Therapeutic Wilderness Camping

[Antny]

Hi all,
I realize I may be stepping into a hornet's nest with this, but I want to know what people really think about Wilderness Camps.

I spent 5 years as a counselor at Woodside Trails Therapeutic Camp near Bastrop, TX.  It was recently shut down by the state, and I have to say that I truly believe it was WRONG to shut it down.  Of course, the population there was mostly juvenile sex offenders, it wasn't a trekking program, it was residential.  I will leave this open to the opinions of others, as I already know my own.  Anyhow...there's the thread.  I look foreward to hearing from people.  I do intend to testify in the case at the TX legislative level.  I'd like to have as much input from all sides as possible.
Thanks[ This Message was edited by: Antny on 2004-11-02 07:59 ]

[Nihilanthic]

What the people in there did is irrelevant to us.

We only care what the methods are, and how the 'treatment' is carried out.

My question is this - just how exactly does living in the woods have a damn thing to do with treating anything except a need for fresh air? Therapy for emotional and mental problems just doesn't happen by itself, and certainly not just because of where you happen to be.

Other things you can expect to hear is that the environment itself - being straded out in the woods with a bunch of people - might actually be creating pressure on the kids within, and living in relative squallor can be considered abusive.

Also, of course, whether or not their problems are fixed, or they're just 'spitshined' to act good and not tell how they feel, and do their work. Which does make the kid seem 'good' and makes the parents and authorities happy, but they're still troubled by the problems inside that were not fixed.

But well, I wasn't there, so I don't KNOW, I'm asking questions. Yes, this is a 'hornets nest' so to speak, We've had more than enough WWASPS around here :wink: and we tend to be very distrustful. We've run into more than enough secrecy, brainwashing, seminars, abuse, manipulation, and apathy seeing this troubled industry from the point of view of the parents and the kids within who had something to say that didn't match with the program's press releases, afterall.

Basically, our opinion is - prove it works, show its methods, demonstrate the results, and make sure that if someone is being abused or hurt they have a way to get help. If the spotlight is on the programs they're going to HAVE to work - just like how if the spotlight is on a incarcerated child, they have to act straight themselves.

The United States of America should have a foundation free from the influence of clergy.".
--George Washington, Revolutionary War General and U.S. President

[Anonymous]

Once again Antny: How do you treat a sex offender with any success rate?

[nite owl]

Here is a recent article regarding this. It seems some little boys were sexual abused there. I think that is just cause for closing the place down. Way to go TEXAS ------- :nworthy:  :nworthy:  :nworthy:  :nworthy:  :nworthy:  :nworthy:  :nworthy:  :nworthy:  :nworthy:

Analysis: Texas child agency examined


By Phil Magers
UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL


Dallas, TX, Aug. 16 (UPI) -- A leading Texas legislator Monday said more than money will be needed to correct problems in the state's embattled child-protection agency.

State Rep. Carlos Uresti, chairman of the House Human Services Committee, said the state needs more caseworkers, but the caseworkers also need supporting staff, more training and more services to help troubled families.

"Our caseworkers are carrying way too many cases," he said. "The average worker has between 40 and 50 cases per month."

Some national experts recommend between 12 and 18 cases per caseworker, the San Antonio Democrat said.

Child Protection Services, the state's lead agency in the investigation of child abuse, is under investigation itself.

Gov. Rick Perry ordered the international review after a grand jury in South Texas indicted the department that supervises CPS for failing to prevent abuse.

CPS has also been under fire after allegations of neglect, abuse and death in cases that critics say caseworkers could have prevented because of previous visits to the homes. In the South Texas case, the workers in Hidalgo County failed to prevent the sexual assault of three sisters.

 :exclaim:  :exclaim:  :exclaim:  :exclaim:  :exclaim: On Friday CPS removed 22 foster boys from a primitive wilderness camp southeast of Austin after the local sheriff charged two former workers with sexually abusing youngsters. The boys were referred there by CPS caseworkers.

Uresti's concern in that case is that foster boys were sent to The Woodside Trails Therapeutic Camp. He said there were 9-year-old boys living for two to three years in the outdoors in rugged conditions, although under supervision.

"I could see some value in being out there for a week or two weeks," he said. "You get your head together. You no longer have the distraction of the big city. You're away from your family, but these kids were there for two to three years."

Geoff Wool, a spokesman for the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, said CPS workers removed the boys after receiving four allegations. He would not disclose the nature of the allegations.

The Department of Family and Protective Services not only supervises CPS, the agency also licenses care facilities like Woodside Trails. Wool said an investigation of the camp is under way and the facility could lose its license.

Wool said there are seven therapeutic camps, but Woodside Trails is the only one that is considered primitive. He said on Friday there were also several boys at the camp from juvenile probation and three boys placed there by individual families.

Bebe Gaines, executive director at Woodside, said Monday she wished the state officials had taken the time to talk to the boys and their families before removing them. She said the boys were safe and should not have been taken away.

"It was terrible for them to have to leave," she said.

Gaines said Monday that seven of the boys on juvenile probation were also removed after with the foster boys left.

State Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn, who has been campaigning for changes in the Texas foster-care system since July, applauded the removal the children.

"It's about time," she said. "I have been calling for reforms in the foster-care program since my report was released in April. I trust the children at Woodside Trails will be put in facilities or homes where they will receive the best of care. I hope this is the beginning in a change of attitude at the agency and the needs of the children will be put first, where they should have been all along."

Woodside officials have accused Strayhorn of using false allegations in a campaign for higher office. Strayhorn, a Republican, has been mentioned as a possible challenger to Perry next year in the GOP primary race for governor.

Last July Strayhorn said the agency had taken action on only seven of the 87 recommendations she had called for in her review of Texas foster care, called "Forgotten Children."

Uresti said his committee hopes to have recommendations for the 2005 legislative session. Perry's internal investigation is also expected to file a report by the end of this year.

Not only are more caseworkers needed, Uresti said, they must receive more than six weeks of training. They need some legal instruction, investigative help and backup services.

"Our families are much more complicated than they were in the past," he said.

Uresti said a father might have a substance-abuse problem, a mother a mental illness, and the child might be a victim of physical or sexual abuse.

"You have a caseworker with six weeks of experience trying to fix these problems, and then she must decide whether to remove the child and where to place him," the lawmaker said.

Uresti said he is working with caseworkers and other local officials in San Antonio to develop a model for handling child-abuse investigations.

"We are going to put together a model here in San Antonio that we can hopefully roll out across Texas," he said.

--

(Please send comments to nationaldesk@upi.com.)
 
 Yes - I think that facilities where children are sexually abused should be closed.....Is there anyone who does not agree?  ::  ::
 
 

Eskimo: "If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?"
Priest: "No, not if you did not know."
Eskimo: "Then why did you tell me?"
--Annie Dillard, "Pilgrim at Tinker Creek"

[ This Message was edited by: nite owl on 2004-11-02 15:08 ]

[Antny]

Not true...9 year olds were NEVER sexually abused there.  That's not even what the article you posted said.

Ok, Thanks for the feedback.  You want to know the methodology there.  I can give it to you.  I actually wrote the training manual (140 pages) for Woodside, so I feel relatively qualified to explain the methodology.

I'm at work right now, so let me get back to you soon with more details.  Gotta cook dinner for my clients.

[nite owl]

OK - there were four complaints of sexual abuse, and boys as young as 9 are there..... So how old were these boys who alleged sexual abuse?  
Were the two "former" staff members fired?  Did they actually abuse these children? If there were four who spoke out - perhaps there were more. Apparently 22 children are suing CPS for sending them there.  Something may have been wrong.  
These programs have very little oversite from the authorities or from the outside world. As a result children are extremely vulnerable to abuse of all kinds.  This is well known and well documented.  Casa by the Sea was also shut down as a result of abuse allegations by a few students. (there were also signs of abuse)
Frequently these programs get away with everything because they tell the authorities that the children are lying manipulators.  
I tend to disagree. The same could be said for everyone who complains about maltreatment at a hospital or other facility.  
I work at a hospital where patient complaints are taken extremely seriously. Unfortunatly the same is not true for the youth industry because the children are disenfranchised and often do not have the support of their parents.  
I tend to believe kids when they complain of abuse. It's hard for a kid to disclose that they were victims of sexual assault or abuse.  It's often something they just want to forget about because they are so ashamed.  
I was sexually molested at the age of 7 and had a hard time telling my mother what happened. I just wanted to hide in a corner - in fact that's what I did. I went to the closet and hid in a corner. That's when she knew that something was wrong. I'm over it now - but I will never forget.  
So - I for one - believe kids when they say they were sexually abused.    

Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.
--Napoleon Bonaparte, French emperor

[Anonymous]

Look, I can sympathize with the hard truth that children who are actively physically dangerous to others have to be incarcerated.  I think prisons should be humane, but not the Hilton.  In that broad continuum, I lean more towards the humane side.

I understand that it may be impossible to rehabilitate childhood sex offenders.  Some people are just so broken that the most effective treatment we have is quarantine to prevent them from abusing and damaging other kids who would then be likely to become abusers, etc.

Personally, *I* care why they're there.

I think there is a *huge* difference between A) a psychologically normal teen with butthead parents; B) a mentally ill teen the primary manifestation of whose illness is *not* a tendency towards criminal misbehavior; and C) a criminal teen whose violence is not of the diagnosis type to respond well to antipsychotic drugs.

There is an *enormous* difference between innocent teens, sick teens, and criminal teens.

The innocent, healthy teens should absolutely not be incarcerated *at all*---no more than any other innocent man or woman of *any* age should be.

The conventionally mentally ill teens *may* need to be confined until they can be stabilized on medication, or permanently if they're immediately dangerous and treatment doesn't work to stabilize them.

The criminal teens are very, very similar to criminal adults.  They have to be incarcerated for the protection of others, but the incarceration needs to be humane.  If they can be persuaded (that's talk, not coercion) to change their lives while they're still young and get off the criminal path, they should be.  If they can't, recognize the incarceration for what it is: quarantine.

There *is* no effective treatment for sociopathy.  We don't have one.  Maybe psychiatry will have a treatment someday.  That treatment will probably involve early childhood intervention to prevent at-risk children from being really, really stupid.  For some unknown reason, the overwhelming majority of sociopaths are really stupid and have poor capabilities to visualize and imagine things.  But regardless, requiring effective treatment for sociopaths is impossible.  There *is* no effective treatment.

Those very truths--that some shouldn't be incarcerated at all, some have problems we can treat, and some have problems that are untreatable makes it matter a whole hell of a lot why a particular teen is incarcerated.

This is one of the reasons I'm so big on Safeguards.  Well teens, or non-dangerous mentally ill teens, should be kept *out* of RTCs.  Dangerously mentally ill teens should be identified and placed in illness-appropriate effective treatments.  Allegedly criminal teens should not be allowed to merely be placed by their parents--they should get the full protection of due process of law in trial and, if convicted, sentencing; prison conditions should be humane, not cruel.

Timoclea
What I want is ROSES.
Reform. Oversight. Safeguards. Enforcement. Sunshine.

[Antny]

OK, before I get into the methodology, let me set the landscape for this story.  It's not so difficult to understand that juvenile sex offenders do frequently make false accusations.  That is a reality at each of the 4 different facilities that I worked at in my carreer.  It's the best way to get back at staff they don't like.  The kids know the system, the facilities are obligated to call in the accusations, and the CPS agencies are obligated to report.  

Yes, shit happens.  They are juvenile sex offenders, that's why they're in treatment.  The kids do sexually act out together, it's next to impossible to stop it, short of locking them up (not part of the therapeutic camping approach).
However, every problem is an opportunity for a breakthrough.  When the issues arise, it provided the opportunity for intervention.

The accusations currently against Woodside are interesting.  In one case the kid recanted his accusation, about three weeks after making it.  He was mad at the staff.  The other accusation is by a kid who is so psychologically screwed up that he may really believe it's true.  However, the accusations that he made aren't realistically possible.  He was so abused as a child that I don't know that he will ever come out of it.  PTSD is an enormous force with sexual victims (wich most of the offenders ar evictims first)

But let's make it clear where the accusations came from.  Mrs. Strayhorn is on a Crusade to reform child care in Texas.  A great cause.  She picked out the camps to target, along with CPS itself, and went on a political warpath.  She went to camp with news paper reporters in tow, and introduced them to the camp admin as her staff,  A blatant unethical lie.  She then called CPS a total 54 times herself to report abuse/neglect.  Really, she was making stuff up.  Every little thing you could think of.  They live outdoors, etc...I'll have access to the list of complaints soon.  CPS had to come investigate and interview all the kids.  Well, you take ED kids and subject them to the kind of attention and pressure of investigations, they dodn't do so well.  They get scared and act badly, which was actually why they shut the camp down, the behaviors got unsafe because of all the external pressure.  The accusations that were made were during the investigations that followed.

I'm not pretending that it's not possible, but the evidence looks like it didn't happen.  One kid recanted, one kid's psychotic.  Anyhow, the staff were indicted, fired was not an option.  You know, I've been through an investigation by a child who accused me, and it was a horrible ordeal, but I was completely innocent.  

I want to make it really clear, the media coverage was completely biased.  They were on the side of the politician.  It wasn't accurate.  That's one of my biggest beefs with the whole deal.  Nobody will cover the camp's side of the story.  The Today Show saw Bebe's testimony inn front of the legislature, and wanted to cover the camp's side.  They came out and did interviews, got footage, etc...  Then, Clear Channel found out, and told the Today Show not to use any of their footage, and that they had footage for them.  The Today Show dropped the story.  So how do you fight that?

I'll give you the treatment modality, and success rationale next.  There's the background on the current situation.

[DarkRose]

I did volunteer work at woodside when I was about 14.  Being a 14 year old girl around those boys was not a very pleasant experience.  Luckily for me, my father was there and most of the boys stayed away.  Thanks dad!  I was very upset when I learned that Woodside was closed.  My cousin went there and the program really helped him.  Bebe loved those kids and would do everything in her power to help them.  I knew the people that were on the board of directors and Bebe and they are all great people that wanted to help the kids as much as possible.  I think it is ridiculious that people could believe such accusations without really knowing much about the program and without really investigating those accusations.

[Anonymous]

I think its a welcome refreshment that they put the burden of proof on the program and not the kid.

Go read all the horror stories for all the other programs out there.

[Anonymous]

However well intended putting psychotic children with those in need of "some help" is a recipe for disaster. The predatory will turn the others into future abusers. Hello the things you all are saying are contradictory. Am I the only one able to see this? Antny you said something along the lines that you wrote the manual? Yet you have also posted you are currently still a student. Please tell me you already have your PHD and are seeking a degree in another field. Otherwise you honestly want anyone here to believe a student was competent to formulate the treatment plan for sexually predatory youth with extensive lifelong stories of abuse? Even if your heart is in the right place are you qualified?

[Anonymous]

I know what it is like to be falsely accused of child abuse or neglect and be investigated by CPS.  We were accused by a public school counselor who had a prejudice against homeschoolers (this was our first year in public school, in 3rd grade)---from day one, she wrote down every nick or scratch or bruise on our very active child.  Oh, and they wrote it down when I got a concussion and sprained ankle slipping and falling down the stairs to the garage.

Now, I have hyper-sensitive skin and bruise if you breathe on me.  I get bruises all the time with no idea where or how I got them.  Our daughter has inherited my sensitive skin, and our entire family takes Taekwondo at the local dojo.  

The school *knew* our daughter took martial arts, because we had told them.  It would have been easy as pie to confirm because a lot of the other kids at the dojo go to that school, and the school's own lunch lady is a student there, too.

Fortunately, our case worker had a bipolar wife and could immediately tell the difference between an inherited vulnerability and trauma.  Also, the 911 people had had to call my husband when I fell and the ambulance was on the way, because my husband was across town at work---completely verifiable no possibility of abuse.

And the master at the dojo is an ex-cop, and since our daughter is bipolar she has pdoc and a therapist with a *lot* more experience of our kid and our family than the dippy counselor had.

So fortunately the investigation was just a matter of signing all the waivers so the caseworker could verify what we told him.

But it *was* a pain in the butt, and it destroyed our daughter's faith in the adults at that particular school, because when the caseworker first came to interview her, she thought he was going to snatch her.  She's really savvy for her age, she's seen Judging Amy and she knows what Maxine Gray does for a living.

Anyway, I *do* think residential facilities need substantial, ongoing oversight.

I understand that for whatever reasons not all allegations of child abuse or neglect are true.

I personally think you *do* need to lock up the kids to keep them from sexually acting out on one another.  If you don't, you're just re-enacting Lord of the Flies and kidding yourself that you're not.  You cannot rehabilitate offenders if they are not *safe* from further abuse.  You cannot have their trust in you as an authority in control of the situation if you cannot even keep them safe from further abuse.

What ends up happening is that the top dog abuser in the joint is the *real* authority figure, and they all just humor you and learn how to pretend and "fake good" enough to get you off their backs.

And if you don't understand that, then it's a really good thing the facility *was* closed.

Maybe it could/should be reopened in time, but not without sufficient reform to make it a *safe* place for the inmates.

Possibly a lockdown facility with frequent, highly-supervised open-air excursions.

You aren't going to be able to reform all or even most of these kids.  But you will save *fewer* of the saveable ones if you don't start and continue therapy from the actual fact of protecting them from sexual behavior with others and providing an actually safe place.  I'm not saying punish masturbation or anything stupid like that.  Once an abused kid is sexualized, they're sexualized.  They just need to be protected from forming childhood sexual relationships---consensual or not.

The actual lockdown will confirm some of the unsaveable as unsaveable, but will give you the largest possible percentage of kids you actually save.

Some kids survive horrific childhood abuse and either don't become offenders, or make a few childhood offenders and manage to quit and somehow grow up healthy.  So a few will come out okay *in spite of* not being in a safe place but instead being confined with other offenders and subject to repeated victimization.

But if you can't make those kids *safe*, then you're just kidding yourself when you think any actual "success stories" happen because of your program instead in spite of it.

One of the cases we studied in college was a prison psychologist who was working with habitual criminals---diagnosed adult sociopaths---and believed he was making very good progress with them.

They liked him a lot.  They liked him so much they threw him a party---with refreshments, decorations, fancy napkins, the whole bit.

Problem was, they stole every darned bit of it.

They liked *him personally*---but liking him didn't equate to any kind of fundamental reform or rehabilitation in the parts of them that were basically broken.  They didn't know, or maybe didn't much like, the people they stole stuff from, so those people and their property rights just didn't matter a damn.

Just because you *like* a severely damaged person, or grow to like them, and they grow to like you and to be motivated to behave well *towards you* doesn't mean they aren't basically Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

I'm not saying all juvenile sex offenders are irredeemable.

I'm saying that *genuine* rehabilitation requires authority to provide a *safe* environment where *all* the sexual abuse has completely stopped as an absolute precondition to a rehabilitation program saving some of the ones that wouldn't have saved themselves anyway.

Timoclea

[Antny]

Thing is, most of the Suxual Acting Out I know of at camp was completely consentual.  There was always a counselor within earshot, so it's not as is they were vulnerable to forced rape type abuse.  It took a two person covert operation for abuse to happen.

I don't think you can solve the problem, if you prevent it by simply locking them up.  Then the next time they get the chance, they will be more likely to act out.  Nothing is internalized that way.  The only waay to create lifelong change is to internalize morality and value for others, empathy.  The point is that when the behavior comes up, it becomes a completely uncomfortable, unacceptable behavior, and is intervened in in a seriously heavyhanded way.[ This Message was edited by: Antny on 2004-11-03 18:45 ]

[Anonymous]

I would still be concerned about kids being intimidated into silence, or emotionally manipulated into participating in a sexual relationship with another kid.

I hope you're right and that none of the kids were being manipulated or coerced into sex by other kids.

My concern with that wasn't a matter of morality.  I'm Wiccan.  As far as my religion is concerned, consensual teen sex between kids of about the same age is not immoral, just a really dumb idea.  And we couldn't care less about whether someone's consenting partner is concave or convex.

My concern was *safety* for the ones that might have half a chance of pulling themselves out of the deep kimchee they've gotten into.

You were there, I wasn't.  I *hope* you're correct and everything was genuinely consensual.

I also hope that whatever concern was based on conditions and facilities is better wherever they've moved the kids to.

If it means the state government ends up doing a better job of budgetting for humane necessities, it's a Good Thing for the kids even though you may not like the way it happened.

Most of the doctors who lobotomized patient after patient back in the dark ages of psychiatry genuinely meant their patients well, meant to heal rather than harm, and were doing the best they could with the knowledge available in that day and time.

Same with the overuse of ECT.  The intentions were good, even though the treatments' overuse did terrible harm.

Same with the tardive diskinesia (sp?) from neuraleptics.

I know with you catching the backlash of some people's pent up anger at their own bad treatment experiences it's hard not to take this whole thing very personally.

Still---the best thing now is probably to hope that the legislature will put thought, funding, and improved (and always improving) modern insight into the problems and treatments and that the move will *ultimately* end up better for the kids.

It doesn't always work out that way, but it is an Opportunity for reform, and we can all hope.

When I talk about reform, I don't think the people in the facilities needing reform are always ill-intentioned.  I think we learn things all the time and psychiatry and psychology will probably *always* need reform until we've puzzled out and can prevent and/or cure every ailment or injury that can befall the mind of a human being.  If we ever get there.

I think some of the people in the industry *are* ill-intentioned, or incompetent.

You don't sound like a bad person.  And, unlike some of the program staffers or advocates we get here, you don't sound like a total fruit loop.

Taking you at your word, all I can suggest is that we *all* hope that the state taking a closer look at the conditions and treatment of these particular kids results in improved conditions and more effective treatment.  Even if everything you say is true, there is *noplace* so good that there isn't some room for improvement.

I'll choose to hope that this closing turns out, in the long run, to be a net positive for everyone concerned.

Timoclea

[Antny]

I really do hope for "positive reform" within the whole system.  It's pretty fucked up in Texas.  CPS caseworkers have like 40-50 cases each on their caseload, and have a superhigh turnover rate.  Horrendous decisions are made on a regular basis just because they are overworked, and have few real options.  

Here's my major concern.  This doesn't really look to me to be about "reform"  It looks to be about politics and publicity for Strayhorn.  If it was about reform, the office would've been interested in the piles and piles of research that's been done on Therapeutic camping.  They weren't.  Furtunately, the final decisions are in the hands of a legislative comittee, not Strayhorn.  We'll see where the litigation goes, but I can tell you that the case is pretty wild.  Woodside was recently granted access to the correspondence between the Comptroller's Office (Strayhorn) and the media whom she was covertly working with.  I see the connection between politicians and the media as one of the largets controlling factors in the country.  This case is a specific example of an isolated problem.  Strayhorn is planning a run for Governor, and this media blitz has gotten her loads of free publicity through the media.  She looks like a saint for saving these "poor forgotten foster kids".  They don't even publicize that the kids are offenders, just "foster kids".  

I really hope that the people at the legislative level are willing to look at the data, and the research, not just the propaganda.