***Here is the thing: in my view, these schools have three components: behavioral, educational, and psychological.
In truth, there are but two components: educational (if the kids are lucky) and psychological- as the behavioral component is an aspect of psychology and is presented as ?therapy?.
*** These are not mental institutions, where psychological/psychiatric management is the one overriding approach (although even there, there are often behavioral and other specialists playing an important role). Much of what these kids need is structure, discipline, and consistent reinforcement which they are not getting at home? It is true that behavior modification was formalized within the discipline of psychology, but the principles underlying it have existed, I would guess, since human beings had cognition?
Given this, that programs are basically providing parenting (structure and discipline), should insurance companies be paying for ?treatment?? Should parents seek IEP funds for their ?disabled? child? Should parents take tax deductions for visiting their ?disabled? child at the facility? Can?t have it both ways. They?re either boarding schools providing ?firm but kind? parenting, or psych facilities providing ?treatment?. It is fraudulent to classify your operation as a boarding school to avoid regulations and monitoring, yet advertise to the public as a therapeutic facility and accept money for children with ?disabilities?.
***In an emotional growth atmosphere, where the ultimate hope is to put the child in touch with his or her emotional self, and to promote self-love and care, this reinforcement must be done with kindness and concern, as well as firmness--it appears that for some of the people here, this requirement was not met.
I fail to see how isolation from one?s family, harsh punishments for minor infractions (kind?)- misuse of BM, inappropriate ?peer pressure?, denial of basic needs, touch deprivation, being subjected to deception and double standards, could possibly foster self love. I think 'success' depends more on the kid?s ability to ACT. To demonstrate the behaviors that have been deemed appropriate. It?s not just ?some? people, but the majority- as all programs employ these techniques. The whole concept is flawed, in my opinion, because children don?t flourish in ?programs?. They need families- people who genuinely love and care for them; and thoughtful helpers who, with any hope, can assist the PARENTS in fostering better relationships with their children.
In spite of your best intentions, you (or any program you are associated with) are not going to replace the role of family. The only way to help teens or parents is to help the parent gain an understanding of how to treat their teen respectfully.
***You have to remember that thre are kids in the adolescent years who really do not belong in a psychiatric institution and yet their behavior makes it impossible for them to be cared for safely at home.
I disagree. Three to five thousand dollars a month could buy all the resource a family needs, at home. It?s simply more convenient to place the kid in residential ?treatment?. The primary benefit is to the parent- eases their exaggerated fears that their kid will end up in jail or dead, when the statistics do not warrant such an extreme and austere reaction. Of course, insurance will not pay for a big brother or an elder mentor, or extra-curricular activities, or any of the other possible resources a parent might find locally.
*** I have a sense that a portion of, though not all, of the problems that the unfavorable outcomes represent, is poor program placement. Some kids maybe got placed in these kinds of schools for problems that really could have been managed at home
If you eliminate the kids who could?ve been ?managed at home? and those who have ?serious psychological problems?, your market has dwindled to a very small percentage of kids. Kids like your own, who are going through the natural and necessary developmental phase of separating- rebelling against authority. Kids are wrongly placed everyday- all of them in my opinion, and ?some? in your?s. The reason- programs exist to make a profit and integrity is therefore compromised on every level. You may find yourself compromising for this very reason.
Helping teens get in touch with their ?emotional selves? sounds nice and therapeutic, in theory. In reality, I don?t see this happening. Teens are subjected to adult forms of ?therapy?. They are not taught how to advocate for themselves or the skills necessary to negotiate and compromise. Their feelings and thoughts are evaluated and judged on a daily basis. They are not given accurate information. They are conditioned to think and perceive as the counselor or program does. Too many times they are outright told that their parents don?t care about them. That may be true, but it isn?t something that needs to be used against the child in order to gain compliance.
In fact, they actually appear to be holding tanks for teens until they have passed their most challenging developmental phase. A service for parents. I?ve heard many a parent express relief that their teen is incarcerated because they do not want to be fiscally or socially responsible for their kid?s behavior. And further, that they can?t wait until their kid reaches 18, at which time they will be put on the streets to fend for themselves.
***So what I am seeing as major pitfalls in the programs at this point are: 1)the danger of not hiring staff with the personal qualities that allow for kindness and firmness, as well training or some kind of knowledge of adolescents?
That doesn?t appear to be the goal. Programs train their staff in their particular techniques. Staff are often young and are trained to see everything as black or white. No grey. No compromise, no negotiation, no democracy. They follow the program manual and miss vital clues from the kids, opportunities in which they could help the teen explore and dismantle some of the misperceptions they?ve formulated in their wacked out homes and communities. You can not ?teach? or train someone how to be kind and loving. Those qualities are either present or not, stemming from one?s own life experience- if they?ve been respected or just taught to defer to authority.
Case in point. My son told me that he didn?t feel like he was getting enough time with his counselor- the female peer group leader. Given that we had always had a close and open relationship, something his father envied and resented; I imagined that he might just be needing some motherly nurturing. Some ?unstructured? time with his new pseudo-mom. An adult who would show interest in his extra-curricular activities (baseball). I innocently mentioned this, assuming we held the same beliefs about what kids need, to her and asked if she?d give him some one-on-one time and perhaps allow him to talk about it if it came up. What she gave him was a lengthy lecture on how much time he was given (in group, btw), how many kids they had to deal with, and then placed him on restriction for ?manipulating? me. This was so unethical I could hardly believe it was happening. She first violated my confidence and the trust between my son and I. She made no attempt to assess what his real need was. Even if it was a poorly expressed need for nurturing, was punishment in order? And she never found time to attend a baseball game. Genuine needs are left unmet because their lazer focus is on emotional growth in groups which are poorly done and cause more harm than good. The truth is, she didn't genuniely care about him, or have a vested interest in providing his real needs. She was there to do a job, the way the program had instructed her.
When I addressed this issue with the headmaster he chose not to defend or explain the therapeutic thinking behind this approach. He would not speak to me because I didn?t write the checks. I have spoken to parents who were writing the checks. If they disagreed with or challenged the program?s policies or procedures, they were labeled ?adversarial?. If they bucked the system too much they were asked to remove their child, and then were not refunded pre-paid tuition because they ?removed? their child. I have looked hard for anything ethical about this industry. I can?t find it.
Believe me, I think there are kids who could benefit from being away from their screwed-up parents. Who would benefit from living in a democratic group, learning valuable life skills. Fuck a bunch of emotional growth groups and workshops. Emotional growth is a by-product of being treated with respect. That is the only way it is ?taught?. If I thought for a minute that this industry was providing this, I?d be a strong advocate. And if the industry truly met the kids needs, teens would be lining up outside to get in.
**And, at least at the time we were involved in the school, the staff, across the board was pretty wonderful; there is a lot of turnover in this line of work, I admit that maybe it was not always wonderful for other times and places.
You may benefit from listening to the ex-staff. There is a very high turnover. I imagine the die-hards who stay in the industry are those who gain pleasure from BMing kids to death and who are incapable of having a genuinely authentic relationship with them. They are about ?fixing? these ?emotional terrorists? and too often gain pleasure from abusing them.
And then there are those who work underground in the programs. My son had such a counselor in wilderness. An older, experienced professional, who was also genuinely a good person. While the field staff were ex-military and subjected him to unnecessary abuse and excessively dangerous situations that were not age appropriate, he preferred the wilderness program to the TBS. Because, in his own words, ?the ?therapy? at the TBS was bullshit.?
The wilderness counselor approved letters that would never have gotten out of the TBS. She didn?t place value judgments on his expressions or try to manipulate his interpretations of things. She validated his feelings and never punished him for complaining. She actually validated his perceptions of the lame-ass ?therapy? at the TBS. She consistently gave him appreciation for his intelligence, emotional maturity, clarity of perception and leadership qualities. She understood that he had not acquired these qualities while incarcerated and never attributed them to the program. He genuinely appreciated her for her wisdom and willingness to be honest. She was a guardian angel, the only rational and reasonable person he (we) encountered. She also often appreciated me for the fine job I had done raising him. Because he has always been tall for his age, she told me that she thought he was 17 or 18. He was 15. She was also honest enough to say that my son should not be there. Something I already knew, but it was comforting to have a staff member at the facility finally acknowledge this. Did she advocate for his removal? No. It would?ve been pointless, because as other ex-staff have said, they do not want staff interfering with the way they run their business. The only thing she could do was approve letters telling the truth about what was happening there and provide indirectly support for my efforts to have him removed. She gave me ample ammunition for my cause, had there not been other extenuating circumstances.
Everyone who had contact with my son knew he was ?wrongly? placed, but his presence ensured another $5000 + a month to help keep the boat floating.
Since his father had bought it hook, line, and sinker; they perjured themselves in order to convince the court that I was ?adversarial? and that my son needed ?treatment?. Unethical, self-serving. That is what this industry is about. And if you consider my experience to be an isolated incident, you are sorely mistaken.
There are many, many parents who paid for their teens incarceration and arrived at the very same conclusions I did. They choose to chalk it up to a mistake rather than taking an active role in educating other parents about the reality of the industry.
