Fighting our own congress.... George Miller sell out...

[psy]

Like I said, the "name game" is what the programs often use (say to the school authorities "were an RTC" and "we're a school" to the RTC authorities).  Benchmark uses it, Whitmore used it.. countless programs use/used it...  It works...

[Deborah]

Elan apparently is listed with the DOE as a private school.

http://www.natsap.org/program_details.asp?id=30
State of Maine, Department of Education

They are not LICENSED by the
Department of Health & Human Services

Meaning, that while the academic aspect of the program may be evaluated by the DOE, the 'therapeutic' aspect of the program is not monitored or inspected by DHHS because they aren't licensed.

They also have no academic accreditations (ex NAAS) or professional accreditations (ex JCAHO), for what that's worth.

[Ursus]

I agree with psy and everyone else re. name game business.  What Hyde does according to anyone who has experienced it should go under the rubric of "therapy," but they employ no such professionals and, moreover, hold said industry in disdain.  They call themselves a school, yet many of the "teachers" there have not even finished college yet, and in the summer program, may have nothing more than a high school diploma, more often than not from Hyde.  The primary and only qualification for teaching at Hyde seems to be that you buy the party line and suck enough administrative ass.

Re. the GAO hearings, I always thought that it might be another foot in the door that could be used for survivors' benefit in specific cases, but never that it would make a significant change in the Industry per se.  The public awareness of what goes on is not widespread enough, as well as being limited in its depth.  You get a lot of people who know a wee bit, and what wee bit they know sounds good to them, in principle.  Most people do not think it through enough to even realize how flawed the "in principle" part is; they've just heard the "tough love" refrain so long throughout their lives that they think it's normal, and an appropriate thing to do to their child.

It is my general impression that:  progress that has been made thus far has often been with specific facilities, where someone was sharp enough to use what little ammunition they had in the form of particular licensing violations, etc.  Often what brought said program to its knees was some small thing compared to the actual big picture of injustice going on there, but people kept hammering with what little they had, and eventually the program found it more trouble than it was worth.

Perhaps the GAO hearings might give us some more ammunition to hammer with.  I never assumed that it would produce any more progress than that, perhaps that is why I am not so disappointed or surprised.  I do wish more survivor stories would be aired but... public demonstrations could also accomplish that.  Perhaps even more effectively, as it would highlight their deliberate exclusion from the hearings.

[psy]

I agree with psy and everyone else re. name game business.  What Hyde does according to anyone who has experienced it should go under the rubric of "therapy," but they employ no such professionals and, moreover, hold said industry in disdain.  They call themselves a school, yet many of the "teachers" there have not even finished college yet, and in the summer program, may have nothing more than a high school diploma, more often than not from Hyde.  The primary and only qualification for teaching at Hyde seems to be that you buy the party line and suck enough administrative ass.

Are you sure Benchmark isn't related somehow to Hyde.. lol.

Re. the GAO hearings, I always thought that it might be another foot in the door that could be used for survivors' benefit in specific cases, but never that it would make a significant change in the Industry per se.  The public awareness of what goes on is not widespread enough, as well as being limited in its depth.  You get a lot of people who know a wee bit, and what wee bit they know sounds good to them, in principle.  Most people do not think it through enough to even realize how flawed the "in principle" part is; they've just heard the "tough love" refrain so long throughout their lives that they think it's normal, and an appropriate thing to do to their child.

It is my general impression that:  progress that has been made thus far has often been with specific facilities, where someone was sharp enough to use what little ammunition they had in the form of particular licensing violations, etc.  Often what brought said program to its knees was some small thing compared to the actual big picture of injustice going on there, but people kept hammering with what little they had, and eventually the program found it more trouble than it was worth.

And the staff migrate...  It's like fucking whack a mole (need a sledge to take out the whole game).  The practice of forced treatment needs to be stopped under the premise that it violates the fundamental freedoms of human beings, who have the right to decide for themselves whether they need, or do not need treatment (and may not actually have a problem other than controlling parents (who, of course, never see things from that perspective out of arrogance, and ultimately a lack of respect for the ability of their children to make choices of their own, live with the consequences, and grow up unique.)).

Perhaps the GAO hearings might give us some more ammunition to hammer with.  I never assumed that it would produce any more progress than that, perhaps that is why I am not so disappointed or surprised.  I do wish more survivor stories would be aired but... public demonstrations could also accomplish that.  Perhaps even more effectively, as it would highlight their deliberate exclusion from the hearings.

Well.  Look.  I know a person who talked to the GAO, and he told me what he recommended: they take more time, they take more people, and they do a more thorough job of investigating what they need to to really catch these people red handed.  He's keeping hush about what exactly is going on, but it is possible that the GAO has decided that they really do need more time (and I can believe that is possible).

However this is purely speculative, and even if the above were the case (second investigation later), I don't see why survivors aren't speaking.  Maybe they're afraid some survivor will give the senator a piece of his mind on CSPAN...  Oh...

Ya know what.  Political pressure is just like any other weapon.  We should tell Miller: either guarantee us publicly, a second, thorough investigation to be published publicly in full* or we're going to protest...

* (minus survivor and parent names redacted since they are the victims after all)

[Anonymous]

Everybody's screaming "fire" a little early.  Presenters will be there with five minutes each to speak.  This is more like a preliminary, to determine the need for more work, and it has really nothing to do with the GAO findings (their report isn't finished).

No survivors will be there, but parents who lost their kids in programs will speak.

Like I said, this ain't the full-on, custom deluxe version yet.  But, I gotta admit, I expect the same ol' song and dance, too.  We've been around the wheel too many times and had big hopes get crushed.  I'm not optimistic, I'm trying not to be pessimistic, I'm just watching and waiting.

One of the proposed presenters gave me the run-down on the festivities.  I really hope it goes the way this person wants it to, and they want at most to get a foot in the door and a monkey wrench in NATSAP's machine.  One program death makes a thousand NATSAP  letters null and void, as far as I'm concerned.

[Anonymous]

5 minutes per parent?  That's what 15-30 minutes tops?  

Come on!  Enough of the games - who else is testifying?

If not a single survivor - then who?

[Anonymous]

Who's left?  A Start, that's who.

Great.  And how does a special interest group trump survivors?

They don't.

Way to go Miller.

 :roll:

[Anonymous]

There is a way to get media attention and that is to use the most "sympathetic" victims first.  Unfortunately, because the industry has done such a good job of demonizing survivors as unreliable "druggies," the most "sympathetic" victims are parents of dead kids.

One might imagine that starting with them is a PR strategy, not any kind of attempt to "silence" or "neglect" survivors, but a way to get the industry at its weakest spot and get the press more riled up.    The ground needs to be laid before the message of survivors will be given a fair hearing.

[Anonymous]

You know, if you think about it having parents who lost their child to a program is a double-edged sword.  On one hand, it helps to expose the deadly dangerous side of the industry while at the same time providing insight into what drives parents to send their kids away for treatment in the first place.  Anger?  Frustration? Desperation?  Punishment?  Whatever the reason, the decision to place their child's life into the hands of strangers is one they have to live with for the rest of their lives. That's a terrible price to pay for any parent no matter what the reason.  Of these parents, it will be interesting to see if any of them hired transport companies, worked with an ed con, etc.  because those are the side issues that the bill really does not address at all.

Overall, I expect to see some powerful opposition to the bill from advocacy groups who aren't in bed with any of the special interest groups.

Stay tuned - anon is right.  This is the first-act.  THe real fireworks are yet to come.

 :wink:

[Anonymous]

There is a way to get media attention and that is to use the most "sympathetic" victims first.  Unfortunately, because the industry has done such a good job of demonizing survivors as unreliable "druggies," the most "sympathetic" victims are parents of dead kids.

One might imagine that starting with them is a PR strategy, not any kind of attempt to "silence" or "neglect" survivors, but a way to get the industry at its weakest spot and get the press more riled up.    The ground needs to be laid before the message of survivors will be given a fair hearing.

Actually, I disagree.  I think Miller's staff got it ass-backwards - thanks to what I suspect was some serious lobbying by the special interest groups, parents and the GAO.  

Just wait.  Whatever happened behind the scenes will come out.  It always does.

Bottom line:  No survivors testifying is an absolute disgrace and no amount of spin (posturizing) from the anons posting here who appear to be in "the know" can change that.  

It is what it is.

 :roll:

[Pitbull Mom]

There is a way to get media attention and that is to use the most "sympathetic" victims first.  Unfortunately, because the industry has done such a good job of demonizing survivors as unreliable "druggies," the most "sympathetic" victims are parents of dead kids.

One might imagine that starting with them is a PR strategy, not any kind of attempt to "silence" or "neglect" survivors, but a way to get the industry at its weakest spot and get the press more riled up.    The ground needs to be laid before the message of survivors will be given a fair hearing.

well, I'm the the most recent parent of a dead child, so I would be among those "most sympathetic victims first" list, but I was NOT asked to testify. Shoots that theory pretty dead. I know for a fact that some other parents of kids who died were also NOT asked to testify.

The parents of kids who died in programs are among the most abused of the survivors, their children did NOT EVEN SURVIVE. think about it.

[Anonymous]

Sorry, but I honestly don't think of parents of dead kids as survivors of institutionalized child abuse.

In fact, that is probably the most offensive analogy I have heard yet.

I will agree parents are victims in the sense of exploitation and fraud.

But no, the survivors of institutionalized child abuse are the children who lived it, not their parents, no matter how guilt-ridden, sorry, ashamed, etc. a parent may feel - they aren't the ones who were institutionalized.

Big difference, don't you agree?

[Ursus]

Let us not forget:

The biggest victims here are the ones who are completely unable to testify by virtue of the singular fact that they are six feet under.  The closest people to those victims, the ones most likely to be able to tell their story, are their parents and family.

Squabbling about the finer details of further breakdown of the "victim hierarchy" seems to be counterproductive at best.

[psy]

Sorry, but I honestly don't think of parents of dead kids as survivors of institutionalized child abuse.

In fact, that is probably the most offensive analogy I have heard yet.

I will agree parents are victims in the sense of exploitation and fraud.

But no, the survivors of institutionalized child abuse are the children who lived it, not their parents, no matter how guilt-ridden, sorry, ashamed, etc. a parent may feel - they aren't the ones who were institutionalized.

Big difference, don't you agree?

I think both sides need to stand side by side, actually.  Portraying one side as the most credible or the ones having suffered more is wrong, imo...  I can't put my feet in parent's shoes and they can't walk in mine, so there is really no point arguing about whose has the bigger pebble stuck in it (ie: who has the more discomfort/pain).  People deal with pain differently and it is not possible to comparatively quantify emotional pain.

As Ursus points out, squabbling over the "victim hierarchy' is counterproductive, however, they started it by quantifying some as having suffered more than others.  You don't think there's one survivor the GAO might have contacted (maybe... high impact) who might have suffered a little bit?  Quantifying abuse disrespects those who have suffered it.  Abuse, regardless of severity is  wrong.  The worst of it, in my view is the obliteration of the self, by any means, and it really doesn't matter whether it's verbal or physical abuse that provides the pressure for that to happen.

Playing the politics of credibility, bowing to prejudice and participating rather than fighting, is getting in the way of telling the truth, (the whole story, from multiple perspectives), and letting the public have a more raw, un-cut version of what is going on where anything goes and veracity of information is left to the reader to decide, training them to think again rather than consume at the media trough.

[Anonymous]

Actually, I think this is an interesting discussion.

Parents are indeed, victims, of their own kind of hell.  I know many survivors who while they love their parents, can't and won't ever forgive them.  The reason?  The parents don't want forgiveness.  They want acceptance.  To be told that even though they helped to abuse the rights of their own child, they did it out of love.  As though ignorance were an excuse and abuse is something that can be made more tolerable knowing at least your parents loved you enough to pay a small fortune to ensure you got plenty of it at the "program" of their choice.

Think about what that means.

But I agree the children who died need to be heard and that in their case, there is no one else to speak for them but a parent.  

It's the survivors though who can best speak for the children who didn't make it.  Why didn't anyone think of that?  

Oh yeah.  Survivors aren't important enough to speak for themselves, much less someone else.

Total unadulterated bullcrap, if ya ask me.  I hope Miller comes to his senses before the 10th.  Although being a token "survivor" invited to testify is a sad commentary, it sure beats nothing at all or being completely ignored in favor of parading parents and survey takers.