It really concerns me when I hear that kids help other kids by "holding them accountable."
The reason it concerns me is that while that can be perfectly innocent---like not having lunch with the kid who's obnoxious until he quits being obnoxious---it can be "code" for something much more pernicious.
And when a facility does not welcome in the state and/or local regulatory authorities to keep an eye on its practices, that uncertainty is troubling.
It's genuinely helpful when, after one kid says something horrid to someone else, another kid says, "Gee, that was pretty mean."
It's not so helpful when, as in some programs, kids become amateur psychologists playing around in other kids' heads.
Which is happening at Swift River in any given month? Who the hell knows?
I don't think I'd be worried about Swift River if it was licensed according to whatever standards Massachusetts applies to treatment facilities--that is, if it wasn't in the habit of arguing with Massachusetts authorities about what kind of facility it is. If the child protective services people knew they were welcome to come in, unannounced, at any time and look at anything at all. If the kids had access to a pay phone for certain hours on weekends and certain after school hours, and a small allowance they could use for it. Even if they had to stand in line or draw numbers out of a hat for turns, and if the child protective services number was posted by the phone.
Maybe everything *is* mostly okay there.
But the rest of the larger community needs to know it's okay.
The Massachusetts authorities are and have been, reportedly, not happy over the long term with Swift River's decisions about which licensing category *it* thinks it falls in, and the amount of access the regulatory people have to make sure the kids are okay.
Swift River doesn't have a hugely horrible reputation like, for example, some places in Utah.
Massachusetts is a fairly responsible state on this issue.
I would be happy enough with Swift River if the Massachusetts authorities were satisfied that they had enough access to verify that the children were being cared for safely and responsibly, on an ongoing basis.
But if Massachusetts isn't happy with ASR, I'm not either.
I'm not a "big government" person. Unlike almost everybody on Fornits, I vote conservative Republican. Not "religious right"--more a little "l" libertarian who thinks the Republicans are doing a better (albeit very imperfect) job of following that philosophy right now.
Facilities, like other corporations, are necessary things. But unlike individual human beings, facilities and corporations have no consciences. They just have public relations departments that *sometimes* serve similar functions--but frequently on a "don't get caught" basis.
Facilities, like other corporations, need oversight to keep them honest.
All it takes is one bad or incompetent management team to turn a good facility into a nightmare--fast. There has to be oversight as a safety net for the kids if the facility starts to get screwy. Or to make sure it isn't already screwy at any given time.
I'm an ASR skeptic because I perceive it to be dodging state oversite.
Quit dodging, and I quit griping.
Timoclea
