Author Topic: Programs and Politics: a connection?  (Read 1472 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline psy

  • Administrator
  • Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 5602
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
    • http://homepage.mac.com/psyborgue/
Programs and Politics: a connection?
« on: June 01, 2013, 09:40:47 AM »
Quote from: "blombrowski"
The industry takes a strictly capitalist, individualist, parents' rights model of treatment.
Sorry, what there?  Parents' rights I grant you but capitalism is irrelevant and it seems to me a viewpoint that respects the individual would very much be in opposition to the industry.  I'm not trying to jump on you but do keep in mind that bringing politics into an argument unnecessarily alienates half your audience (and likely more than half of those who count in this case).
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Benchmark Young Adult School - bad place [archive.org link]
Sue Scheff Truth - Blog on Sue Scheff
"Our services are free; we do not make a profit. Parents of troubled teens ourselves, PURE strives to create a safe haven of truth and reality." - Sue Scheff - August 13th, 2007 (fukkin surreal)

Offline blombrowski

  • Posts: 135
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Behrens Study vs. ASTART Debate thread
« Reply #1 on: June 01, 2013, 04:58:12 PM »
I'm not trying to indicate that capitalism is bad.  It's capitalism that respects the parent as an individual customer, that I was referring to.  One of the differences between the TTI and publicly funded residential treatment, are the lengths to which facilities compete over individual parents, by catering to those individuals selling points.

Facilities in the TTI are more exposed to the whims of the private marketplace than publicly funded residential treatment.  Truth campaigns against UHS have had no impact on their market share, yet truth campaigns against WWASP, Élan, FFS, and Aspen has.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Pile of Dead Kids

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 758
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Behrens Study vs. ASTART Debate thread
« Reply #2 on: June 01, 2013, 10:29:49 PM »
I'll just leave this here:

Quote from: "Dorit Beinisch, President of the Israeli Supreme Court"
Israel's basic legal principles hold that the right to use force in general, and the right to enforce criminal law by putting people behind bars in particular, is one of the most fundamental and one of the most invasive powers in the state's jurisdiction. Thus when the power to incarcerate is transferred to a private corporation whose purpose is making money, the act of depriving a person of his liberty loses much of its legitimacy. Because of this loss of legitimacy, the violation of the prisoner's right to liberty goes beyond the violation entailed in the incarceration itself.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/ne ... ael-1.3774
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
...Sergey Blashchishen, James Shirey, Faith Finley, Katherine Rice, Ashlie Bunch, Brendan Blum, Caleb Jensen, Alex Cullinane, Rocco Magliozzi, Elisa Santry, Dillon Peak, Natalynndria Slim, Lenny Ortega, Angellika Arndt, Joey Aletriz, Martin Anderson, James White, Christening Garcia, Kasey Warner, Shirley Arciszewski, Linda Harris, Travis Parker, Omega Leach, Denis Maltez, Kevin Christie, Karlye Newman, Richard DeMaar, Alexis Richie, Shanice Nibbs, Levi Snyder, Natasha Newman, Gracie James, Michael Owens, Carlton Thomas, Taylor Mangham, Carnez Boone, Benjamin Lolley, Jessica Bradford's unnamed baby, Anthony Parker, Dysheka Streeter, Corey Foster, Joseph Winters, Bruce Staeger, Kenneth Barkley, Khalil Todd, Alec Lansing, Cristian Cuellar-Gonzales, Janaia Barnhart, a DRA victim who never even showed up in the news, and yet another unnamed girl at Summit School...

Offline blombrowski

  • Posts: 135
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Behrens Study vs. ASTART Debate thread
« Reply #3 on: June 01, 2013, 11:03:09 PM »
You know, there are Yeshivas in Israel that function like some of the Mormon programs (the church affiliated ones) in Utah.  Not particularly driven by capitalism, as these programs are largely supported by private donations.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Whooter

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5513
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Behrens Study vs. ASTART Debate thread
« Reply #4 on: June 02, 2013, 07:34:41 PM »
Quote from: "Pile of Dead Kids"
I'll just leave this here:

Quote from: "Dorit Beinisch, President of the Israeli Supreme Court"
Israel's basic legal principles hold that the right to use force in general, and the right to enforce criminal law by putting people behind bars in particular, is one of the most fundamental and one of the most invasive powers in the state's jurisdiction. Thus when the power to incarcerate is transferred to a private corporation whose purpose is making money, the act of depriving a person of his liberty loses much of its legitimacy. Because of this loss of legitimacy, the violation of the prisoner's right to liberty goes beyond the violation entailed in the incarceration itself.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/ne ... ael-1.3774

Privatizing the prisons would never be a good idea, as much as like keeping the government as small as possible.  If a corporation is being paid to incarcerate someone then there is no incentive to ever let him out or to complete the sentence.  Very dangerous.



...
« 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: Programs and Politics: a connection?
« Reply #5 on: June 03, 2013, 04:10:01 AM »
Keep going with that angle Wootie, you are almost there...

Though I'll maintain that public programs aren't any better than private ones in terms of safety and efficiency. Not sure I'm even comfortable with the idea of efficiency being bandied around with troubled people. Has a very Sigma Six sort of flavor with it.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline psy

  • Administrator
  • Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 5602
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
    • http://homepage.mac.com/psyborgue/
Re: Programs and Politics: a connection?
« Reply #6 on: June 03, 2013, 08:34:52 AM »
Quote from: "blombrowski"
I'm not trying to indicate that capitalism is bad.  It's capitalism that respects the parent as an individual customer, that I was referring to.  One of the differences between the TTI and publicly funded residential treatment, are the lengths to which facilities compete over individual parents, by catering to those individuals selling points.

Facilities in the TTI are more exposed to the whims of the private marketplace than publicly funded residential treatment.  Truth campaigns against UHS have had no impact on their market share, yet truth campaigns against WWASP, Élan, FFS, and Aspen has.

I think you have a very valid point, but at the same time I don't think that public programs are any better.  Parent choice versus Government choice.  I'd almost tend to err with Parent Choice on this one being an absence of kid's choice.  I mean aren't they still digging up bodies at that government funded place in Florida.  China's "treatment" programs for video game "addiction" hardly sound very nice and I'd tend to think most of the abuse at these public facilities goes unnoticed a lot more than at private facilities.  It's not like i'm trying to argue one is better than the other. I'm just saying they're both bad but often in different ways.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Benchmark Young Adult School - bad place [archive.org link]
Sue Scheff Truth - Blog on Sue Scheff
"Our services are free; we do not make a profit. Parents of troubled teens ourselves, PURE strives to create a safe haven of truth and reality." - Sue Scheff - August 13th, 2007 (fukkin surreal)

Offline blombrowski

  • Posts: 135
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Programs and Politics: a connection?
« Reply #7 on: June 03, 2013, 01:15:17 PM »
Bad but in different ways, I think sums it up.  But in definable ways that are predictable given who the customer is in each case.  The kinds of reform that are achievable in each system are also different in terms of scope and speed that are also predictable.

There is an ethos in the TTI that says, "let the market sort it out", the "good programs" will rise to the top, and the "bad programs" will go out of business.  The TTI is largely in the business of alleviating parental anxiety about whether or not their child will grow into acceptable adults - that may have all kinds of negative side effects as programs try to achieve that goal at market price point (i.e. the price that parents are willing to pay that programs are willing to stay in business for) but there's an identifiable "product" in the process.

In the public sector system, the product is mostly centered around public safety (regardless whether it's the mental health, juvenile justice, or foster care system) and less about the individual youth.  And as the customers are often the same people as the licensors, as long as programs meet minimum standards (defined by the state agency), those programs are likely to stay in business.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »