This is what they're pissed about, no longer able to "fly under the radar".
Posted: Aug 26, 2006 08:30
By: Lon Woodbury
When I first started working in this industry of private Parent-Choice residential schools and programs in 1984, we had the
luxury of being pretty much "under the radar." That is, few took notice of these schools and programs, partly because few had any idea of what we were doing and because there were very few schools and programs of this type. However, those who took the time to investigate were amazed at the positive results they saw and became advocates. When word got out to parents about a "last chance" choice that produced good results, even after the child had failed in mainstream RTCs, psychiatric and school facilities, the industry expanded to accommodate the increasing demand.
School and program officials tended to like being "under the radar" because local officials usually reacted hostilely and assumed the worst without any effort to be fair and open-minded. For example, when I first moved to Bonners Ferry to work at Rocky Mountain Academy during the original CEDU expansion into north Idaho, the
local prosecutor was almost drooling over the opportunity to expose the school and obtain his 15 minutes of national fame. Although he had never set foot on the school's property, had no idea of what they did or how, he invested a lot of time and energy into his efforts of trying to close it down. He was unsuccessful because his
efforts were founded on a fear-based fantasy that was ignorant of any facts. In some cases elsewhere,
local fears did manage to force programs to move on to other jurisdictions that were more open to these new ways of helping struggling teens, but the good schools and programs not only survived, they thrived.
[Hmm. Local prosecuters aren't out to get "private schools". Something tells me there's more to this story than was revealed. Anyone know the real story?]In the early
1990s, this lack of visibility started to change when three young people died in southern Utah boot camps that were masquerading as wilderness programs. When the national media pounced on this juicy story, they inaccurately associated these tragedies with wilderness programs instead of boot camps because of their lack of understanding. This was the start of the media paying attention to the developing parent-choice residential school and program phenomena. Over the next decade, the media increasingly assigned reporters to write stories on some aspect of the parent-choice industry. In part, the increased media attention and questions led several states to begin grappling with the issue of licensure.
15 deaths in Outdoor Programs in the 90s. Probably didn't have anything to do with the 11 (reported) deaths in the 80s.
In this article http://www.strugglingteens.com/archives ... ews02.html
Lon attempts to distinguish Challenger from other Wilderness programs.
When Steve Cartisano started Challenger Foundation in 1988, there was a significant difference from previous wilderness survival groups for children with emotional and behavior problems. The main difference was the addition of a military model. In Challenger's marketing, terms like "Boot Camp for troubled teens", and "forced marches" came into use for the first time. Experienced professionals privately expressed to me concern over what was happening. They felt it was based on punishment more than natural consequences, that fear was used as a motivator instead of building up an inherent sense of what was right, anger was used as a tool more than firmness, and that Challenger was growing too fast to maintain standards of quality and safety. One professional expressed to me the prediction that "Some kid is going to get hurt." It is clear Challenger was a totally different type of wilderness program.
Forced marches are the bedrock of all wilderness programs, to this day. As are "punishments", rather than "natural" consequences. Fear is still used as a "motivator". Anger and restraints are still used instead of de-escalation.
From 1993- Amidst the controversy Woodbury was still advertising Cartisano's programs.
New Short Term Program For Children
Steven A. Cartisano has started a new short term program for children with behavioral and emotional problems called Health Care America, headquartered in the US Virgin Islands. Steve's prior work in this area was as Head of Wilderness Challenger in Utah, which he closed in 1990 amid some controversy. Wilderness Treatment Center in Montana has consolidated its Bozeman facility with the original facility near Kalispell.
However, because the states didn't understand exactly how different the private parent-choice schools and programs were from the already existing schools and programs, they were as confused as the media. It soon became obvious that these new approaches did not fit under the old categories of regulation. Some states, like Utah and Idaho, worked with representatives of the industry to develop new categories and regulations that were specifically designed for these new types of programs. Others, like the state of Washington, just lumped them into some already existing category, which was often such a poor fit that the consequences were ridiculous. For example, one program in the state of Washington for substance abusing teen-age boys was put under the category of group homes. Then, because the state regulations for that category required it, the program had to spend $15,000 to put in a second hot water system that was capable of sterilizing diapers.
Sounds a bit exaggerated. 160* for five minutes "sanitizes". Any home unit can accomplish this. What's more likely is that they had to put in a system large enough that all could have warm showers. Most states have long since had regs for RTCs. I haven't read one set of regs that wasn't appropriate to "the industry", if anything, too lame. The industry itself adjusted in several ways to this increased scrutiny from the media and the States. First, professionals in the field learned how to work with the media when there was a tragedy, giving them the facts to work with rather than letting reporters speculate and write articles based on wild rumors and inaccurate assumptions.
Um, yeh. This was good.
Mar 1996- Inc Magazine- Public Relations: Planning Damage Control
A CEO explains the importance of developing a public-relations strategy before a disaster strikes.
Don't wait until disaster strikes to whip up a public-relations strategy. Elliot Sainer, CEO of Aspen Health Services, a wilderness therapy program for troubled teens in Huntington Beach, Calif., already had a publicity plan at work when a teenager died while at a competitor's program in 1994. Still, Aspen beefed up efforts to battle the onslaught of bad press.
As kids withdrew from Aspen's program and new-business calls dropped by 20%, Sainer added an employee to his in-house public-relations team. Already hard at work touting Aspen's safety record to those who referred new business to Aspen, the team sped up the distribution of information on graduates' progress and turned the annual newsletter into a quarterly.
Next, Sainer agreed to a story request from U.S. News & World Report. "We were seeing our industry getting slammed," he says. He allowed the reporter to join one group at the end of its program, when the participating teens are happiest. Sainer was pleased with the article and mailed copies to more than 200 referral sources. Today Aspen is back on track with about $6 million in 1995 revenues and with incoming calls back to normal. Sainer credits the company's survival to the strategy.
http://www.inc.com/magazine/19960301/1587.html
They're also learning how to keep deaths and 'accidents' out of the media.Second, the professionals in the industry were in the forefront of favoring state oversight, and worked with many states in developing regulations that made sense. They helped write regulations that would give the state adequate oversight, thus making it harder for incompetent or inexperienced programs to gain state licensure.
The industry has never been in the forefront in favoring regulations, unless they were involved. The travesty is that several states (and JCAHO) have allowed them to write their own regs. In another area, the professionals working in the field developed
professional organizations to recognize those schools and programs that were competent and ethical. The major organization in this was the National Association for Therapeutic Schools and Programs (NATSAP),
Anyone who has been led to believe that NATSAP programs are ethical and competent should view the GAO hearing.http://edlabor.house.gov/hearings/fc101007.shtmlwhich is working at bringing all the programs together with a single voice, and requires all members to sign ethical and good practices statements. On the educational consultant side, the Independent Educational Consultants Association (IECA) stepped up their efforts to ensure that their members who work with special needs have adequate backgrounds and experience to do a good job.
Ed Cons aren't regulated, and should be. For a heafty fee, they will be happy to refer to their favorite program(s). Now when parents don't know whom to believe, they can always check to see if the referring source, school or program is a member of one of these organizations. The standard purpose of professional organizations is to confirm to the public that that person or program has made at least a minimal effort to be evaluated and accepted by their professional peers.
Parents need to do their own research. Explore the roots of the industry.http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?p=232942#232942Research the program and all the staff. Ask specific questions about the 'treatment' their child will receive. Request copies of the parents manual and contract to review with an attorney and psychologist.In addition, many professionals are individually speaking out with their concerns about the competency of some schools, programs and referring agencies. One thing they are trying to say is that it is inaccurate and unfair to lump all programs together and judge them all based on the activities of just the most controversial schools, programs or referring agencies.
They all may not be identical, but they all sprang from the same root, CEDU/Synanon/est/Lifespring. They all sever contact with parents, monitor phone calls and censor mail. That's enough to lump them all together.These actions are evolving adjustments by this industry to a healthy and growing public scrutiny. Currently there are two new factors that reflect this:
First is the response to demands that the schools and programs prove their effectiveness through properly conducted research. In the past, success was mostly demonstrated by antidotal evidence and testimonials, but this lack of serious research is beginning to be properly addressed. In 2002, the Outdoor Behavioral Healthcare Industry Council sponsored a research study through the University of Idaho on therapeutic wilderness programs, indicating positive outcomes
http://www.obhic.com. This research study is continuing. In addition, Dr. Ellen Behrens just released this month the first phase results of a three-year residential outcomes study for NATSAP at the American Psychological Association conference in New Orleans. This study is a vital first step in establishing a body of research that will answer the question; how effective are private residential programs for adolescents?
These are not independent studies, as was mentioned in my previous post. The data is not to be trusted. The most ironic of all being Catherine Freer participating in the OBHIC 'study' and using it in its marketing to taut the safety of wilderness 'therapy', then three deaths occur in less than a year.The other factor that indicates there is an increase in public scrutiny and interest in this industry is illustrated in the recent surge of interest by investment firms looking into the investment prospects of private parent-choice residential schools and programs. Although some investment firms have invested in this industry during the past few years, I and many other Educational Consultants have been inundated by phone calls from investment firms this month who are trying to understand this industry. They want to know who the major players are, if it looks like the industry will continue to expand, etc. Obviously there are some immediate investment opportunities available that sparked this interest.
Maybe they'll all go the way of CEDU/Brown.So, as this industry comes of age, long gone are the days when we were working "Under the Radar." We now need to firmly establish minimum standards based on professional competency and ethics, and research-based practices. That is gradually what is happening.
Lip Service. This industry will change when its forced to change. More media coverage is needed. Heavy scrutiny of methods and procedures.