Second post from CALO by Ken Huey

[Anonymous]

You juvenile delinquents are trying to cut into my profits and I don't like it one bit!!!!!!

[Che Gookin]

Dear Lizard Tits, aka Ken Hooey.

I know why you are posting here. It isn't going to work, unlike you, I'm not that big of an idiot.  We'll just have to wait and see what the future brings. We both know it won't be much longer.


As for Blombro:

CALO is every bit as toxic and disturbing as Thayer is and ever will be. You giving them any credit is a slap in the face to all of those kids jacked up in a bent wrist arm lock and thrown face first on the ground.


To the rest:

Keep in mind Mr. Ken Hooey has to protect his revenue flow. What businessman hasn't lied about his dealings to protect his profits? Don't be taken in by this scumbag.

[blombrowski]

One, CALO isn't exactly the same thing as the other Missouri program that gets rightly pounded on this forum (Thayer). Two, it took them until the winter of 2008 to decide to become a licensed facility.

I take it this is the offending quote.  I didn't say CALO was better, safer, or less toxic than Thayer, I just said they're not the same thing.  It would be like comparing West Ridge Academy to Cross Creek in Utah.  It was strictly in reference to the fact that they're licensed by the State of Missouri.  I guess there goes the argument on the utility of licensing.

Why even make the distinction?  Partly because I was under the distinct impression that CALO was one of the many unlicensed programs in Missouri.  I haven't been involved in the conversation up to this point, but I see that there are pages and pages devoted to this topic.  As someone who hasn't been on top of this, the first thing that disturbs me about CALO is the use of PCS, if for no other reason because of the company that CALO keeps by using it, that and the stories of broken arms and wrists.

[Che Gookin]

There not the same thing?

That's your problem right there....I don't make distinctions between duckfarms. A duckfarm is a duckfarm and they all ought to be razed to the ground.


and btw.. that also applies for these so called 'nice, safe' placements.

Kill em all and let god sort em out.

That's what you should have said to Congress. Not a bunch of shit about the need for regulation.

[Anonymous]

I know why you are posting here. It isn't going to work, unlike you, I'm not that big of an idiot. We'll just have to wait and see what the future brings. We both know it won't be much longer.

Say, can you hear that?

It's the sound of the Reaper...

[Che Gookin]

It's the sound of the Reaper...

I thought that was the sound the doctor made after seeing my lab results last week?

[TigerEye]

Dear Lizard Tits, aka Ken Hooey.

I know why you are posting here. It isn't going to work, unlike you, I'm not that big of an idiot.  We'll just have to wait and see what the future brings. We both know it won't be much longer.


As for Blombro:

CALO is every bit as toxic and disturbing as Thayer is and ever will be. You giving them any credit is a slap in the face to all of those kids jacked up in a bent wrist arm lock and thrown face first on the ground.


To the rest:

Keep in mind Mr. Ken Hooey has to protect his revenue flow. What businessman hasn't lied about his dealings to protect his profits? Don't be taken in by this scumbag.

Very nice and respectful language - Che. It is one way to avoid intelligent dialogue, eh?

One thing that comes to mind when thinking about the question "are kids free to leave" is this: are kids free to leave ANYWHERE? If my kid gets mad or upset about life in our home s/he isn't free to go. Also, in the public school they attend, they are not "free" to leave campus during the school day.

I have attended several of the CALO peer group sessions discussed earlier on this thread. There is no "screaming" or confrontation and if somebody doesn't want to talk, they can just sit there. At least two coaches are there to keep things respectful and on track, I suppose. CALO is not Elan or Family Foundation.

Most of the posters here disagree with the principle of RTCs in general, and are hell-bent to find specific "bad" things at CALO. Give it a break! And with regard to RTCs in general - if not a place like CALO, what do its detractors suggest instead? In our case it would have been jail or a lock-down psych facility.

[psy]

One thing that comes to mind when thinking about the question "are kids free to leave" is this: are kids free to leave ANYWHERE? If my kid gets mad or upset about life in our home s/he isn't free to go. Also, in the public school they attend, they are not "free" to leave campus during the school day.

In both those cases, if something is wrong the kids *can* leave if something is wrong and, for example, go to the police.  The same is not true of a facility where if they try to leave they are restrained (I assume that would be in the fairly broad category of "danger to self").  I do not know if this is true at CALO or whether they let the kids go so that the police may pick them up.  It's not so much the question of whether there is or is not abuse, but whether if there is something wrong there is a way kids can report wrongdoing to a neutral outside party without fear that they'll somehow be punished for it.

I have attended several of the CALO peer group sessions discussed earlier on this thread. There is no "screaming" or confrontation and if somebody doesn't want to talk, they can just sit there.

If indeed that is true, why hasn't ken said as much so far?  In any case, I'd like to get it confirmed by a kid who was actually there.  If you are, for example, a parent who was allowed to sit in on a group, your very presence interferes with the authenticity of what you're seeing.

At least two coaches are there to keep things respectful and on track

And what about licensed therapists?  From Ken's language earlier in the thread, it sounded almost as if most of the group therapy was run by coaches and students, neither of which are qualified to lead group therapy.  What's the point of having licensed therapists if they aren't used for group therapy?  It sounds like it's cutting corners for expense purposes.  There are good reasons why the law, at least in spirit if not letter, prohibits such things...  the same reasoning applies to practicing medicine without a license.  If you're a parent and you're ok with that... ok.  but as far as i'm concerned, it's not really your decision to make.  Your mind isn't the one being affected.  It's your kid's.  If it's truly voluntary, I don't see the problem, but if there is punishment in any way to not participating in group, it's not truly voluntary... rather it's coerced.

Most of the posters here disagree with the principle of RTCs in general, and are hell-bent to find specific "bad" things at CALO. Give it a break! And with regard to RTCs in general - if not a place like CALO, what do its detractors suggest instead? In our case it would have been jail or a lock-down psych facility.

Why not something in the community?  The general reasoning behind "treating" people against their will is that it should only be done if a person is a direct danger to themselves or others, and they should only be detained for as long as it takes to "stabilize" them.  What was your son/daughter doing (I assume you are a parent) that made incarceration without due process such a necessity?

[TigerEye]

Psy, I absolutely agree with you! There are lots of community interventions to be tried, and we did (mostly against my kid's will, too, by the way - I never got his full cooperation). Let's see, some of the things that contributed to the placement decision were fire-setting (he was facing criminal charges when he was placed), violent threats against school personnel, self-harm, drug use and drug sales, truancy, theft, non-compliance with curfew, etc. I suspect it is never an easy decision to place a child residentially, but there you are - my kid was a threat to himself and others, including the family.

[TigerEye]

Oh, sorry - I missed the first part of your post.

Well, you would have to ask Ken about the therapist thing, but in a group accountability session I don't think you necessarily need more than trained coaches. You are, of course, correct that dynamics change by our mere presence (what is the sound of a tree falling in the forest?...) but a) these sessions are done in the open and can be observed from any vantage point in the CALO facility, and b) places like the Family Foundation pride themselves with the confrontational style of those kinds of meetings, as a behavioral modification method. CALO's programs have a different premise.

[TigerEye]

P.S. Oh, and I don't think treatment should be a one-way street. I, too, see a therapist and a psychiatrist, plus I participate in family therapy. I definitely see the need for change at home and in my self. (Big difference from when I was a kid and my mom sent me away to a boarding school!)

[psy]

but in a group accountability session I don't think you necessarily need more than trained coaches.

Maybe it's the name, because so many programs have a different definition of "accountability", but something about it rubs me the wrong way.  Kids are, apparantly, confronted about things they are accused of doing.  Shame is used as a tool to affect change.  Without a therapist there, and even with a therapist, I can see that sort of thing getting very ugly very quickly, and It doesn't matter if the group is visible from any vantage point.  Words can't be seen, and reactions are often subtle.

The reason I asked Ken what the topics were in these "power groups" or "accountability groups" is because some of them, at least at other programs, can be grossly inappropriate for discussion in a group setting.  Take for example a kid who is confronted for... let's say masturbatory practices.  That sort of thing can cause lasting shame in a person to the point where it causes scars that affect their whole life.  Such topics should be dealt with quietly, in private, and with sensitivity.  Everybody does not have to know everything about everybody for therapy to work.  If there is no therapist in such groups, who is ensuring that these kids don't come out scarred?  I'd like to hear from Ken on that.

[psy]

Psy, I absolutely agree with you! There are lots of community interventions to be tried, and we did (mostly against my kid's will, too, by the way - I never got his full cooperation). Let's see, some of the things that contributed to the placement decision were fire-setting (he was facing criminal charges when he was placed), violent threats against school personnel, self-harm, drug use and drug sales, truancy, theft, non-compliance with curfew, etc. I suspect it is never an easy decision to place a child residentially, but there you are - my kid was a threat to himself and others, including the family.

I recognize it wasn't an easy decision, and i'm sorry it's one you felt you had to make, but there was no due process for your son, was there?  Was he convicted of a crime by a jury of his peers and sentenced?  Was it his choice to go to CALO?  Was CALO represented accurately to him at the time he was given a choice if that was so?

[Troll Control]

Dear Lizard Tits, aka Ken Hooey.

I know why you are posting here. It isn't going to work, unlike you, I'm not that big of an idiot.  We'll just have to wait and see what the future brings. We both know it won't be much longer.


As for Blombro:

CALO is every bit as toxic and disturbing as Thayer is and ever will be. You giving them any credit is a slap in the face to all of those kids jacked up in a bent wrist arm lock and thrown face first on the ground.


To the rest:

Keep in mind Mr. Ken Hooey has to protect his revenue flow. What businessman hasn't lied about his dealings to protect his profits? Don't be taken in by this scumbag.

Very nice and respectful language - Che. It is one way to avoid intelligent dialogue, eh?

One thing that comes to mind when thinking about the question "are kids free to leave" is this: are kids free to leave ANYWHERE? If my kid gets mad or upset about life in our home s/he isn't free to go. Also, in the public school they attend, they are not "free" to leave campus during the school day.

I have attended several of the CALO peer group sessions discussed earlier on this thread. There is no "screaming" or confrontation and if somebody doesn't want to talk, they can just sit there. At least two coaches are there to keep things respectful and on track, I suppose. CALO is not Elan or Family Foundation.

Most of the posters here disagree with the principle of RTCs in general, and are hell-bent to find specific "bad" things at CALO. Give it a break! And with regard to RTCs in general - if not a place like CALO, what do its detractors suggest instead? In our case it would have been jail or a lock-down psych facility.

Well, this is the paradoxical thinking we are asked to embrace when dealing with programs, isn't it?  On one hand the program says "We don't take violent, dangerous or criminal kids" and on the other hand the parents say "My kid would have been in jail or in a lockdown psych facility."  One of you isn't being honest.  

You can't say that your kid was such a danger to self or others that s/he couldn't remain at home and say at the same time that CALO is a safe environment that doesn't take kids with severe problems.  Either your kid isn't that bad and you're exaggerating (for the record I believe you) or CALO accepts dangerous and violent criminals (for the record I believe this is true).

One way or the other, we're asked to wilfully suspend disbelief in one case or the other and both statements can't be true, as they are mutually exclusive premises.

I also agree with Psy that it sounds like CALO does not use any clinically appropriate therapies.  Parents should never be allowed to sit in on group sessions (it violates so many privacy laws and ethical principles) and the people facilitating the groups have no educational basis upon which to perform this duty.

From just what Ken Huey and this one parent have posted, I can state unequivocally that CALO is not the place to send children.  Ken, Tiger, you've shot CALO in the foot trying to support it.

[Anonymous]

 
Well, this is the paradoxical thinking we are asked to embrace when dealing with programs, isn't it?  On one hand the program says "We don't take violent, dangerous or criminal kids" and on the other hand the parents say "My kid would have been in jail or in a lockdown psych facility."  One of you isn't being honest.  

  :notworthy:  :notworthy:  :deal:  :rocker:  :tup:  :tup: