GAO Hearing???

[Anonymous]

Well said TSW - you are exactly correct.

[Anonymous]

At the very least, there should be an organized presence of survivors who are ready, willing and able to speak to the media.  

The short notice was deliberate.  Wake up and smell the bullshit.

[Che Gookin]

At the very least, there should be an organized presence of survivors who are ready, willing and able to speak to the media.  

The short notice was deliberate.  Wake up and smell the bullshit.

Found my new signature.

Thanks!

[Deborah]

NATSAP isn't necessarily thrilled about this legislation. They do want to influence what it will contain.

NATSAPs letter to Miller
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?p=112579#112579

NATSAP collaborates with Miller
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?p=284042#284042

Anyone who has a working relationship with Miller know if he understand who/what NATSAP is and how they have negatively influenced other legislation in the past? How they supported Self-Regulation in Montana? Influenced licensing in Utah.
http://wwf.fornits.com/viewtopic.php?p=89677#89677
http://wwf.fornits.com/viewtopic.php?p=144062#144062
http://wwf.fornits.com/viewtopic.php?p=280143#280143
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?p=225696#225696

The industry knows they are functioning unethically. One of their own wrote a letter of warning several years ago.
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?p=23506#23506

"the industry is largely unregulated and unsupervised in any meaningful way."

"Some personal growth schools with genuine therapeutic content have been licensed only as schools, avoiding regulations and safeguards applicable to services intended to affect behavior and emotional health."

"There is at best minimal regulation of any of these services."

"There are no regulations we know of governing escort or transport services."

NATSAP opposed this legislation and had a say in the final draft.
http://wwf.fornits.com/viewtopic.php?p=53026#53026

"Many of the most restrictive and intense therapeutic programs manage to be licensed only as schools although they keep kids in very confining programs against their will. In many cases this is a clear case of dodging the spirit of regulations intending to ensure that people in therapeutic environments are safe.

"There is no regulation of the consultants and other referral sources."

"Our concern about that is that we do not believe that the self-policing procedures of regional accrediting bodies and even the IECA are working well. There appears, in both to be a higher emphasis placed on protecting the established interests of members than in enforcing serious standards of qualification, conduct, and consumer safety."

"Many of the practices for which these groups have criticized the offshore programs also occur in domestic programs, including some of those which we would almost universally AGREE ARE MAINSTREAM PROGRAMS. This includes some of the programs IECA member consultants have most highly valued as special purpose schools, and fully credentialled and accredited psychiatric facilities."

[Anonymous]

This board is overflowing with completely insane rumor and nasty innuendo, such as suggestions that Miller is co-opted and that some extremely dedicated activists who have never had industry ties have been co-opted (or somehow were responsible for a delay in the hearings that was actually very short and completely due to other factors) and with completely uninformed speculation about the intent of Miller vis a vis survivors that has no basis in reality.

There is *strategy* to legislation and legislative hearings-- and one of the smart kinds of strategy is not to play your whole hand all at once.  One hearing is not the whole deal.  Those who testify now are probably not the only ones who will have the opportunity.

Second, the existing version of the bill was written while the Republicans controlled Congress as a compromise.  here's a hint: the Republicans no longer control Congress. NATSAP is scared because they know Miller wants *federal* regulation and only deferred to the states because his party was not in power.

And the GAO is not stupid.  Any look at their prior investigations of industries and scientific claims that the government would have preferred to suppress suggests that they don't fall for nonsense.

Please stop the infighting and do not judge what is going on until you actually know the facts from the inside.

Of course, the actual legislation may ultimately disappoint as with everything in government-- but people here have some really bizarre ideas that have serious potential to hinder their chances of effectively promoting their own cause.

[Anonymous]

do not judge what is going on until you actually know the facts from the inside.

I agree with almost everything this Anonymous has to say, but this particular passage has me a bit on edge. Isn't the whole point of government transparency that you don't need to be on the inside to know what's going on?

What are the facts from the inside?

[Anonymous]

This board is overflowing with completely insane rumor and nasty innuendo, such as suggestions that Miller is co-opted and that some extremely dedicated activists who have never had industry ties have been co-opted (or somehow were responsible for a delay in the hearings that was actually very short and completely due to other factors) and with completely uninformed speculation about the intent of Miller vis a vis survivors that has no basis in reality.

There is *strategy* to legislation and legislative hearings-- and one of the smart kinds of strategy is not to play your whole hand all at once.  One hearing is not the whole deal.  Those who testify now are probably not the only ones who will have the opportunity.

Second, the existing version of the bill was written while the Republicans controlled Congress as a compromise.  here's a hint: the Republicans no longer control Congress. NATSAP is scared because they know Miller wants *federal* regulation and only deferred to the states because his party was not in power.

And the GAO is not stupid.  Any look at their prior investigations of industries and scientific claims that the government would have preferred to suppress suggests that they don't fall for nonsense.

Please stop the infighting and do not judge what is going on until you actually know the facts from the inside.

Of course, the actual legislation may ultimately disappoint as with everything in government-- but people here have some really bizarre ideas that have serious potential to hinder their chances of effectively promoting their own cause.

Oh please.  Nobody is infighting.  And nobody is blaming the GAO.  Let's wait and see who Miller's staff chooses to testify.  My money is on a group of parents who lost their children and representatives from special interest groups like A Start.  Where are the survivors?  Anyone from Fornits asked to testify would surely want the board to know.  So far, not a single confirmation.

So tell us - rather than speculate - who are the "chosen few"?  Are any of them parents?  Or affiliated with A-START?  Are there survivors testifying?  If so, are they members of Cafety?

[hanzomon4]

They may be under instructions to remain mum until the list is published. But I agree I just here a lot of speculation.

[Anonymous]

What exactly is A Start?  Who supports them among the various survivor led advocacy groups?  So far, I can not find any except perhaps Cafety which has come under fire for their unwillingness to take a firm stand against the referral industry.    Personally, I would prefer to see as many survivors testifying and in attendance, as possible.  They have earned that right by virtue of the fact they are survivors of institutionalized child abuse.  What they have to say is vital to understanding why this industry should be abolished.  Whoops - ya think that may be the problem?

[psy]

What exactly is A Start?  Who supports them among the various survivor led advocacy groups?  So far, I can not find any except perhaps Cafety which has come under fire for their unwillingness to take a firm stand against the referral industry.    Personally, I would prefer to see as many survivors testifying and in attendance, as possible.  They have earned that right by virtue of the fact they are survivors of institutionalized child abuse.  What they have to say is vital to understanding why this industry should be abolished.  Whoops - ya think that may be the problem?

That is fucking eerie.  That is exactly what I was thinking, actually, (if these rumors turn out to be true about survivors not being able to testify).

[Anonymous]

CAFETY does not and has never supported the referral industry.  Period.

Some people think that Cafety should have cut off one person who is somehow tied with some other person who does.

But it is really sad to see one of the few organized groups of young survivors constantly attacked and railed on when it actually is doing the best it can.

And I'm not a member and have no dog in this fight.

[Pitbull Mom]

This board is overflowing with completely insane rumor and nasty innuendo, such as suggestions that Miller is co-opted and that some extremely dedicated activists who have never had industry ties have been co-opted (or somehow were responsible for a delay in the hearings that was actually very short and completely due to other factors) and with completely uninformed speculation about the intent of Miller vis a vis survivors that has no basis in reality.

There is *strategy* to legislation and legislative hearings-- and one of the smart kinds of strategy is not to play your whole hand all at once.  One hearing is not the whole deal.  Those who testify now are probably not the only ones who will have the opportunity.

Second, the existing version of the bill was written while the Republicans controlled Congress as a compromise.  here's a hint: the Republicans no longer control Congress. NATSAP is scared because they know Miller wants *federal* regulation and only deferred to the states because his party was not in power.

And the GAO is not stupid.  Any look at their prior investigations of industries and scientific claims that the government would have preferred to suppress suggests that they don't fall for nonsense.

Please stop the infighting and do not judge what is going on until you actually know the facts from the inside.

Of course, the actual legislation may ultimately disappoint as with everything in government-- but people here have some really bizarre ideas that have serious potential to hinder their chances of effectively promoting their own cause.

This poster had a real handle on the realites of government and business. This hearing is only one small cog in the wheel, and Congress is NOT going to just shut down the industry anyway. The idea is to increase awareness in the media, Congress, and the general public.

The real deal is WHAT ARE YOU SURVIVORS DOING?  Take some real action, don't just post here where you are preaching to the choir. Any survivors who have not read Deb's post here http://http://wwf.fornits.com/viewtopic.php?t=23447&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30
and are not busy contacting their local media, media in Washington, Senator Miller (good luck there), their local politicians, organizing statistics and other information for Congress, writing press releases, etc, are only aiding and abetting the continued abuse. Get off your butts and make some noise, but in a POSITIVE way so the public will listen to you. You have to present yourself so people will take you seriously and relate your story to something already big in the news. The average parent looking for information about teen treatment in evaluating whether or not to enroll their kid in a program is not even going to read fornits for any length of time, they get turned off by the negativity and hostility toward parents and just tune out.  if you don't think Congress is the answer to dealing with abuses in the teen industry, fine, find some other outlet to get the story out to the general public.

Here is a link to FOX News Affiliates around the country. I am pitching a story to Fox News in Salt Lake City about my son's death, and how it relates to the hearing on Wednesday.
http://http://www.fox.com/links/affiliates.htm

Contact CNN  http://http://www.cnn.com/feedback   they have many options for news tips
Contact CSPAN  http://http://www.c-span.org/about/contact.asp?code=About
Contact the Washington Business Journal
 http://http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/contactus/contact_editor.html
Contact the Washington Post http://http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email
Contact your local paper and ask them if they are covering the hearing. Find someone who has previously covered a related story.
Make phone calls, write emails, send faxes, do what Deborah suggests, rent a hotel room or conference room and invite the media. They'll show up. Blow up photos to poster size.  I realize all of this is a lot of work, but bitching and moaning isn't going to accomplish anything unless you have the appropriate forum. If you're not doing SOMETHING, shame on you.

[Joyce Harris]

Some people think that Cafety should have cut off one person who is somehow tied with some other person who does.[

Guest: Are you referring to ALEX who is on the Board of Directors of CAFERTY and the BOARD of Directors of NYRA?
ALEX who has posted on Fornits and other discussion boards voicing his support of Isabelle Zehnder, CAICA ?  Isabelle Zehnder does support Sue Scheff, PURE; and she has admitted that she, herself, refers children to programs.

[Anonymous]

CAFETY does not and has never supported the referral industry.  Period.

Some people think that Cafety should have cut off one person who is somehow tied with some other person who does.

But it is really sad to see one of the few organized groups of young survivors constantly attacked and railed on when it actually is doing the best it can.

And I'm not a member and have no dog in this fight.

What is the connection between Cafety and A Start and how much of a role have they played in enabling A Start to gain a foothold in helping to shape perception of the troubled teen industry.  Who are these parents that have been invited to testify and why them?  Could it be they also have ties to A Start?  I sure as hell hope not but we won't really know until the witness list is revealed who is testifying and more importantly, who is NOT.

[Anonymous]

"What is the connection between Cafety and A Start and how much of a role have they played in enabling A Start to gain a foothold in helping to shape perception of the troubled teen industry. Who are these parents that have been invited to testify and why them? Could it be they also have ties to A Start? I sure as hell hope not but we won't really know until the witness list is revealed who is testifying and more importantly, who is NOT."



Can you say "Seminars"? It has been reported that ASTART folk have experience with that sort of thing. No survivors (like you would like to think) are going to be testifying. What a shame eh?       And, to boot, there's STILL nothing I see in the HR1738 Bill to keep the kids from being ripped from their beds at night and shipped to Jamaica or Samoa or wherever.  :roll: