So how far reaching is the term 'program'? This could mean everything from summer camps to group homes to day treatment. To say 'there are no good programs', I don't even know what that means. To say 'there are good programs', again, I have no clue what that means. The variety and complexity of all the different 'programs' all over the country are too different to all be lumped into one. I saw niles distinguished psychiatric hospital setting from programs, but they are very much programs as well, just a different model. They are very much pro-incarceration, and take teens in against their will, so how could one reconcile being okay with psychiatric placements and completely 100% 'anti-program' at the same time. It doesn't really seem to make sense to me. In between psych hospitals and programs would be day treatment, group homes, state run programs, foster homes and various other things. I got to try all different brands of 'programs' and they all have their own pitfalls, so to be completely against or for any of them I think is a stance hard for me to take after my own experiences.
I am 100% against wwasps and provo canyon because I was at these places and witnessed them first hand. But before that I was at a state run program and I never had any problems there, before that I was at a few different psych hospitals and various other places during my teenage years. Programs are abusive because the lack of communication and the divide and conquer strategy that goes on between parent and kid. When I was at the state run program or in the hospital there was a social worker who would force us to communicate with each other. They would provide mediation because it got pretty bad. I signed on for a residential program willingly, because I did want to get away from my family. But wwasps changes your parent, so even if they originally had good intentions starting out, they convince them to start lying to you, etc.
After I walked out of the program a week after I turned 18, I knew I still had my medical insurance card (and nothing else.. no money or shelter) and so I went to the hospital and told them I was depressed and thinking of killing myself. I had experience with the system before so I knew how to work it to get a bed... luckily they had one left.. I got seriously lucky. So I got into their 'program' and I thought it was awesome. There were kids in there who were kicking and screaming because they didn't want to be there, and then there were kids who were happy to get attention and good food and have some normalcy in an other words traumatic life.
Obviously wwasps and all similar programs should be shut down immediately. Provo canyon was reccomended by our psychiatrist... that shithole needs to be shut down. So I think good 'programs' do exist, they just aren't the type that any joe blow can start and make a profit. The real ones actually lose money probably.
It's definitely a complicated debate. On one side of the spectrum, you have private programs, whos customers are relatively wealthy, normally white parents who live in a suburb, more than likely somewhere near the coast. Since they are the only one's deciding whether their kid needs to be sent away or not, they can be pressured, duped and manipulated into doing all sorts of crazy things that a trained social worker or other non-emotionally charged individually would do. These parents have (in their perspective) a problem kid and want the problem solved. WWASPS comes to them and basically says, just sign here and your problem will dissappear. That is a powerful sell right there, and for people who are desperate for whatever reason, selfish or not, that is a tempting offer. If that sort of budget or loan is not totally out of the realm of possibilities, it becomes a real option for parents. What is being played out is a true caveat emptor view of 'helping kids'. They provide the least amount of service possible, and maintain as much profit as they can. We all know their techniques on how to keep costs down and keep kids there longer and pack more kids in. It's all about the money. Parents who have that sort of money seem to trust 'private' programs more for some reason. They have a very negative view of state run anything, and view it as some sort of sandtrap that once in you can never escape. They don't want their kid mixing with the real 'bad kids'.
On the other side of the spectrum, you have the public programs provided at no cost through state medical insurance or other financing methods. This ranges from CYA, juve, halfway houses, residential programs, psych hospital and day treament. I've done all of them except any long term time in CYA which is the child prison system in cali. It's pretty shitty, and the kids don't get the help they need. But the state run residential programs aren't that bad. If your a kid locked up in jail a move to a residential program or halfway house is welcome change. In the residential program we had very comfortable living conditions, cool staff, freedom of movement to a certain degree, and there was no fence. We weren't supposed to leave but they legally weren't allowed to physically stop us, they were supposed to call the police, so running away was easy and happened regularly. It was pretty simple, we'd eat and go to school and do chores and play sports, listen to music. I don't think that was so important as just providing a safe place with some regularity to it.
So what constitutes a 'program' I guess is an important question... becaus to say 'all programs need to be shut down'... how far reaching is that statement? Does that mean shut everything down except for juvenille hall? Or leave the psychiatric programs too? What exactly does that mean, does it mean shut down all the private programs, or just wwasps?
That is why I don't get the argument, it's pointless. The issue at hand is whether you can violate the law, meaning, if a child is from california, you cannot keep them locked up in a private program under current law. So instead they build programs in Montana, and Utah and other tax-hungry states willing to look the other way, and profit as well. If current laws were enforced, programs like wwasps would not exist. A parent cannot treat a child as wwasps does, so how can it be legal when they do it? Transporting kids should be illegal. I believe the debate should revolve around whether forced treatment is allowable. Is it even legal to violate state law by kidnapping a child and taking them to an out of state program? If a parent truly believes their child is need of help and they will not get it voluntarily, options already exist. You can get away with just calling the cops and that will give you 72 hours, then you can convince the psychiatrist to keep signing the stay order if needed, I've seen it done. Then they can go to court and get long term options, if a judge decides it's neccessary, and you get representation. That way if a kid thinks the 'program' they are in is helping, good for them. If they want to walk out, good for them as well, that is their legal right to do so, and if it's not it should be. The idea of shifting responsibility for money must be stopped. Parents must realize they cannot pay someone else to deal with their problem. They have to be involved in whatever treatment or program exists otherwise it is a futile effort. The idea that the entire problem lies within the kid, and that they can be independently fixed and shipped back is ridiculous. Any program based on this philosophy should not exist, because it is ineffective and dangerous. They are selling an overly attractive and simple solution to a complex problem. That is why programs are doing so well, they are selling a dream, a fantasy... not the cold hard reality that their teenager cannot be magically 'fixed' without their involvement and sacrifice and perhaps even self reflection on their own misgivings as a parent. So that eliminates probably all the big players in this industry and countless small programs, so what is left?
There is a a definite distinction between the way middle-upper class folks deal with their 'problem' teenager than the people who cannot even contemplate spending so much money, or have it. Psychiatric hospitals is a place where these two groups intersect. There are extremely poor kids and extremely well off kids all together at the same facility, receiving the exact same thing. I believe many program parents are trying to prevent their kid from entering the 'lower class' system of dealing with teenagers, and decide it's better to do it all themselves. But I suppose they do not take into account they might be making the wrong decision, and that people who deal with teenagers everyday for decades might know what they are talking about when they say they don't support sending your kid away for trivial reasons. But they don't want hard answers, they want easy answers and pay good money for it. I think the middle-upper class group of parents could actually learn a lot from their less welathy peers dealing with similar issues with their teen (minus the 'entitlement issue probably :wink: )
One paradigm shifting argument that can hit a 100% anti-program debater hard is the fact some kids were being physically and/or sexually abused at home and the program they were at was actually a relief in their view. It's hard to be 100% anti-program when you hear things like this. I've been told a couple times that if it weren't for a certain program, the kid would have killed themselves, and it gave them an option out of hell. If no programs, state or private existed, what option would exist for these kids. When saying no programs for kids, does that mean getting rid of child services too? Throw the good out with the bad? Just hope that any kid getting abused in any situation can run away, live on the street like in some romantic disney movie? If they do that they will probably be abused even more on the street. Wouldn't it be nice if there were a comfortable, long term, safe place where these kids could live and go to school until they start college? Would that be a 'bad' program? How would a poor kid living in a car with his drug addicted parents feel about a program, would it be a positive change in their life? It's these questions that prevent me from taking a 100% anti-any-program or help for teens type of stance. Good options exist, but they are in the minority for sure. What if the programs available were like extended summer camp. Would a negligent parent with enough money for a program send their kid off to a program less focused on punishment? That is an important question, because a lot of parents not only want to rid themselves of the responsibility of their kid, but want them to be blamed for everything that went wrong. That is a big aspect of wwasps programs, they brainwash you into taking responsibility for things you should not. This is what a lot of parents are paying for, the relief of their own sense of guilt, and responsibility. It's sad. And that is probably why programs focused on punishment and military type goals (building character, accountability, peer groups, etc) appeal so much. Afterall, for three grand a month, they could set their kid on in a condo on some Florida beach, so why the huge discrepency?
Then there is the group of parents like CCM's who just want a dumping ground for their unwanted child. Again, there seems to be two distince economic variations to this action by parents, and it happens frequently in both economic arenas it would seem. We had a 12 year old kid in our program family, he came from the richest family and they made it clear he would be there until he turned 18. He wasn't the only one, just the youngest. This isn't as uncommon as it seems. Parents with money now have the option to hire a kidnapper and send their kid off until they turn 18, without ever having to face their child's face. This provides a sick and twisted option for parents unwilling to take responsibility for their child, and it should stop. Advertising trivial reasons for sending a kid away only serves to increase these types of placements. But what do families without the means to send their kid away do when they feel like doing the same thing? The kid will get caught up in the state system of foster homes, programs and courts. I guess the difference is that the state will only take responsibility for the kid if absolutely necessary. If you are a financially and emotionally stable parent(s) and call up social services they won't kidnap your kid and take them away forever. They'd probably have you evaluated just for asking. In both cases it's parents who are at fault, and different groups are available to clean up the mess they left behind. Nowadays businessmen teamed with crazed idealogues are providing what seems like a better option to parents, than the current existing system (community based, voluntvary treatment, juvenile hall, courts, etc). One group is marketing heavily and making tens of millions of dollars, the other is not marketed at all, and scares some parents away.
What would you do if I was standing outside the hospital, selling my own brand of 'treament' to people, siphoning off people with legitimate medical problems, to my retail version, new age version of medicine. In today's anti-western climate, it's pretty easy to convince people to do things on the way they feel, and not the facts. With a pitch about how scary and dangerous surgeries are, how much money doctors make and driving their shiny bmw's I could make a convincing case. I will sovle your medical problems with oranges and good prayers. Obviously, my solution is ridiculous, but it will appeal to certain people. People who want to remain in denial, and not face the reality of their situation. This is so prevelant in today's world it's mind numbing sometimes! So long as parents are making up their mind based on the way the feel and not facts and reason, they will be manipulated like sheep year after year until every kid is sent to a program. What would you do if you were that hospital and I was standing outside your street siphoning off your patients? What if it was an organized team of people using sophisticated marketing and referal techniques with money and lawyers? Well, whatever your answer is to this theoretical situation, that is what we need to do to these problem 'programs'.
