Author Topic: US House Hearing on Seclusion & Restraint  (Read 4351 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Re: US House Hearing on Seclusion & Restraint
« Reply #15 on: May 24, 2009, 02:13:24 PM »
Quote from: "Ursus"
Quote from: "Inquiry"
Perhaps someone could expand upon this subject:
Some of the following have been referenced in this forum: JCAHO, NATSAP, CAFETY…ISAC.  Could someone please outline the purposes/differences between these organizations, for those (like me) who are not in the know?

Post-composition: Golleeee... am I s-l-o-w. I can see that a lot of my material has been stated more eruditely by those ahead of me. Oh well, one more voice to the bucket...

-:•0•:-

Briefly, and stated with the express caveat that my own knowledge and understanding is admittedly woefully incomplete:

    JCAHO is an accrediting organization, generally used for hospitals and other institutions in a health care setting. CARF is a similar organization, generally thought to have less stringent criteria.

    NATSAP is a marketing and PR umbrella for programs. Having a NATSAP logo on your website is supposed to convey a certain level of standards to parents and the like who might be interested. However, NATSAP is entirely composed of program operators; there is absolutely no independent oversight, not even a pretension of such.

    CAFETY is an organization devoted to fighting unsafe and abusive programs. Many of its personnel are drawn from the ranks of those who have suffered due to having once been enrolled in same during their youth. They run into some controversy on fornits from time to time given their alliances with other program-fighting organizations who believe there is such a thing as "safe" or "good" programs out there. You could say there are philosophical differences but, in general, there is a good deal of overlap.

    ISAC is also a program-fighting organization, one that attempts to be somewhat neutral by letting the facts speak for themselves. They are a respected repository of survivor statements and newspaper articles cataloging the trail of misery and damage that abusive programs have left in their wake.[/list]



    Wow, Ursus

    If you think that ISAC look what you just reduced ISACCORP to!
    The things that you have listed are not the only things that they do or have done or will do.
    Look at the words that you chose to discribe cafety and then take a look at the words that you chose to describe ISACCORP. You really have no clue do you?
    Research next time before you open your mouth. Thank buh bye now. Sounds like someone is up Cafety's asshole there URSUS.

    -Clara
    « Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

    Offline blombrowski

    • Posts: 135
    • Karma: +0/-0
      • View Profile
    Re: US House Hearing on Seclusion & Restraint
    « Reply #16 on: May 24, 2009, 02:25:46 PM »
    Quote
    Cafety is not a registered non profit.

    Only somewhat accurate if by registered, you mean registered with the federal government as a tax-exempt organization.  CAFETY is incoporated as a not-for-profit organization in the State of New York.  501 c(3) papers soon to be pending.
    « Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

    Offline Che Gookin

    • Global Moderator
    • Newbie
    • *****
    • Posts: 4241
    • Karma: +11/-3
      • View Profile
    Re: US House Hearing on Seclusion & Restraint
    « Reply #17 on: May 24, 2009, 03:20:06 PM »
    Quote
    Wow, Ursus

    If you think that ISAC look what you just reduced ISACCORP to!
    The things that you have listed are not the only things that they do or have done or will do.
    Look at the words that you chose to discribe cafety and then take a look at the words that you chose to describe ISACCORP. You really have no clue do you?
    Research next time before you open your mouth. Thank buh bye now. Sounds like someone is up Cafety's asshole there URSUS.

    -Clara

    And just to point out before you think it was me, I didn't post this Ursus.

    However, to clarify a few key fundamental differences between ISAC and the rest of the herd I'll point a few things out. ISAC isn't into self-promotion which might explain why the core group of Bill and Shelby seem to struggle so much to keep ISAC running. You see that link at the very bottom of my signature everyone? For god's sake please go use it to donate some money to ISAC.

    I won't go into extensive detail about Bill and Shelby's personal life but they really do sacrifice a great deal for their own organization. They do so quietly without the intention of drawing fame and the promise of a grant money to buy new office furniture.

    Again, if you have 10 dollars to spare.. go spare it.

    Here is their official donation page link:

    http://www.isaccorp.org/donate.asp

    I'm kicking myself for closing my American bank account. I'd love to donate some money but can't easily manage it. However, I have promised to donate money to fornits this year. I'll do so and make a matching contribution to ISAC. Just not sure how at this point in time.

    The other thing to remember about ISAC is what doesn't get talked about by ISAC very much. Let's take Shelby.. She went all the way to Jamaica to get in TB's face. Bill has regularly driven all the way to Ohio to helped Deprogrammed protest KHK.

    The guy who runs ISAC's European branch, a decent fellow who I have traded private messages with on the rare occasion, donated a nice chunk of bread to Psy's Benchmark protest fund.

    ISAC has that credibility of being an organization that hasn't compromised its values.

    I could say a great many things about CAFETY. To be honest my opinion changes about them with the coming and going of the tide. I do know that a person I trust told me that they believe that Blombrowski is sincere in his efforts. Cafety has had some serious growing pains and probably is going to have more as the mature. But, let's be clear, they have grown and will continue to grow.

    However, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that they'll find their way in this cold advocate's world without attempting to undercut their efforts even if I don't entirely agree with their aims.
    « Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

    Offline Che Gookin

    • Global Moderator
    • Newbie
    • *****
    • Posts: 4241
    • Karma: +11/-3
      • View Profile
    Re: US House Hearing on Seclusion & Restraint
    « Reply #18 on: May 24, 2009, 03:26:32 PM »
    Oh yeah.. In no way do I think CAFETY has compromised their ethics either. It does kind of seem to me that their ethics and values are changing with their experiences. Likewise, I do believe CAFETy has done some good work. I'm still curious to know how the hell they got the Oregon government to investigate MBA based on comments made on Facebook and Myspace.
    « Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

    Offline Ursus

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 8989
    • Karma: +3/-0
      • View Profile
    Re: US House Hearing on Seclusion & Restraint
    « Reply #19 on: May 24, 2009, 03:30:09 PM »
    Quote from: "Guest"
    Quote from: "Ursus"
    Quote from: "Inquiry"
    Perhaps someone could expand upon this subject:
    Some of the following have been referenced in this forum: JCAHO, NATSAP, CAFETY…ISAC.  Could someone please outline the purposes/differences between these organizations, for those (like me) who are not in the know?

    Post-composition: Golleeee... am I s-l-o-w. I can see that a lot of my material has been stated more eruditely by those ahead of me. Oh well, one more voice to the bucket...

    -:•0•:-

    Briefly, and stated with the express caveat that my own knowledge and understanding is admittedly woefully incomplete:

      JCAHO is an accrediting organization, generally used for hospitals and other institutions in a health care setting. CARF is a similar organization, generally thought to have less stringent criteria.

      NATSAP is a marketing and PR umbrella for programs. Having a NATSAP logo on your website is supposed to convey a certain level of standards to parents and the like who might be interested. However, NATSAP is entirely composed of program operators; there is absolutely no independent oversight, not even a pretension of such.

      CAFETY is an organization devoted to fighting unsafe and abusive programs. Many of its personnel are drawn from the ranks of those who have suffered due to having once been enrolled in same during their youth. They run into some controversy on fornits from time to time given their alliances with other program-fighting organizations who believe there is such a thing as "safe" or "good" programs out there. You could say there are philosophical differences but, in general, there is a good deal of overlap.

      ISAC is also a program-fighting organization, one that attempts to be somewhat neutral by letting the facts speak for themselves. They are a respected repository of survivor statements and newspaper articles cataloging the trail of misery and damage that abusive programs have left in their wake.[/list]
      [/b]


      Wow, Ursus

      If you think that ISAC look what you just reduced ISACCORP to!
      The things that you have listed are not the only things that they do or have done or will do.
      Look at the words that you chose to discribe cafety and then take a look at the words that you chose to describe ISACCORP. You really have no clue do you?
      Research next time before you open your mouth. Thank buh bye now. Sounds like someone is up Cafety's asshole there URSUS.

      -Clara

       :roflmao:  

      Geeezzzz... Kindly reserve the petty augering for targets more appropriate, and more deserving, 'till you know what you are talking about. You really don't know S-Q-U-A-T about where I am coming from.

      Considering that I clearly chose to answer the query in as brief and neutral a fashion as possible (a point that is probably quite obvious to everyone else), it certainly leaves an opening for a guest, or someone else even, to set the record straight as they see fit, no?

      Why choose to eviscerate the least positive (i.e., most neutral) entry for CAFETY, out of the three that were available? Why choose to eviscerate at all? Sounds kinda like bully tactics to me. Perhaps you have something else on your agenda, that might be better served and addressed in a PM.
      « Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
      -------------- • -------------- • --------------

      Offline Ursus

      • Newbie
      • *
      • Posts: 8989
      • Karma: +3/-0
        • View Profile
      Re: US House Hearing on Seclusion & Restraint
      « Reply #20 on: May 24, 2009, 03:34:56 PM »
      Quote from: "Che Gookin"
      And just to point out before you think it was me, I didn't post this Ursus.
      It would have never crossed my mind!   :seg:

      Quote from: "Che Gookin"
      Oh yeah.. In no way do I think CAFETY has compromised their ethics either. It does kind of seem to me that their ethics and values are changing with their experiences. Likewise, I do believe CAFETy has done some good work. I'm still curious to know how the hell they got the Oregon government to investigate MBA based on comments made on Facebook and Myspace.
      Oregon investigated MBA some years ago as well (mid-late 1990s?). I guess the second time you get called to a battlefield, ya pay a little more attention to the details, and poke a little deeper... Methinks there is some poorly-defined yet critical threshold of complaints, beyond which the magnifying glass comes out.
      « Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
      -------------- • -------------- • --------------

      Offline Che Gookin

      • Global Moderator
      • Newbie
      • *****
      • Posts: 4241
      • Karma: +11/-3
        • View Profile
      Re: US House Hearing on Seclusion & Restraint
      « Reply #21 on: May 24, 2009, 03:43:26 PM »
      Silly bear.. post a link for this 1990's investigation yo.
      « Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

      Offline Ursus

      • Newbie
      • *
      • Posts: 8989
      • Karma: +3/-0
        • View Profile
      Re: US House Hearing on Seclusion & Restraint
      « Reply #22 on: May 24, 2009, 07:56:14 PM »
      Quote from: "Che Gookin"
      Silly bear.. post a link for this 1990's investigation yo.

      I don't have a link for the actual investigation per se. However, it was mentioned in Maia's recent article "An Oregon School for Troubled Teens Under Scrutiny." See following selection, color emphasis mine:

      Quote
      RESURRECTED ALLEGATIONS

      This is not the first time students have accused Mount Bachelor of abuse, nor is Mount Bachelor the only such program to face allegations of mistreatment. Similar allegations of abuse were documented by the Government Accountability Office at numerous programs in 2007 and 2008, when the agency investigated the troubled-teen industry at the behest of California congressman George Miller.

      In 1998, Mount Bachelor was investigated by the Oregon DHS based on claims by several former employees that students were "subjected to frequent obscenity-laced screaming sessions by staff members; students were deprived of sleep; a group of girls emerged from one group therapy session with bruising on their arms after they were ordered to clasp their hands in front of them and pound a mattress for an extended period," according to the Bend Bulletin. The Oregon DHS cleared the program following the investigation.

      "I am in a state of shock," says Sharon Ferguson, whose complaints about her son's treatment at Mount Bachelor in the 1990s helped spur the earlier investigation. "I can't believe that school is still open and the same things are being said and the same people are running it."
      « Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
      -------------- • -------------- • --------------

      Offline AuntieEm2

      • Newbie
      • *
      • Posts: 330
      • Karma: +1/-0
        • View Profile
      Re: US House Hearing on Seclusion & Restraint
      « Reply #23 on: May 24, 2009, 09:34:41 PM »
      The Mount Bachelor Academy investigation was set in motion by an MBA staff member who sounded the alarm with the authorities based on what she was seeing and hearing.

      Auntie Em
      « Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
      Tough love is a hate group.
      "I have sworn...eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." -Thomas Jefferson.

      Offline blombrowski

      • Posts: 135
      • Karma: +0/-0
        • View Profile
      Re: US House Hearing on Seclusion & Restraint
      « Reply #24 on: May 24, 2009, 09:42:56 PM »
      The previous poster beat me to it, but that was certainly the most important thing, that it was a staff member who made the allegations.  Then there was a ton of corroborating evidence by three different generations of MBA students who as soon as the investigation was underway who besides posting blogs on facebook and myspace, contacted the authorities directly.  And there were mental health professionals who could corroborate to the investigators who had no context for what they were investigating, that what they were seeing was in fact abusive and traumatic, and not a form of legitimate therapy.  

      It took three kinds of "expert witnesses" to make this work; staff, former and current students, and people with titles at the end of their name for the DHS to take the allegations seriously.
      « Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

      Offline sowren

      • Posts: 2
      • Karma: +0/-0
        • View Profile
      Re: US House Hearing on Seclusion & Restraint
      « Reply #25 on: May 25, 2009, 05:46:05 PM »
      123
      « Last Edit: May 29, 2009, 11:37:30 AM by sowren »

      Offline Anonymous

      • Newbie
      • *
      • Posts: 164653
      • Karma: +3/-4
        • View Profile
      Re: US House Hearing on Seclusion & Restraint
      « Reply #26 on: June 16, 2009, 04:12:38 PM »
      Quote from: "Guest"
      Is there any way program survivors can be heard without going through CAFETY?  The only view reaching DC is CAFETY's, and their view is colored by their professional ambitions in mental health care.  Wouldn't it be better to hear from survivors who don't have a vested interest in keeping the "good" programs their friends work at open?  Survivors with no desire to self promote their careers by exploiting the issue while effectively suppressing the majority of program survivors.  

      In other words, how do we bypass the mental health industry reps who are censoring survivors?  No one from here or any other group gets a voice in DC.  Another experiment in unity with other groups asking for a fair share of representation for those without connections to the TTI is worth an effort.  You don't have to agree with all of them 100%, but maybe we could agree 100% on the need for representation of survivors who aren't getting it from CAFETY.


      How about contacting your representative?  Or starting your own network, group.  CAFETY is nothing but a bunch of people at the end of the day.  Greater number=louder voice=greater chances of being heard.

      My idea is anyone not represented by CAFETY start their own organization. The more voices representing survivors the better!
      « Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »