List of Known Abusive Programs

[Anne Bonney]

Maybe the kid would have committed suicide a lot sooner without the program. Maybe the program was worth it for the chance that it might help.  Lots of cancer treatments don't save one's life, but the person still goes through the treatment.

Cancer is a disease.  Adolescence is not.

Primum non nocere

[Anonymous]

Maybe the kid would have committed suicide a lot sooner without the program. Maybe the program was worth it for the chance that it might help.  Lots of cancer treatments don't save one's life, but the person still goes through the treatment.

But my point is still valid about data on the effectiveness of treatment. The parents of kids who committed suicide probably don't think the treatment was very effective...just like the families of cancer patients who die.

I'm not suggesting parents shouldn't try to do something, when something clearly needs to be done. "No guarantees" does not mean "why bother doing anything?"

I think your cancer patient analogy is a good one. If I or a loved one had cancer, I would want some real data on the effectiveness vs. the risks of all the options. Some cancer treatments are more effective than others at putting cancer into remission. Some treatments reduce the quality of one's remaining life more than others.

Cancer patients or their loved ones acting on their behalf can make informed treatment decisions based on genuine data. Teens or parents of teens considering institutionalization for behavioral or emotional issues do not have the same luxury. They have to rely on recommendations, word of mouth, sales people, the internet and their gut instinct. Not exact a sound methodology for selecting health care options.

[Anne Bonney]

Let's define some terms here.  What percentage of kids (ballpark) do you think would legitimately need to be taken out of the home?  What would be the criteria?  Most of these kids are being sent away for shit that doesn't warrant it.  Parents gets scared, buy into the hype and totally believe that their kid is going to DIE if they don't ship them off somewhere.

What sort of kid do you thnk would need to be sent away?

[Anonymous]

Maybe the kid would have committed suicide a lot sooner without the program. Maybe the program was worth it for the chance that it might help.  Lots of cancer treatments don't save one's life, but the person still goes through the treatment.

Maybe that woman wouldn't have died of female complaints (ovarian cancer) if she had taken Lydia Pinkham's patent medicine.

Maybe that man wouldn't have died of melanoma if he'd drunk a daily mug of comfrey tea (don't do this, btw--liver damage).

A lot of the alternative treatments some tout are quackery of dubious value whose exclusive use could easily leave a serious medical condition effectively untreated.

However, at least most of the "alternative" treatments have the virtue of not making people's medical problems worse and probably not being harmful if taken in conjunction with remedies that have been proven safe and effective and are prescribed by a real doctor.

Back before the FDA, one of the patent medicines had a hefty dose of radium in it.  Many patent medicines contained a heavy dose of cocaine.

The Programs aren't harmless quack treatments.  They're quack treatments that do long term and frequently permanent damage to the people subjected to them.

I talked to one more person about the full depth of the problem today.  We had had a few conversations before, but I made a bit more impact imparting the depth of the horror, and the breadth of the problem.

It used to be legal for parents to beat their kids at home--even to death.  It was considered a family matter.  It used to be legal to beat your wife--even to death.  It was considered a family matter.  It used to be legal to put your kid to work in a sweatshop all through childhood, keeping him out of school.  That was considered a family matter, too.

You Programmies will notice that those things are all felonies now.

There's only so much dirt and corruption you can hide, and for only just so long, under a load of political contributions.

Eventually grassroots activism does its job.

It takes awhile to build the infrastructure to channel the outrage of ordinary voters and the rest of society against moneyed interests and big political contributors.  Those of us who hate child abuse are tenacious.  We may not be patient--not in the face of the harm you do--but we're tenacious as hell.  It's a long road, but it's a sure and certain road when the issue is as morally outrageous to any decent person as the Program is.

Programmies, be on notice.  We're going to outlaw the Program--the whole kit and kaboodle.

Julie

[blombro]

It seems that a great deal of the argument here revolves around where we draw the line, and who in our lives we have seen who have fallen on the wrong side of that line.

For me, that line goes something like this, if a teenager is behaving in a way that most people wouldn't bat an eye at if they were doing it in a frat or sorority house, this includes drinking, recreational drug use, cutting class, staying out late, having 20 sex partners, bulimia, and anything else you can think of, then it's not worthy of institutionalization.

And at least some of the kids who end up in these programs fit into this category.  These are the stories that anger me the most.

[ZenAgent]

Eventually grassroots activism does its job.

It takes awhile to build the infrastructure to channel the outrage of ordinary voters and the rest of society against moneyed interests and big political contributors. Those of us who hate child abuse are tenacious. We may not be patient--not in the face of the harm you do--but we're tenacious as hell. It's a long road, but it's a sure and certain road when the issue is as morally outrageous to any decent person as the Program is.

Programmies, be on notice. We're going to outlaw the Program--the whole kit and kaboodle.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Let's define some terms here.  What percentage of kids (ballpark) do you think would legitimately need to be taken out of the home?  What would be the criteria?  Most of these kids are being sent away for shit that doesn't warrant it.  Parents gets scared, buy into the hype and totally believe that their kid is going to DIE if they don't ship them off somewhere.

What sort of kid do you thnk would need to be sent away?

Great question.  Why not ask the referral agents and parent advocates who believe in helping parents find "safe" and effective treatment options (translated to mean programs who pay commissions/finder's fees and haven't been charged with abuse or fraud).  I'd like to know what kind of kid they think needs to be sent away.  I've seen the lame questionaires on their websites and advice on such bad behavioral problems (sic) as ADD, OCD, ADHD, DEFIANCE (that's a disorder too?) etc.  The referral agents are the ones doing the selling.  They should have all the answers.

[Anonymous]

It seems that a great deal of the argument here revolves around where we draw the line, and who in our lives we have seen who have fallen on the wrong side of that line.

For me, that line goes something like this, if a teenager is behaving in a way that most people wouldn't bat an eye at if they were doing it in a frat or sorority house, this includes drinking, recreational drug use, cutting class, staying out late, having 20 sex partners, bulimia, and anything else you can think of, then it's not worthy of institutionalization.

And at least some of the kids who end up in these programs fit into this category.  These are the stories that anger me the most.

I agree with your assessment of "not worthy of institutionalization," but with a big however.

"However" being that some behaviors are a sign of real problems that even the person doing the behavior will eventually regret. Drinking and recreational drug use mean different things to different people. Some people seem to handle it ok, maybe grow out of it later, while for others it marks the beginning of a downward spiral into serious addiction and reduction in the quality of life -- even loss of one's freedom if/when the legal system gets involved. Having 20 sex partners might also be an addictive behavior that's worth looking at, and of course if the sex is unprotected, that's a real health risk that can shorten one's life. Bulimia or other eating disorders are harmful and can be life-threatening.

The point is that some people do some things that their parents, friends or others might consider reckless or stupid, and somehow get through it on their own (or not) to where it doesn't control or ruin their lives. Others have genuine problems with some of the behaviors you mentioned, and could really benefit from some treatment. But "treatment" doesn't often require "institutionalization."

[blombro]

More or less agreed, and I will admit that bulimia comment was a flip remark only intended to highlight just how much abnormal adolescent behavior somehow turns into accepted behavior when you get to college.

As a side note, I was at UMD when we won the national championship, over the course of three years about ten "riots" occurred, and only one conviction that I know of related to those riots.  Including my favorite, tearing down the goalposts after we won beat Duke in basketball!  Stopped traffic on Rt. 1 for miles, destroyed school property, burnt several couches in an open area, no arrests.

But back on point, yes some people grow out of it, some people get addicted, most of the time these kids could benefit from some kind of counseling.  And some of them may very well be destroying their lives permanently.

If they commit a crime and are charged for that crime (and I'm not counting status offenses) then deprivation of liberty (not torture and abuse) is legitimate.  If you steal someones car or if you break into someone's house, or if you assault someone even under the influence, that's not adolescence.

But until that point, we still live in a society that potential danger to others isn't a crime yet.

[Anonymous]

Programmies, be on notice. We're going to outlaw the Program--the whole kit and kaboodle.

Let us know how that works out for you, Julie.

[Anonymous]

This isn't a binary solution set.  What that means, for non-programmers, is that the choices are not no treatment or the Programs.

For drug abuse and delinquency, community based care has better results than anything else.

Right now, the argument seems to be that some kids grow out of highly illegal pranks and stupid stuff, and grow out of drug abuse, and some kids start a lifelong downward spiral.  This is true---but it is just as true of kids who have been in the Programs.

Far fewer kids who get community based care, or even no treatment at all, go into that lifelong downward spiral than the Programs would have us believe.

Far more kids who go into the Programs go into that lifelong downward spiral--particularly suicide in a very short life--than the Programs would have us believe.

Truth:  Kids with serious mental illnesses, who are an imminent danger to themselves or others, need institutionalization until they can be stabilized---just like adults with the same conditions.

Also Truth:  The facility to stabilize dangerously mentally ill teens needs to be a conventional, medical model, mental hospital.  Serious mental illnesses are presently incurable, are lifelong, and cannot be sufficiently controlled by alternative treatments if the patient is dangerous.

Beyond that, community based care simply has the best statistical chance of preventing that downward spiral.

The Programs are inappropriate and ineffective for teens who are dangerously mentally ill.

The Programs cannot cure major mental illnesses--there is no cure.  Neither can they help.  An individualized combination of medications, strictly voluntary therapies like CBT, and some neuroprotective dietary supplements, are the only known effective treatments.  Placing a patient with a major mental illness under high stress, like all of the Programs do, is harmful and terribly dangerous.

The Programs are inappropriate for teens with drug problems

As I said above, the treatment with the statistically best chance of preventing that downward sprial is community based care.

The Programs are inappropriate for criminally misbehaving teens

Programs are harsher than teen prisons.  Juvenile hall inspects your letters, but doesn't stop them and doesn't tell you who you can and can't write to.

Everyone accused of a crime deserves a fair trial, and, if convicted, a fair sentence.  Programs circumvent that fair trial, dramatically increasing the odds that the teen incarcerated in them will actually be innocent of what he's accused of, and dramatically increasing the odds that even if he is guilty, the punishment is far too harsh for the crime.

The Programs are certainly inappropriate for teens who are not seriously mentally ill, are not drug addicted, and are not criminally delinquent

Why the hell would any decent, sane, human being put a basically normal pain in the butt teen in a private jail?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The bottom line is that the Program is a cure in search of a problem.

Julie

[Anonymous]

Programmies, be on notice. We're going to outlaw the Program--the whole kit and kaboodle.

Let us know how that works out for you, Julie.

You'll know it when you see it.

None of this is about me.  It's about right and wrong.  It's about decent, humane treatment for children versus people who see them as possessions---modelling clay they can do whatever they want with.

It's not about me, but I'm an experienced activist.  The other activists in the Program successfully persuaded me that this was a necessary fight.  They will persuade others, and I will persuade others, too.  A small pebble starts an avalanche.

All we activists persuade regular folks who vote, but don't otherwise get much involved.  That's necessary.

The real grassroots gains, though, come when we persuade other activists, and persuade them that the issue is important enough to merit a big chunk of the time they devote to politicking.

I'm a pebble in the avalanche, I'm a cog in the growing grassroots machine.  I'm a particularly useful cog because I've done grassroots effectively on other issues, but still just one more cog.

Two kinds of people get into politics.  Some get in to be somebody, some get in to do something.

I'm the latter.  I really loathe the spotlight--not my thing at all.  Too much stress, too tiring.

I won't get the Program outlawed, but we will.

"We" being the folks with a conscience.

When it works out for us, you'll be the first to know.

Julie

[Anonymous]

Programs are harsher than teen prisons.

Many parents don't realize this fact, or the fact that most juvenile detention facilities make some effort to rehabilitate the offenders and all such facilities are monitored and regulated by the state.

The sad reality is that many kids who get sent to programs would be much less harmed if they were sent to "juvie" instead. Unfortunately, kids have to be arrested & convicted of crimes to get sent there. The unsuspecting teen who is doing drugs, 'acting out' or whatever has no idea that the escorts are coming and that the best thing he could do for himself is go out and steal a car so he can get sent to a better prison than the one mom & dad chose for him.

Why the hell would any decent, sane, human being put a basically normal pain in the butt teen in a private jail?
Julie

Ignorance, fear & desperation. But you forget that not all parents are decent, sane human beings. Some of them are incredibly fucked up themselves, and some of them are already abusing their kids and maybe just want to let someone else do it for them for a change.

How many teen girls do you think are in programs right now who were sexually abused by a parent, step-parent or a parent's S.O.? Who do you suppose got them sent them to the program? The abuser, of course. How many of those young victims are today being treated like whores and sluts in a group session? Yes, it's all so very therapeutic...

[Anonymous]

Damn, big slip of the tongue---the other activists in the Program issue, not in the Program.

There isn't a good emoticon for a rueful laugh.

Proofreading is a good thing--when it's remembered.

Yeah, a Freudian slip in a way.  Knowing the Programs exist, I can't walk away from the damage to all those kids, knowing it's going on.  Not and still be myself.  So in that sense, I've been pulled into the world that contains the Programs.  I guess I resent that necessity more than I noticed before now.

Can't just walk away from all that hurt.

Julie

[Anonymous]

Programs are harsher than teen prisons.

Many parents don't realize this fact, or the fact that most juvenile detention facilities make some effort to rehabilitate the offenders and all such facilities are monitored and regulated by the state.

The sad reality is that many kids who get sent to programs would be much less harmed if they were sent to "juvie" instead. Unfortunately, kids have to be arrested & convicted of crimes to get sent there. The unsuspecting teen who is doing drugs, 'acting out' or whatever has no idea that the escorts are coming and that the best thing he could do for himself is go out and steal a car so he can get sent to a better prison than the one mom & dad chose for him.

Why the hell would any decent, sane, human being put a basically normal pain in the butt teen in a private jail?
Julie

Ignorance, fear & desperation. But you forget that not all parents are decent, sane human beings. Some of them are incredibly fucked up themselves, and some of them are already abusing their kids and maybe just want to let someone else do it for them for a change.

How many teen girls do you think are in programs right now who were sexually abused by a parent, step-parent or a parent's S.O.? Who do you suppose got them sent them to the program? The abuser, of course. How many of those young victims are today being treated like whores and sluts in a group session? Yes, it's all so very therapeutic...

Yeah, that's what I meant.  A lot of the parents who send normal teens to programs aren't sane, and the rest aren't decent.

Julie