in Utah and Oregon, but regulation/oversight is a definite step in at least attempting to assure rights are not being violated. Our hope is that at some point the push for evidence based care, as many mental health orgs and even the ABA recently announced, is made a priority as something required of a facility.  in other words, if you're producing traumatized kids, you're not doing your job... (hence some value in the survey)  ... if you're acutally helping kids you need to prove it... Regualtion as it stands now  at least prevents to some degree- to the extent that it can given the utter lack of data- the aggregious violations perpetrated upon young people at many of these ' innovative facilities.

So, don't be misled to think people - the psychologists, Systems of Care advocates and researchers aren't aware of these nuances... it's a complex issue policy-wise,  (see article - Exploitation in the Name of Specialty Schooling ) - but the hope lies in this being addressed and it being talked about in academia, among and between people who are in the postion to be taken seriously, as well as among young people coming from these places that want to take some kinds of stand. ( As much as I think that's outrageuous in and of itself, ie. others having to legitime our experience and lend credibility to a cause that should be credible on its own- that's another issue entirely)  ... but it's about time and this has merit.

W/o these efforts we'd continue to be easily dismissed as disgruntled.  perhaps that's where some of the resentment lies?  i don't know....  I just recognize progress being made and there's definite value in that- the changes will absolutely come- I believe that whole heartedly.  i'm convinced of that.  So long as we can come have people who have experienced harm willing to talk about it.

-kat


 ::soapbox::

[katfish]

What happened in MT was a sham, did anyone read the transcript?  i'll see if I can dig up that link as well.. NO ONE OPPOSED!  Although, had I known at that time that was even going on  (public hearings) I would have done everything in my power.  There were no dissenters... no dissenters apparently means no dissent.  We all know no effort was made, but that gives us all the more reason to put ourselves out there rather than retreat and find defeat in 'well, it hasn't really worked yet.. nothing has really changed'... it's defies logic to equate a non-occurance as eternal... what ever happened to human agency and strength in number (and data - heheh)

[chaking]

So, in your view a federal law needs to be enacted granting a younger age of consent? That would be the only way I can see to actually allow a person under 18 to have the right to defy their parent's wishes in terms of placement.
That, though, could lead to a world of problems. Not the least of which would be deciding when a kid can actually make rational decisions for themselves.  When I was sent away, would I have checked myself into a center or not? Probably not. Did I need some help. Probably.

I don't know... Where is the line drawn? When is the kid hooked on meth or coke or boy or whatever, when is he forced to get treatment? Only when the law says so? I passed every drug test I ever took, and never got arrested for drugs -- does that mean I wasn't in need of some help? no. Should I have been sent to TB? No. But something needed to be done, and I doubt I would have done it.

I'm not in this to shut down all treatment facilites, because my view is that some are beneficial.  I do think some have got out of control; or were never in control- and the way you solve that is to regulate it and make sure the enforcement is there.  Right now I'm focusing on the regulation aspect.

I don't think it is feasible to try and take away the right of a parent to decide what is best for their child.


As far as regulation standing up to scrutiny. You really can't argue against regulation. That's the problem it seems nobody is getting.  You can argue against parts of certain regulation (like you apparently would for the current Montana regulation), but you cannot argue against the concept.  Why? Because its the only solution.  Whether we are talking about regulating a parent's ability to govern their child, or a child's ability to act for his/herself; it all comes down to some sort of regulation.

All I've heard on this thread is arguments against the enforcement of regulations.  That's fine. I don't disagree; they need to be enforced.  But you cannot just rely on child protective laws (as is evidenced by our current situation).. there are many reasons why that doesn't work. Regulations need to be in place to make sure practices that aren't necessarily physically harmful, but are mentally harmful are also not practiced. Regulations need to be put in place that would apply the same strict child protective laws to all states that have these types of programs. Secret Pop-in checks need to be instituted to ensure compliance. etc etc etc

Basically, you want to give me a legitimate option other than regulation? Go ahead. But everything I've heard relies on regulatory statutes to be put in place. And all the arguments against, have been misdirected.

Not to mention, this survey is not going to regulate the industry. This is to garner more information so that we can proceed in many different routes. period.

[Anonymous]

I don't think it is feasible to try and take away the right of a parent to decide what is best for their child.

Then you'll always have greedy business men ready to fleece these parents of their cash, and provide substandard care for the kids. You will always have selfish, self absorbed parents who send their kid away for smoking pot and ditching school and don't feel like dealing with it anymore. Coercive treatment breeds violence, and so long as it exists there is no solution.

[Anonymous]

don't know... Where is the line drawn? When is the kid hooked on meth or coke or boy or whatever, when is he forced to get treatment? Only when the law says so? I passed every drug test I ever took, and never got arrested for drugs -- does that mean I wasn't in need of some help? no. Should I have been sent to TB? No. But something needed to be done, and I doubt I would have done it.

What do you think people do with their loved ones when they are over 18 and need treatment?

[katfish]

So, in your view a federal law needs to be enacted granting a younger age of consent? That would be the only way I can see to actually allow a person under 18 to have the right to defy their parent's wishes in terms of placement.
That, though, could lead to a world of problems. Not the least of which would be deciding when a kid can actually make rational decisions for themselves.  When I was sent away, would I have checked myself into a center or not? Probably not. Did I need some help. Probably.

I think the age of consent needs to be lowered, personally- within certain contstraints of course.   It doesn't have to be all or nothing.  Defying parents if they are irrational is not a bad thing... each person needs to be asses differently. I'm against institutionalization period, unless the person is a threat.


I agree with Charley on this one.  - you say, would i have checked myself in and respond 'no'...well, at a certain point you have some rational sense, talking would have helped... but no one changes by force... and if they do, it's only superficial until the external regimine is removed.  


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

[chaking]

I don't think it is feasible to try and take away the right of a parent to decide what is best for their child.

Then you'll always have greedy business men ready to fleece these parents of their cash, and provide substandard care for the kids. You will always have selfish, self absorbed parents who send their kid away for smoking pot and ditching school and don't feel like dealing with it anymore. Coercive treatment breeds violence, and so long as it exists there is no solution.

Yes, you are right. But not because of what i said. You will always have greedy buisnessmen trying to get everyone's money in a capitalistic society, period.  There is no easy way around that. How do you deal with that? Regulation.

[chaking]

don't know... Where is the line drawn? When is the kid hooked on meth or coke or boy or whatever, when is he forced to get treatment? Only when the law says so? I passed every drug test I ever took, and never got arrested for drugs -- does that mean I wasn't in need of some help? no. Should I have been sent to TB? No. But something needed to be done, and I doubt I would have done it.

What do you think people do with their loved ones when they are over 18 and need treatment?

This is a side issue. But to expand, I believe from experience that nothing can be done unless the adult allows it to be done or there is evidence of the abuse.  As a child, a parent has a certain responsibility to ensure the safety of the child. If it is known that the child has gone off the edge, then I think its the right of the parent to separate the child from that element, at least long enough to break the physical addiction.  I think there are proven methods to deal with this too, and I would sumise that those should be looked into and followed.

[chaking]

So, in your view a federal law needs to be enacted granting a younger age of consent? That would be the only way I can see to actually allow a person under 18 to have the right to defy their parent's wishes in terms of placement.
That, though, could lead to a world of problems. Not the least of which would be deciding when a kid can actually make rational decisions for themselves.  When I was sent away, would I have checked myself into a center or not? Probably not. Did I need some help. Probably.

I think the age of consent needs to be lowered, personally- within certain contstraints of course.   It doesn't have to be all or nothing.  Defying parents if they are irrational is not a bad thing... each person needs to be asses differently. I'm against institutionalization period, unless the person is a threat.


I agree with Charley on this one.  - you say, would i have checked myself in and respond 'no'...well, at a certain point you have some rational sense, talking would have helped... but no one changes by force... and if they do, it's only superficial until the external regimine is removed.  


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

I don't have enough information to say whether the age of consent should be lowered or not.  I do think that would be much more difficult to persuade people of, than regulating the industry as a whole. Although I've heard Washington State does have a good model for age of consent (something like 14?)... So it might be worth checking out. But on a federal level, that might be a very hard proposition to pass.

And as for forced therapy. Obviously that doesn't work. But I do believe there is a need to seperate people who are dangers to themselves (in reality, not the alleged 'he will die otherwise' crap), and those who are physically addicted to substances.  They need separation for a time so that they may regain some "free will" and not "addicted will"...