Author Topic: Behrens Study vs. ASTART Debate thread  (Read 4470 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline blombrowski

  • Posts: 135
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Behrens Study vs. ASTART Debate thread
« Reply #15 on: May 30, 2013, 04:30:40 PM »
True, I was never in an organized thought reform program.  But surely long-term childhood institutionalization has to count for something?  And actually, thanks for the new thread.  

Data does count for something.  You can quantify the number of serious anxiety disorders, auto-immune deficiency disorders, addictions, and suicides that have happened post program.  How many youth who this would describe have parents who are still satisfied customers of the TTI.  

So to Whooter, what would you think about the interventions of the TTI, if most youth had what would be considered successful outcomes (high school and college graduation, successful employment, post program compliance with family rules) but we could show that a significant percentage of that same population had the conditions listed above (obviously suicide wouldn't be one of them).
« 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: Behrens Study vs. ASTART Debate thread
« Reply #16 on: May 30, 2013, 05:53:51 PM »
Quote from: "blombrowski"
True, I was never in an organized thought reform program.  But surely long-term childhood institutionalization has to count for something?  

I apologize.  I didn't mean to belittle your experience.  I totally forgot you mentioned that once.  I'd like to hear your story someday if that's OK with you.

You are right, however, that a thought reform environment is unique.
« 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 Whooter

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5513
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Behrens Study vs. ASTART Debate thread
« Reply #17 on: May 30, 2013, 08:58:46 PM »
Quote from: "psy"

But pharmaceuticals are much unlike the industry in that the FDA has to verify, with years of research and mountains of evidence, that a particular drug is safe before it is sold to the public.  The industry has never been held to any comparable standard. It makes it's own rules and you're darned right that who pays for a study and whether or not it's peer reviewed matters.  It's the difference between marketing and science.  If a program controls the data and pays for the "research", there is a good chance that it's going to make the program look good.  They wouldn't very well pay for it otherwise.  Even still, they make mistakes and drugs are recalled. More often than not, programs have to be shut down by the authorities or sued out of existence before they stop doing what they've always done.

Each side can pick and choose horrible events that occurred in programs or public school systems, college campuses to make their point that they are not 100% safe or that staff and people can be abusive, but the programs themselves are not designed to be abusive as you have indicated.  Giving these kids a highly structured environment has been very successful, psy, and since no outside agency has stepped forward to perform a study the programs themselves have paid for their own studies and tried to distance themselves as best they can from influencing the results by hiring and IRB (Independent Review board)  to oversee the study.  There will always be detractors, like yourself, who try to undercut the studies by saying things like the Framingham heart study is invalid because there were heart surgeons involved in the collection of data, for example, or the head of the study group previously worked in a hospital etc.    therefore the results are invalid!

A lot of work and effort went into these studies and the results are being used to market the TTI as they should be.  I dont think you could present a study that has not been used to market the product that was studied.



...
« 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 #18 on: May 30, 2013, 09:50:00 PM »
Quote from: "blombrowski"
True, I was never in an organized thought reform program.  But surely long-term childhood institutionalization has to count for something?  And actually, thanks for the new thread.  

Data does count for something.  You can quantify the number of serious anxiety disorders, auto-immune deficiency disorders, addictions, and suicides that have happened post program.  How many youth who this would describe have parents who are still satisfied customers of the TTI.  

So to Whooter, what would you think about the interventions of the TTI, if most youth had what would be considered successful outcomes (high school and college graduation, successful employment, post program compliance with family rules) but we could show that a significant percentage of that same population had the conditions listed above (obviously suicide wouldn't be one of them).


What parents look for are results and if the child is placed back on track and goes back to high school and graduates and then graduates from college etc. then most of them would feel the TTI was a success and I think most of us would agree this is a big step.  If the child commits suicide, becomes addicted to drugs etc. years after graduation no one would try to blame the program for that.  How could anyone tie that back?

Imagine a person with breast cancer who is recommended to have a mastectomy and then chemo therapy and the cancer goes into remission,  then a few years later the cancer comes back.  I dont think the family is going to try to blame the doctor who recommended the treatment or the mastectomy as the cause of her relapse.  Do you see what I mean?



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

Offline blombrowski

  • Posts: 135
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Behrens Study vs. ASTART Debate thread
« Reply #19 on: May 31, 2013, 06:57:07 AM »
Yes, I see what you mean, but it's a poor analogy.  Now, let's use your example, and let's say there was a doctor that was using an untested cancer treatment, that had a very high success rate for remission across a population of women, but within this cohort of women two years out they had a higher rate of relapse than a similar group of women who received traditional radiation and surgery.  As an individual I would be thanking the doctor for the period of remission, but if I got together with the rest of his patients, I might start to wonder why most of us relapsed.

Or, maybe we didn't relapse with cancer, but most of us developed liver damage.  As an individual, I would never attribute my liver damage to a breast cancer treatment, but if most of the other people who got the treatment had the same issue, I'd start asking questions.

For a long time I would have nightmares, and think obsessively about my hospital experience, and I always wondered if it was just me or is this a common experience.  When you're isolated you go about your business and get on with life.  Only after finding out about CAFETY did it dawn on me that there was a whole community of people who had shared experiences (even as different as mine was).

Forgive the following tangent- but where exactly are the community of program parents that are there to provide support to each other.  It's to me the one glaring gap that NATSAP/IECA have in their infrastructure, that presumably would make what they offer better.  Unless, the industry thrives off of the fact that parents of troubled teens are isolated and they prefer to stay that way (and I'm not trying to indicate that the industry does this intentionally, it just is)
« 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: Behrens Study vs. ASTART Debate thread
« Reply #20 on: May 31, 2013, 07:58:26 AM »
Quote from: "Whooter"
the programs themselves are not designed to be abusive as you have indicated.

No.  They're often not intended to be.  Malice or greed sometimes enters into the equation but it's not a requirement.  Many of these programs are created by people who are merely following what they were taught.  They experienced something they considered to be positive in the program they were in (as staff, participant, or both), and they decide to carry on that experience to others.  Often they believe they have a solution that is superior to psychology, to psychiatry -- to any sort of science.  They have the one true cure to all varieties of mental/social ills and it's their goal to bring it to all who need it, especially the children who in turn can bring the grand vision to others.

You see it all the time with religion, or with cults.  Evidence is not necessary and when it exists it's only to pander to those who demand it, and only so much as is necessary to obfuscate, to confuse, to keep the grand vision from any interference and provide it with a front of legitimacy to the uninitiated.  To me that's what these studies are.  Nothing more.  Of course you have to wonder what happens to the fundamentalist who is presented with hard evidence that their own methods do not work.

It reminds me of a bunch of Scientologists who once attempted to prove Hubbard's techniques to be scientifically valid using the scientific method.  Needless to say, they were all declared "supressive persons" for their efforts.  Not all of them lost their "faith", however (and ended up in the Free Zone if I recall).  In the industry I have to wonder what a program director who found out his methods didn't work would do.  A fundamentalist loses his faith and is confronted with the question: do I fake it and reap the benefits I've grown accustomed to -- perhaps trying to change things so they do work, do i deny the results of the study in the face of all the evidence, or do I admit defeat and leave?

My feeling is most on top choose the former -- often isolated from the results of what they've done.  Most of the boots on the ground, on the other hand, give up and leave after realizing all their efforts to treat kids and spread the grand vision was for naught, and that it might have actually done more harm than good.  I'd wager this is a good part of why the "grunt" staff turnover in so many programs is so high.  Eventually the facts on the ground that "shit just isn't working" becomes too much to ignore.  In the program I was in I witnessed two separate staff members expressing just this sentiment out loud.  One left.  One who was higher up attempted to change things.

Based on what I saw when returning later to survey the place, I don't think she was able to change much.  Perhaps she realized by changing the structure laid out by the founding fathers of theses systems, the thought reform environment would cease to function.  It's a bit like trying to redesign a car without even a basic understanding of mechanics.  Those who are able to manage, however, by comprehending the totality of the system -- those are the sociopaths.  They exist, but by and large I think most programs are rife with normal, misguided, people who are just trying to do what they can to help kids.  As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
« 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 #21 on: May 31, 2013, 10:44:16 AM »
"Designed to be abusive" might not be the right terminology - the intent in most programs is not to abuse.  However, my hypothesis is that the CEDU influenced programs are designed in such a way that it should be expected to cause harm.

Lifesteps, raps, etc. were designed to be stressful.  If I take a group of a hundred random people and prepare them for a marathon exactly the same way, some people are going to be successful and be in the best shape of their life.  Some people are going to finish the marathon, but have permanent knee damage.  And probably at least one person will suffer a fatal heart attack, either before, during, or after the marathon.  

The people for whom the CEDU process is successful become its advocates (starting or working in programs, becoming educational consultants, fundraising for the industry).  The people for whom it was not successful are generally silenced (at least until this forum was developed).  It doesn't take away the fact that anyone with a modicum of knowledge about psychology should have known that the CEDU process was likely to cause harm in some of the people who were served by it.

To Mike's point, whether forcing this stress upon a person in an effort to change their behavior, even if objectively it was in their own best interest is an ethical dilemma that I don't care to engage in.

What does matter to me, is exposing that these negative outcomes are real, that they exist, and if nothing else raising the bar in what the public considers to be a good outcome.  

Kids were dying in programs, not because they were merely accidents, but because there was a pattern of staff not taking health complaints seriously because youth were viewed as being manipulative as a baseline.  I hope that it finally got through to people that, deaths such as these were not acceptable, and that the culture of the industry has changed to at least assume that potential life-threatening conditions are real, before assuming the kid is lying.  3 1/2 years without a parent-choice industry program death.  I sincerely hope that it's not a fluke, and it's result of programs looking at their practices and making the programs safer.  The industry had for years tried to make it seem that deaths were rare compared to other physical activities, and minimize the danger.  Pressure by advocates has changed the calculus to where a program death, particularly one caused by neglect, can put a program out of business.  

Similarly, there have been programs that have recognized that the transition from program back to community is challenging, and that there are many youth that experience a J-curve, (I would argue that it's more like a backwards-J curve or at least a U-curve), so a number of programs have developed some kind of after-care program.  The presence of these after-care programs has led to the occasional use of them as preventative-care programs, keeping youth from going into programs to begin with.  

The industry takes a strictly capitalist, individualist, parents' rights model of treatment.  If we assume a highly transparent system (of which the industry is still very opaque, but not nearly as opaque as it was many years ago), where the customer and the consumer are the same (this will never be the case), this model should be expected to lead to good outcomes on it's own - as individuals will cease purchasing a product that they know doesn't work.  This is not an industry where we would expect the free-market to work.  On the other hand, CAFETY for instance, bends socialist, collectivist, youth rights perspective. We can debate ideology, and never get anywhere.  Or we can debate actual outcomes.  What we might be saying here that complicates things, is that the outcomes that matter to the customer (compliant, law-abiding, college educated) are different than the resulting outcomes to the consumer (constantly anxious, loss of identity, loss of community).

First we have to make the point that the internal outcomes that the person who experiences a program, actually exists.  Then the industry has to figure out if they can achieve the first set of outcomes without the second set of outcomes.  Then they have to figure out if it's profitable to do so.
« 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 #22 on: May 31, 2013, 04:24:58 PM »
Quote from: "blombrowski"
"Designed to be abusive" might not be the right terminology - the intent in most programs is not to abuse.  However, my hypothesis is that the CEDU influenced programs are designed in such a way that it should be expected to cause harm.

Lifesteps, raps, etc. were designed to be stressful.  If I take a group of a hundred random people and prepare them for a marathon exactly the same way, some people are going to be successful and be in the best shape of their life.  Some people are going to finish the marathon, but have permanent knee damage.  And probably at least one person will suffer a fatal heart attack, either before, during, or after the marathon.

I like that analogy better myself

Quote
The people for whom the CEDU process is successful become its advocates (starting or working in programs, becoming educational consultants, fundraising for the industry).  The people for whom it was not successful are generally silenced (at least until this forum was developed).  It doesn't take away the fact that anyone with a modicum of knowledge about psychology should have known that the CEDU process was likely to cause harm in some of the people who were served by it.

To Mike's point, whether forcing this stress upon a person in an effort to change their behavior, even if objectively it was in their own best interest is an ethical dilemma that I don't care to engage in.

I think the industry has to get better at screening individuals which will do well in a program.  For example, Aspergers kids would suffer inside one of these places and never get anything positive out of it.

Quote
What does matter to me, is exposing that these negative outcomes are real, that they exist, and if nothing else raising the bar in what the public considers to be a good outcome.
It isnt natural to expose ones dirty laundry or talk about the failures that one has encountered.  Its not good for business, but it doesn't mean they don't care.  

Quote
Kids were dying in programs, not because they were merely accidents, but because there was a pattern of staff not taking health complaints seriously because youth were viewed as being manipulative as a baseline.  I hope that it finally got through to people that, deaths such as these were not acceptable, and that the culture of the industry has changed to at least assume that potential life-threatening conditions are real, before assuming the kid is lying.  3 1/2 years without a parent-choice industry program death.  I sincerely hope that it's not a fluke, and it's result of programs looking at their practices and making the programs safer.  The industry had for years tried to make it seem that deaths were rare compared to other physical activities, and minimize the danger.  Pressure by advocates has changed the calculus to where a program death, particularly one caused by neglect, can put a program out of business.  

I was tracking Death rates in programs vs the public school system for years and posted them here on fornits periodically and it is encouraging that the TTI has seen safer times.  I think awareness and training has a lot to do with the decrease in deaths within the programs.

Quote
Similarly, there have been programs that have recognized that the transition from program back to community is challenging, and that there are many youth that experience a J-curve, (I would argue that it's more like a backwards-J curve or at least a U-curve), so a number of programs have developed some kind of after-care program.  The presence of these after-care programs has led to the occasional use of them as preventative-care programs, keeping youth from going into programs to begin with.  

This was a big issue with me at one time.  My daughter did not transition as easily as I would have liked and a more gradual hand-off from program to home life would have prevented a lot of problems and heartache on her part.  They have greatly improved in this area probably due to feed back from parents like myself.

Quote
The industry takes a strictly capitalist, individualist, parents' rights model of treatment.  If we assume a highly transparent system (of which the industry is still very opaque, but not nearly as opaque as it was many years ago), where the customer and the consumer are the same (this will never be the case), this model should be expected to lead to good outcomes on it's own - as individuals will cease purchasing a product that they know doesn't work.  This is not an industry where we would expect the free-market to work.  On the other hand, CAFETY for instance, bends socialist, collectivist, youth rights perspective. We can debate ideology, and never get anywhere.  Or we can debate actual outcomes.  What we might be saying here that complicates things, is that the outcomes that matter to the customer (compliant, law-abiding, college educated) are different than the resulting outcomes to the consumer (constantly anxious, loss of identity, loss of community).

First we have to make the point that the internal outcomes that the person who experiences a program, actually exists.  Then the industry has to figure out if they can achieve the first set of outcomes without the second set of outcomes.  Then they have to figure out if it's profitable to do so.

The industry has to continue to do a better job and continue to improve if it is to keep and/or expand its market base.  The industry needs to attract outside agencies willing and interested enough to review their procedures, conduct further studies mirror their polices etc. so that they get more visibility and grow.



...
« 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 #23 on: May 31, 2013, 04:55:00 PM »
Quote from: "psy"

  Most of the boots on the ground, on the other hand, give up and leave after realizing all their efforts to treat kids and spread the grand vision was for naught, and that it might have actually done more harm than good.  I'd wager this is a good part of why the "grunt" staff turnover in so many programs is so high.  Eventually the facts on the ground that "shit just isn't working" becomes too much to ignore.  In the program I was in I witnessed two separate staff members expressing just this sentiment out loud.  One left.  One who was higher up attempted to change things.

Based on what I saw when returning later to survey the place, I don't think she was able to change much.  Perhaps she realized by changing the structure laid out by the founding fathers of theses systems, the thought reform environment would cease to function.  It's a bit like trying to redesign a car without even a basic understanding of mechanics.  Those who are able to manage, however, by comprehending the totality of the system -- those are the sociopaths.  They exist, but by and large I think most programs are rife with normal, misguided, people who are just trying to do what they can to help kids.  As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I saw things a little differently.  The turn over rate is high because of the stress, long hours and dedication needed to make these programs successful.  I think if we were to measure the number of staff who watched these kids "to the end" and saw their growth at graduation, the number of staff who signed up for another group would be high.  All the staff that I met wanted to pick up a new peer group and start again.  Witnessing these kids transition and get reunited with their families was something they wanted to do again.  Some could not because of commitments to graduate school, career path obligations etc.



...
« 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 #24 on: May 31, 2013, 06:50:02 PM »
Quote from: "blombrowski"
3 1/2 years without a parent-choice industry program death.

http://wiki.fornits.com/index.php?title=Victims
« 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 #25 on: May 31, 2013, 07:19:36 PM »
Thanks for the fact check.  I was referring to specifically the kinds of circumstances found in the Aaron Bacon and Sergey Blauchstein deaths.  Deaths that could be directly attributed to program design in a "parent-choice" facility.  If we reduce the time frame to three years, the deaths listed are the function of "flukes" i.e. the traffic accident at Sunrise, or deaths in publicly funded group homes/rtcs i.e. Daystar, Leak & Watts.

The restraint deaths were all preventable, but can you just hear Whooter saying "well that's what you get with government funded residential".
« 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 #26 on: May 31, 2013, 08:45:12 PM »
Quote from: "blombrowski"
Thanks for the fact check.  I was referring to specifically the kinds of circumstances found in the Aaron Bacon and Sergey Blauchstein deaths.  Deaths that could be directly attributed to program design in a "parent-choice" facility.  If we reduce the time frame to three years, the deaths listed are the function of "flukes" i.e. the traffic accident at Sunrise, or deaths in publicly funded group homes/rtcs i.e. Daystar, Leak & Watts.

The restraint deaths were all preventable, but can you just hear Whooter saying "well that's what you get with government funded residential".

Blombrowski, not sure how long you have been posting here, but this is the mentality that has been dominant here on Fornits over the past several years.  Imagine if a child was hit by a car on the way home from public school and a web site similar to fornits with a poster like "Pile of Dead Kids" was trying to spin the accident into the public school system being an abusive environment and wanting to shut down all public schools.  If we applied this same criteria (mentality) to public schools we would have a death list a mile long.  There are  some people who are so anti program that they somehow tricked themselves into believing that any circumstance of death is the responsibility of the program no matter how removed the child was.  Even Psy, who seems very well educated,  attributed a persons relapse into alcohol at age 43 to a program that they attended as a teen when we were talking about Barbara Walters daughter and her recent DUI arrest.

I am glad that you are able to differentiate and see that deaths like restraint deaths are those that we should be focusing on when focusing on the industry, not car accidents or DUI's at middle age.



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

Judge Joe

  • Guest
Re: Behrens Study vs. ASTART Debate thread
« Reply #27 on: May 31, 2013, 09:29:06 PM »
Quote from: "Whooter"
Quote from: "psy"

  Most of the boots on the ground, on the other hand, give up and leave after realizing all their efforts to treat kids and spread the grand vision was for naught, and that it might have actually done more harm than good.  I'd wager this is a good part of why the "grunt" staff turnover in so many programs is so high.  Eventually the facts on the ground that "shit just isn't working" becomes too much to ignore.  In the program I was in I witnessed two separate staff members expressing just this sentiment out loud.  One left.  One who was higher up attempted to change things.

Based on what I saw when returning later to survey the place, I don't think she was able to change much.  Perhaps she realized by changing the structure laid out by the founding fathers of theses systems, the thought reform environment would cease to function.  It's a bit like trying to redesign a car without even a basic understanding of mechanics.  Those who are able to manage, however, by comprehending the totality of the system -- those are the sociopaths.  They exist, but by and large I think most programs are rife with normal, misguided, people who are just trying to do what they can to help kids.  As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I saw things a little differently.  The turn over rate is high because of the stress, long hours and dedication needed to make these programs successful.  I think if we were to measure the number of staff who watched these kids "to the end" and saw their growth at graduation, the number of staff who signed up for another group would be high.  All the staff that I met wanted to pick up a new peer group and start again.  Witnessing these kids transition and get reunited with their families was something they wanted to do again.  Some could not because of commitments to graduate school, career path obligations etc.



...

In addition to what Whooter said, the turnover rate in programs are high because:

1.  Management fails to support lower level staff
2.  Management fails to  provide employees with adequate training  
3.  Management enforces the old "unwritten rules"
4.  Management fails to screen violent kids
5.  Management fails to hire more staff compromising the safety of other children
« 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 #28 on: May 31, 2013, 09:43:19 PM »
Quote from: "blombrowski"
Thanks for the fact check.  I was referring to specifically the kinds of circumstances found in the Aaron Bacon and Sergey Blauchstein deaths.  Deaths that could be directly attributed to program design in a "parent-choice" facility.  If we reduce the time frame to three years, the deaths listed are the function of "flukes" i.e. the traffic accident at Sunrise, or deaths in publicly funded group homes/rtcs i.e. Daystar, Leak & Watts.

The restraint deaths were all preventable, but can you just hear Whooter saying "well that's what you get with government funded residential".

There shouldn't be any such thing as a private-public partnership when it comes to incarcerating anyone, child or adult. The concept is an abdication of responsibility and leads directly to abuse and death. Giving someone's life over to a private entity should be banned by Constitutional amendment.

Even if you discount those, the Rose Rock facility, where Joseph Winters was killed, is entirely private. He did something they didn't like, they jumped on him, he struggled, and they killed him at once and deleted the video recording. Frankly I count him among the lucky ones; he never had to endure much of the program at all.
« 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 Whooter

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5513
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Behrens Study vs. ASTART Debate thread
« Reply #29 on: May 31, 2013, 10:13:34 PM »
Quote from: "Pile of Dead Kids"
There shouldn't be any such thing as a private-public partnership when it comes to incarcerating anyone, child or adult. The concept is an abdication of responsibility and leads directly to abuse and death. Giving someone's life over to a private entity should be banned by Constitutional amendment.

Pile, You would get along with my neighbor so well.  His wife home schools all his kids and does not believe in incarcerating any of them into a private or public setting.  His wife was abused as a child in the public school system and now doesn't believe in government or privately run programs.  When we speak of my daughters experiences he writes the whole thing off to just lucky that she did well and that all government programs are treating everyone the same with no individualized training.
There are a lot of people who just feel the family should take care of their own children no matter what and they should not seek outside help.  I don't believe in that on every level but I respect peoples opinion and their right to raise their children the way they think is the best for them.



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