We at FamilyLight sm learned recently of the closing of Mt. Bachelor Academy. Details of the information we have seen and heard about this are available on the following web pages:
KOHD News (local TV station in Bend, Oregon)
Bend Bulletin (local newspaper in Bend, Oregon)
Note that we cannot independently verify what is in those news items. We are satisfied that Mt. Bachelor Academy has closed. We are satisfied that whether or not Mt. Bachelor Academy was doing what the reports say the state accused them of, the state has at least suspended their operating license. A statement from Mt. Bachelor Academy is available from Woodbury Reports.
What was especially striking about these news items is that when we look at the reported allegations against the program, leading to license suspension, almost every item described was standard practice at the emotional growth schools of the 1980s and 1990s. What the State of Oregon is saying, if the news reports are accurate, is that historic standard emotional growth programming is abusive and illegal. We point out for emphasis, that except for reference to "sexualized rituals" the particular allegations appear to be a recitation of standard practices in emotional growth schools of the recent past.
I
t is about time some state took this action! That is, we would be pleased to see these procedures universally defined as illegal and basis for license revocation; however if the allegations we are hearing that the program was closed without due process or warning, we do not endorse that kind of high handed bureaucratic conduct. If it is true that state officials were in communication with management at Mount Bachelor Academy for six months or so, and that management was cooperatively making changes according to state's concerns, we are far from convinced that the state did not do more emotional harm with the sudden shutdown than any conceivable future risk from Mt. Bachelor Academy. We also are concerned about an action requiring sudden shutdown without any kind of hearing before an impartial hearing officer or other due process. What we are endorsing is the determination that the procedures described in the press are unacceptable; we have grave concerns about the state's procedure.
To be clear, some programs offer very positive interventions and call that "emotional growth." Our concern is with sleep depriving "seminars" or other marathon experiences where sleep deprivation might loosen tongues for some, but where the entire process is destructive to physical and emotional health. My concern is about group sessions in which students are expected to attack each other screaming sexually referenced obscenities at each other. Since brain imaging techniques became available more recently than when these emotional growth practices became fashionable, it is now possible to see what part of the brain "lights up" during any activity. What lights up when people are screaming at each other in anger? The parts of the brain associated with anger. Not the parts associated with rational thought. What lights up in sleep deprived people? Very little.
Where are outcome studies that show that the results of these procedures match or exceed the results of programming with up to date clinical services, emphasis on quality staff-student relationships, and firm limit setting? If you can answer that with something we have not seen we'll share it with our readers. But we doubt that it exists. Where is the justification for peer group sessions that essentially promote verbal bullying? Where is the justification for sleep deprivation? Where is the justification for "sexualized rituals performed in front of other students?" (We confess to ignorance as to what these rituals are)
We understand why many of these procedures looked good in the 1980s. But this is 2009. In the 1980s conscientious people were reacting to the undisputable fact that traditional mental health services were failing our children. Some of these methods appeared to be impacting kids who would not be helped by mental health services as they were then. But that is no longer true. Serious mental health intervention with acting out teens is now common -- and effective. We can support methods that appear to be harsh when there is a rational basis for believing that they will bring results where lesser methods will not. There was rational basis to believe that in the 1980s. In 2009 there is not.
Apologists for this kind of programming point to successes from these methods. Frankly, even the worst of programs have some successes and can produce parents and even former participants who will endorse the program as "producing miracles." Let's not get taken in. A few kids would just suddenly "get it" without intervention. Some just need a change of scenery. Others will clean up their acts solely on the basis of being in a structured environment without access to drugs. I think there is little evidence that these methods contribute to the gains made by the kids.
Former participants who are now employed by the program may speak of the harsh techniques they experienced as the basis for their success and tell the public that these methods are essential. This logic seems akin to defense of initiation rituals by street gangs.
All of that aside, the problem may be that schools and programs that used these methods when we thought they had merit, simply don't actually consider the possibility of not doing these things.
NATSAP, the professional organization of therapeutic programs claims in its Principles of Good Practice that its member do not engage in such practices. Specifically, that documents contains the following:
2.1.4.1 Programs/schools will have a clear mission statement, philosophy, and goals.
* The program/school philosophy, principles, and practices will be consistent with a humane and diverse society.
* The program/school will provide a nurturing, safe, and structured environment in which program participants are encouraged to develop healthy relationships, to express individual points of view, to accept diversity and to examine their own perspective of the world while respectfully engaging in critical discussion about the perspectives of others.
And
5.1 The program/school shall have a written Behavior Management Plan, which describes:
5.1.1 How human dignity and rights will be respected in the application of behavior management practices. . . .
Our question is, what is NATSAP doing to assure compliance with these provisions? They sound nice. But it is disingenuous for NATSAP to advertise these principles if they have members that do not meet these standards and nothing is done about it. We note that on this date, November 4, 2009, Mt. Bachelor Academy is still listed in the NATSAP online directory, suggesting that it was a NATSAP member.
I also point out there are at least two other NATSAP members that raise serious questions in my mind about compliance with the Principles of Good Practice -- and common sense. One member program (also accredited by The Joint Commission -- formerly known as JCAHO) places newly admitted male students in one large windowless basement room where they remain for at least a few weeks and possibly for several months. They leave that room only to use the bathroom and shower in the adjoining basement room. Females live under similar conditions, although their room has windows and it is above ground. We suspect that this treatment would be illegal for prison inmates.
Another school, also accredited by The Joint Commission and a NATSAP member allows staff to attempt to detect boys who masturbate in private and embarrass them. We hope this is not in front of their peers but we are not confident that it is not. If so, it raises the issue of school sponsored bullying. To be fair, we do not know that the school intends peer intervention on this point, but we do believe that what does occur is a totally inappropriate degrading invasion of privacy, sanctioned by management. (We might understand clinical attention to this behavior in the case of a young person with a history of sexually reactive or sexually inappropriate behaviors under the direction of licensed clinician specifically qualified in that area, but that attention, if indicated, should be in private and handled in a manner intended to respect the dignity of the individual involved. But that is not what is happening here. Further note, November 13, 2009: The school we are writing about has contacted us as a result of this blog entry and has reviewed the relevant policies and practices. We will go into detail on that when we next attend to a review of that school. We are very pleased that according to what the school reports, this issue has been resolved. The language shown, reflects our understanding of the school's policy as it was explained to us previously by the appropriate person at that school. We believe that the thoroughness with which this school approached this issue is ultimately a great credit to them.
Mt. Bachelor Academy is (was) owned by Aspen Education which is a part of CRC Health, owned by Bain Capital. It is our hope that this event will prompt Bain Capital through its subsidiaries CRC Health and Aspen Education to examine its schools, programs, and other facilities closely to ensure that practices such as the State of Oregon alleged are not taking place ever on their watch.
We would like to believe that the organizations like NATSAP and The Joint Commission would actually uphold the standards they profess. I would like believe that corporations like Aspen Education, CRC Health, and Bain Capital would not be profiting from child abuse. I would like to believe that responsible health care companies, professional associations, referring professionals, and the peer pressure between programs would be consistent in zero tolerance for this sort of thing. When this kind of think happens, it is a reflection on all of us who operate, invest in, or refer others to schools and programs. It invites government actions that would limit the ability of the best of programs to help young people effectively.
http://www.familylight.com/link3/3.02/Nov09.htm