NATSAP Capitalizes on Abuse at Love Ministries

[psy]

NATSAP is basically a listing resource, they don’t control what any of the programs do but they strive to make a positive effect on the industry.

Says who?  NATSAP ?!?!?

Earlier this year they raised the bar on membership requiring the schools to be accredited and have oversight.

Not quite.  They required schools to TELL THEM that.  There is no enforcement.  Benchmark is a NATSAP school and is not accredited or licensed as Its not a bad thing to want these schools to be accredited and have oversight.  Fornits used to push for this themselves not too long ago.  I am still on the fence on this whole oversight/accreditation.  It doesn’t seem to improve the state run boot camps at all, but I guess we will see.[/quote]

There will never be oversight because many of these places could not operate (at least not profitably) if they were held to any reasonalbe ethical / therapeutic standard (such as... qualified counselors etc...)

Benchmark, a NATSAP school, employs "counselors" who don't even have high school diplomas.  They are not accredited by ANY accrediting agency.  They are not licensed as a treatment center even though they advertise themselves as such.  They claim to provide "therapy" and yet none of their staff are anywhere near remotely qualified to practice any sort of psychotherapy.

I've told NATSAP about these things.  They DON'T CARE !!!  I was told Schools are on the "honor system" and basically that all a member school had to do was sign some forms and pay the membership dues.  What possible purpose does NATSAP function as aside from providing an illusion of legitimacy to their paying customers.

[Deborah]

Nothing new, no new bar. They've always claimed to require proper licensing/accreditation - two very different things. From 2005

http://www.strugglingteens.com/news/nat ... iples.html
Highlight- 1.0 ADHERENCE TO STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS
The program/school shall adhere to all applicable state and federal laws in conducting the operation, including administration, hiring and employee practices, observance of safety regulations, and the care of program participants.
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?p=88723#88723

Yet turn a blind eye when programs are shut down by the state and open with a new classification (private boarding school) to avoid further regulation.

"The new standards require our therapeutic programs and schools to maintain state licensure http://wwf.fornits.com/viewtopic.php?p=252780#252780[/url]

http://wwf.fornits.com/viewtopic.php?p=214897#214897

Don't confuse "issuing white papers in response to critics" as "raising the bar". It's business as usual.

[TheWho]

Effective May 1, 2007, all programs applying for membership in NATSAP must meet the
following requirements:
1. Licensure by the appropriate state agency authorized to set and oversee standards
of therapeutic and/or behavioral healthcare for youth and adolescents or
accreditation by a mental health accreditation agency.

Effective May 1, 2007 all programs applying for membership.  This doesn’t effect existing members, how could they?  When you log into fornits for the first time there is a list of rules and provisions you need to agree to.  Has all 4,500 people agreed to these?  Each time these are upgraded or changed does fornits go back and contact all 4,500 members and require them to sign off before they can log in again?

A program owner who ran his own school for 12 years without a license is on the board of directors. What kind of neutrality is that... Come on. In Montana, NATSAP lobbied AGAINST government oversight.

Doesn’t matter, the president of a company we recently purchased started it without a highschool diploma and built it into a good size company.  Before selling he stepped aside an required that his replacement have at least an MBA from a top university and 3 years experience running a medium sized company.  There was no way he would turn over his company to some kid who dropped out of highschool.  People/situations change over time.
I don’t know the background of the guy you speak of,  he may not have needed to have his school licensed.  Was it a requirement back then?  Were parents asking for the schools to be licensed?  I don’t know the back ground.

There will never be oversight because many of these places could not operate (at least not profitably) if they were held to any reasonalbe ethical / therapeutic standard (such as... qualified counselors etc...)

You may be right, lets see what happens and how many schools get added to NATSAP and see if they hold up to what they say.

[Anonymous]

Dear, TheWho.

Lets just say... I am anonymous. Not an anonymous person, no, "anonymous" proper.

You may have heard of me from such youtube videos as "Fox 11 exposé on anonymous!" or "duckroll" or "dear fox news".

Or, you may not. In any event, let me explain what we and I are.

We and are I everyone and no one. We and I are what the regulars here at fornits wish they could do to you, their former captors and abusers, and even a few people who really don't deserve anything to befall them. We and I are what you wish you could do to the people who hurt your business... we and I are the people who actually work at these programs because they enjoy doing what they can to helpless teenagers and children.

We and I are what you wish you could be, and you could never ever be. True to our darkest depths of humanity, our deepest anger, our most deprived sadism.

And you have our attention. Not as a potential target, not as a threat, not as an ally - but we stand in awe of you, TheWho. You are the first to have that distinction.

You have singlehandedly done more to destroy the good works at fornits... to derail conversation and meaningful proceedings to actually improve the state of affairs of the world, the nation, and specifically that of the captive child brainwashing industry, and personally trolled many people here into screaming conniptions of rage and frustration, all by merely posting under your proper name and anonymously here on fornits.

That is quite an astonishing achievement. Usually that requires getting documentation on them, IRL stalking, phone harassment, Credit card fraud, and the like, or even a proper /i/nvasion... but singlehandedly you have derailed countless threads in fornits and obfuscated with your nonsensical diatribes and arguments about semantics while dodging the truth about what is being said and making the (now, sadly, silent) #800 Gorilla sit in the corner.

TheWho, to all the trolls, misanthropists, nihilists, iconoclasts, /i/nsurgents, and general assholes in the world, you stand head and shoulders above all mere "trolls"... you deliver. You have our attention.

And we salute you!

But beware, do not become cocky in your newfound fame and slight us. We are legion, we do not forgive, and we do not forget. Pray you never take one of our own into your industry or you will face our full wrath - or worse. We will infiltrate it and make it tenfold what it is now... and merely for our carnal indulgence without even the pretext of therapy or punishment.

[hanzomon4]

I like how ISAC puts it

Beware of "member based" accrediting bodies and as well as accrediting bodies comprised of representatives of the accredited programs.

In our opinion, neither can be viewed as impartial judges of academic worthiness.

Does that not describe NATSAP? Think about the kids!!

[TheWho]

..... why is it others can intercede at anytime and give their opinion but I am accused of flooding or derailing conversations when I express mine?

It seems you call it trolling because I disagree with the majority here, but I don’t believe anyone would want a forum or conversation where everyone agreed with each other.  Offering up differences of opinions is healthy for any discussion.

I don’t know where this came from but if it is the NATSAP conversation and the fact that Benchmark may not be the greatest school out there, this isn’t something NATSAP has control over.  The American Medical association cant be held accountable for every quack that is out there just like NATSAP cant.  Its an association which set conditions for members to join.  If the association gains power and influence then they raise the bar and try to weed out the people who are not moving the cause forward and eventually they will have influence over schools like Benchmark, but in the mean time they can only wield the power that they have, and they are, by setting stricter guidelines.
NATSAP isn’t some evil corporation out to destroy young kids.  They don’t sit around the board room trying to figure out how to harm people, like many here would lead us to believe.  The new requirements released this year is a big step and a bold step.  Not every school will be accepted into their fold which will result in less revenue, but they seem to have a direction they have chosen and are enforcing more stringent requirements to get there.
If you want to hold me up as an example for all that is bad with the industry, that is fine.  But my intent here is not to derail or set back any cause.  I truly believe it is important to have all sides to an argument invited to the table.

Nice suit, Niles.

[Anonymous]

don't think they like you   :cry2:  ::rose::

[Anonymous]

I like how ISAC puts it

Beware of "member based" accrediting bodies and as well as accrediting bodies comprised of representatives of the accredited programs.

In our opinion, neither can be viewed as impartial judges of academic worthiness.

Hey, I'll happily start a new alternative to NATSAP for half their membership fees. Requirements? Just send me your check. I don't give a shit if you're a "good" program, a bad program or not even a program at all. Just pay your membership dues and I'll post you on my website declaring to all the world that you belong to my organization.

I would call it NUTSACK, but someone already claimed that one. How about NATSASS?

Any takers?

[Anonymous]

Who, seriously- and please answer this- why the fuck, really, are you posting this shit?

Do you think we don't know what NATSAP member programs are capable of? Let's pick one at random.. how about Turn-About Ranch? Or how about Youth Care, the topic of this thread? Hmm, they're still on the site. It looks like NATSAP isn't penalizing them for killing kids. I wonder why not?

If NATSAP even gave a remote, itty-bitty shit about any of the kids in any of its programs, they would de-list for offenses. And they never fucking do.. Even you, Who, even YOU are smart enough to figure this out, that any body which actually did pride itself on quality of care would de-list programs for killing kids. And they don't. There is no getting around this, no matter how many times you regurgitate laughable crap.

It's like some sort of gigantic sick joke. Here Fornits is, page after page after kilopage of documented, detailed, abuse and mismanagement- and here you are, yammering about how the facts are biased. Who the hell are you trying to fool? Us? None of the regulars take you seriously. The parents? The parents get on for five minutes and are instantly dogpiled with warnings, dis-recommendations, and the brutality of Anonymous. They sure as shit don't care what you have to say. The GAO? If the GAO is reading this they can do their own homework. They're sure as hell not going to listen to the rantings of some smacktard who calls himself TheWho. So who the fuck are you talking to? If you're trying to confuse us or slow us down, you're only pissing us off, and I've got lots more propaganda attacks on Aspen that I intend to unleash simply because you pissed me off enough. Do you not understand this?

You know what, Who? I think you really are on the board of some program or other, maybe even Bain Capital. You're thick-headed enough to be management.

If you are, here's some sound economic advice. Get the hell out. Sell the land, or build houses on it. Gated communities are at a complete premium, especially when they're located at the ass-end of nowhere. You'll find yourself a lot richer than if you keep pumping money back into the slowly dying child torture industry, and maybe your twisted shred of a conscience, assuming you have any left at all, will find some relief.

Either that or you can blow your brains out.

[Anonymous]

Whoops. My bad. The Youth Care one is another death at another Aspen NATSAP program. This death was one that happened outside of NATSAP, so they pretend to care about it.

[psy]

Or how about Penninsula Village.

@Who: sometimes you're like a neo-nazi talking to a bunch of concentration camp survivors, telling them all about this great thing called the "final solution" and wondering why he gets a hostile reaction..

I recommended un-banning you because i didn't feel you were techincally flooding, but I still detest what you have to say and believe (damn near bordering on know) that you work for the industry (albeit indirectly).

I think Ginger was right.  Your stock in trade is bullshit statistics, PR, and spin... frankly, you're worth your weight in fools gold from an industry insider's perspective.

Newcomers coming to fornits fall prey to your "not so bad" spin, and since they rarely have time to read past a few pages, they never discover your logic is really nothing more than an elaborate circle (much like many things in this industry).  Like many in marketing, you rely on the short attention span, and buzy lifestyle of parents who might find fornits...

In my opinion, you're an industry shill with a vested interst in at least NATSAP and ASPEN.  About the only programs you ever criticize (if any) are WWASP, or the public system.  You fit the profile perfectly of an industry member.

Well... Regardless of how hard you try, we're still going to raze your source of income to the ground and sew the earth with salt so nothing will ever grow again.  Natsap is about to get it's teeth kicked out.

[Anonymous]

Newcomers coming to fornits fall prey to your "not so bad" spin

You give him way, way too much credit. How many actual newcomers do you know that have actually done this?

[psy]

Newcomers coming to fornits fall prey to your "not so bad" spin

You give him way, way too much credit. How many actual newcomers do you know that have actually done this?

One...  But you're right.  Not all fall prey to his bullshit.

[TheWho]

psy wrote:

I think Ginger was right. Your stock in trade is bullshit statistics, PR, and spin... frankly, you're worth your weight in fools gold from an industry insider's perspective.

Could be psy, but long before you came to fornits, the statistics here were down right fabricated.  When I asked to see the raw data I got a list of kids whose death was attributed to programs and 2 out of the first 5 that I checked were not even at school at the time.  One committed suicide 6 months after being home and the other died in a car accident after graduation.  But since they attended a TBS people here felt their death was due to the program and added them to the list.  So based on the sample size (extremely small, I agree) 40% of the data was fabricated to meet the needs of the agenda here.
   
I decided to set up a matrix to capture deaths in TBS and wilderness.  As the data started to reveal that programs were far more safe than our local public school system the matrix integrity started to be attacked.  In response I asked if anyone wanted to contribute any data that they thought was missing (trying to bring people into the process) and none was offered, apparently because the matrix was accurate, as is,  but it went against their personal cause and many posters didn’t want parents to see this.

I may be many things, I may not understand all these schools inside and out and I may not be familiar with individual counselors who have harmed children.  But I have been clear on what I know firsthand about the industry and what I don’t, the rest is my opinion.
 
I think it is important to stick with the truth and present both sides, otherwise people will know or find out that you are not being truthful eventually and there will be no credibility left.  If data is being presented, provide links to your sources or back up information, as I did.  Many parents emailed me to ask questions and to comment on how easy the information I provided was to read.  I didn’t need to defend the data because my sources we easy to check.

I recommended un-banning you because i didn't feel you were techincally flooding, but I still detest what you have to say and believe (damn near bordering on know) that you work for the industry (albeit indirectly).

I understand and thank you for taking the time to review my posts for possible flooding.  I don’t really know what flooding means, so wasn’t sure if I was guilty or not.  But I do appreciate it and I turned to you because I felt you would be fair and defend the right to free speech regardless of how you felt about my position or me personally.  My income does not rise or fall based on how successful programs are or NATSAP.  I don’t stand to gain financially from the result of what I write.