Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - katfish

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 37
1
By: CAFETY

(Publication Pending - CAFETY 2011)

 

Introduction

 

If you walked in part way through my presentation, you might have assumed that I was talking about human rights violations in a third world country. Unfortunately, these human rights violations occurred right here in the U.S. of America.[1]

 

Stories have been repeated in the media over and over again describing youth, some as young as seven, often awakened from bed in the middle of the night, taken by two large men by force or the threat thereof, while their family stands aside observing.[2]  These youths are then shipped thousands of miles away, destined to spend much of their childhood engaged in compulsory, hard labor without pay and “therapy” amounting to little more than re-education type of psychological abuse, under the guise of treatment or discipline by sadistic, sometimes violent, staff.[3]  While the aforementioned description is one most commonly associated with a draconian prison camp, what is actually being described is the fate of youths whose parents, desperate to find help for their “troubled teen,” were convinced to send their unwilling child to a tough-love programs run by U.S. nationals and marketed as wilderness camps, therapeutic boarding schools, and behavior modification programs.[4]  Many of these programs are located within the U.S. where they are subject to very little oversight or regulation, but at least several operate overseas, mostly in developing countries like Samoa, where they are subject to even scanter regulation.[5]  The staff is generally under-qualified to administer the services offered, such as education and psychotherapy, and their methods often range from traumatic to extremely traumatic, highly dangerous, and abusive.[6]

 

This paper begins with the “Background” description of the development of the troubled-teen industry, followed by an account of widespread reports of abuse in the industry’s programs and institutions both in the U.S. and abroad.  Special attention is paid to two of the industry’s largest entities, the World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and Schools and the Aspen Education Group.  The “Discussion” section reviews many of the key legal issues raised against these institutions, including the rights of parents to send their children to these facilities, the lawsuits and criminal convictions that have resulted, the few state regulations that are currently in place - including a NY State case study, and international human rights laws applicable to the children detained in these facilities.  “Looking Forward” addresses state and federal proposals, challenges constitutional limitations under international law, and examines additional proposals under international law that could further protect children from abusive practices in U.S. and foreign-based facilities.

Continued here:

Part 1:

http://www.facebook.com/notes/community ... 5912283330

Part 2:

http://www.facebook.com/notes/community ... 4888463330

2
The Troubled Teen Industry / Rehab Rating Site
« on: March 29, 2011, 06:43:26 PM »
Mostly for adults, but may add some youth focused programs in the future:

http://www.thefix.com/rehab-reviews

5
Yes, the same one of the recent Mount Bachelor Academy child abuse noteriety.

More on Sergey's final (and dehumanizing) days of life:

http://cafety.org/privately-funded-prog ... tion-group

7
News Items / Re: Cafety under attack for, "A False Rhetoric"
« on: March 28, 2010, 02:32:22 PM »
Dr Huffine of CAFETY responds:

I disagree with you Mr. Parham but not on the premise you posits above. I am a child and adolescent psychiarist and a student of the history of adolescence. What is tragic for me is when otherwise wise teachers like you Mr. Parham totally misunderstand the position of the group you hold up as ridiculous. Indeed CAFETY and its supporters do know that youth need guidance and support through their adolescent years and should not and cannot capriciously choose to leave home, party for nights on end and create whoopy on the streets. Most youth would NOT chose to do that in any case and actually respect, even if grudgingly, their parents authority. Parents should and do have power over their kids. Parents tend to have the money and resources that youth need. Parents also have a responsibiity to handle their power over their kids wisely and lovingly. Parents have a responsibility to support growing independence. When parents fail and become over protective, or even abusive, their kids need protections from the state. Austensibly they have assurances of protection from abuse and neglect by the state but tragically the reality is that the state fails and kids are left bereft on the streets unable to find housing and are readily victimized. For these kids the streets are no party, they are a place of further abuse and exploitation. Kids go there as throw aways much more then as runaways on a lark.

For these and other reasons youth need rights. As a board member of CAFETY I can assure you Mr. Parham we do NOT view youth rights in the same way as rights that forbid capricious discrimination against a subgroup of equivalent humans. We mean rights such as articulated by the United Nations committee on children. This declares all children and youth deserve to have the love and care they deserve, freedom from abuse and maltreatment and some legal assurance that they will get such necessary good treatment even if they don't have parents that can assure it.

It is for these principles, and their absence for many youth who have suffered terribly, that CAFETY promotes looking at the narrow issue of abuse in residential treatment. The acronym CAFETY stands for the Community Alliance For the Ethical Treatment of Youth. We believe youth have a right to such ethical treatment. Do you want to argue against that Mr. Parham? If you do I would be glad to tangle with you. Be flexible in your understanding of a concept of youth rights and don't set up straw men. Don't be on the wrong side of history and supporting those who are ignorant of adolescent development. You will be in league with a group of exploitive adults who con parents and abuse kids. Do understand that youth have needs for a balance of "protective factors" and taking "reasonable risks" for optimal development. Youth can exercise very mature judgment when their lives are well ordered and they are not in a tense emotional situation. They can make as reasonable choices at 13 or 14 as 18 year olds if in a calm and supportive setting. There is data for that and as a scholar you should learn about and respect that data. These are findings from testing and observing youth - much more reliable for such data then making inferences from amazing and colorful lit up brains showing incomplete myelination of neurons in the prefrontal cortex. Neuroscientest have only one thing over social scientists = more colorful slides of brains lit up.

Charley

8
I think it'll certainly be interesting to see how this all plays out, no doubt.  I have a bit more faith in the state - I'm all for the social-welfare state, personally... there are many examples where gov't has successfully run things and instances where it has seriously botched things...  In anycase, think this debate is well worn in other threads and that the merits of state intervention are really difficult to assess, particularly among vastly diverging ideologies and when primarily speculating in theory with little basis in fact... And I think facts can be used  to support all sides... so I guess I'll just leave it at that.

Rusty, I think its great that you have such strong opinions, I'm certain you can find a way to put it to good use.
LOL re: mug on T.V. - snootiness aside... really?   Anyway, to be sure, You Tubes democratic function is appealing to me (and clearly most of the world).  And I'm all for democracy.
LOL x100 re: poking stick in the eye.  That really is a good one, one of the best!!

9
Legislation is a good idea, but not enough... as noted at links below:

http://www.youtube.com/cafetyonline#p/c ... 8z_AqTTC30

http://www.youtube.com/cafetyonline#p/c ... Wlyu2HxOIw


That said, I think legislation would help prevent program operators from opening up a new biz in a different name after being shut down for abuse because there would be a central place monitoring such places and hopefully a website will be used to that end that will publicly expose such programs.  The Senate version of the bill has not been finalized and the House version still would need to be reconciled with the Senate version, but I'm optimistic that some positive results will come of it... though of course its not the end all be all.  How could it be? Cultural change can't be legislated (see racism/discrimination)... and, as I see it, we have to help do that - as both survivors and those who are aware of damage inflicted upon those we care for.  We have power and agency the gov't can't tap into from a top heavy approach... :blabla: so on and so forth.  Saying here nuthin' that hasn't been said before and where folks, successfully working toward systemic change, haven't paved the way long before I was born.  ::deadhorse::

(p.s. Antigen - thanks for the post. Aslo, I LOVE these emoticons!)

peace.

10
No prob!

I <3 :spam: ... w/hash browns! mmmm....

11
Also, for additional videos please visit:

http://www.youtube.com/user/CAFETYonline

12
The Troubled Teen Industry / Re: CAFETY.org now live!
« on: July 04, 2009, 08:30:12 PM »
Quote from: "Guest"
Quote from: "katfish"
Quote from: "Guest"
Quote from: "Guest"
Quote from: "Guest"
Cafety always seemed more on the ball than this site as far as getting regulation going in the right direction.
Horseshit.... Screw you for claiming something like that on here.  :on phone:

Fornits rules!!!   :fuckoff:


 I don't see CAFETY making any claims about Ken Huey's good intentions, or doing his bidding regarding moderation of their forums, or going to speak at Natsap, no less. Where's the vomit emoticon?

Ah, well, nothing can be perfect, I supose.

Curious, why do you think speaking at NATSAP is a bad idea?

I know why I do and have more of less noted it, but wondering what is of concern to others.

Beyond that, I feel compelled to say that there's a way to express disagreement w/o being disrespectful/sarcastic.  I get that this is not the standard set by most on fornit, we all know this... which it the primary reason I stay away from the toxicity... but doesn't that it get old?

I think any noted “survivor's” presence will be exploited by NATAP to gain credibility. I think any notable survivor publicly treating them like a group of reasonable people interested in helping people—which is what will happen during this meeting—will have the unfortunate effect of bestowing on them credibility.

I also think NATSAP is a collection of predators working together to promote the desires of predators. Meeting with NATAP would be like meeting with the leaders of various heads of child-slaving companies. Nothing good can possibly come of it. The predators are not suddenly going to see "the light."

Quote from: "Guest"
Quote from: "katfish"
Quote from: "Guest"
Quote from: "Guest"
Quote from: "Guest"
Cafety always seemed more on the ball than this site as far as getting regulation going in the right direction.
Horseshit.... Screw you for claiming something like that on here.  :on phone:

Fornits rules!!!   :fuckoff:


 I don't see CAFETY making any claims about Ken Huey's good intentions, or doing his bidding regarding moderation of their forums, or going to speak at Natsap, no less. Where's the vomit emoticon?

Ah, well, nothing can be perfect, I supose.

Curious, why do you think speaking at NATSAP is a bad idea?

I know why I do and have more of less noted it, but wondering what is of concern to others.

Beyond that, I feel compelled to say that there's a way to express disagreement w/o being disrespectful/sarcastic.  I get that this is not the standard set by most on fornit, we all know this... which it the primary reason I stay away from the toxicity... but doesn't that it get old?

I think any noted “survivor's” presence will be exploited by NATAP to gain credibility. I think any notable survivor publicly treating them like a group of reasonable people interested in helping people—which is what will happen during this meeting—will have the unfortunate effect of bestowing on them credibility.

I also think NATSAP is a collection of predators working together to promote the desires of predators. Meeting with NATAP would be like meeting with the leaders of various heads of child-slaving companies. Nothing good can possibly come of it. The predators are not suddenly going to see "the light."

Yea... word.   Hm.   Though I think Mike and Ginger are simply testing out the waters, with some advocacy idea in tow, but more or less are looking to share their experiences ( I think?).  Looking to reach a few moral minds, not really change NATSAP.

I think what you say is mostly true (re: child predators), and that such folks wouldn't make up so much of their membership AND leadership if they were in the place to make serious changes.  If CAFETY's were to present at NATSAP (which I'm pretty sure will happen one day), my suggestions to my colleagues would be that a discussion be had around such concerns occur BEFORE presenting, for the reasons you mention above.  This has been my concern re: initiating any dialogue w/ NATSAP, much less presenting at a conference. W/o thorough research that includes understanding of the politics of other orgs that resemble NATSAP and some level of sophistication and savvy in that respect, advocacy efforts and suggested change will lose credibility.  
 It is not in CAFETY's interest to engage w/o being prepared to move beyond our typical advocacy positions to discuss NATSAP's strategic position and inferiority, having some data to present with well thought our recommendations.  

The one point that I may disagree with you on, though not quite yet (NATSAP may prove me wrong) is NATSAP may be an org whose practices can be addressed with some degree of receptivity.  And that some degree I suspect will be very little, having working w/ CAFETY and observed other trade orgs that are FAR more child friendly that NATSAP and yet seeing significantly disappointing lack of follow through.  I think strategically they have to be ready (I don't think they are) and so do advocates (I haven't heard anything that would convince me this is the case either, though we're prepared to address other groups - NATSAP is like the Cartman, from South Park, of rep trade orgs).  I think other orgs have to board the change train as well... Basically, I think the landscape of youth residential programs trade orgs have to be rapidly headed towards the point of convergence - as the BBI is working towards, but seems to still require the growth of an organized movement to push it along.  In conjunction with this, work must be done around ensuring EVERY community has care services available... b/c w/o that, programs are catering to the demands of stressed out parents and certainly NATSAP will shrug and say: 'supply, demand'.  While this may be temporarily 'ok' if we somehow get them to work towards ameliorating abuse, we still run into the problems that come from inappropriate, highly restrictive institutionalization and the dignity youth lose in that process - something they will never cease to participate in w/o legislative change and/or a change in demand.  

Working to integrate consumers into their agenda is a start... but where NATSAP is I do suspect they're just throwing the dog (survivors, in this case Ginger and Mike) a bone ... my fear is that it is a far more sinister that than... (the noted hope he won't even notice that there's no meat on it...)


CAFETY will hold off a year, at least.  Maybe more.  We'll be in the position to better assess where they're at and what makes sense after the IECA conference.  We'll also have data, the support of additional members and real sustainability funding when that time comes.

13
The Troubled Teen Industry / Re: CAFETY.org now live!
« on: July 04, 2009, 06:39:18 PM »
Quote from: "Guest"
Quote from: "Guest"
Quote from: "Guest"
Cafety always seemed more on the ball than this site as far as getting regulation going in the right direction.
Horseshit.... Screw you for claiming something like that on here.  :on phone:

Fornits rules!!!   :fuckoff:


 I don't see CAFETY making any claims about Ken Huey's good intentions, or doing his bidding regarding moderation of their forums, or going to speak at Natsap, no less. Where's the vomit emoticon?

Ah, well, nothing can be perfect, I supose.

Curious, why do you think speaking at NATSAP is a bad idea?

I know why I do and have more of less noted it, but wondering what is of concern to others.

Beyond that, I feel compelled to say that there's a way to express disagreement w/o being disrespectful/sarcastic.  I get that this is not the standard set by most on fornit, we all know this... which it the primary reason I stay away from the toxicity... but doesn't that it get old?

14
The Troubled Teen Industry / Re: CAFETY.org now live!
« on: July 04, 2009, 06:24:57 PM »
Quote from: "Ursus"
Quote from: "Guest"
Cafety always seemed more on the ball than this site as far as getting regulation going in the right direction. Kudos to cafety and welcome back!

Well, of course. That would appear to be part of their focus. They are a different type of organization than fornits (which isn't really an organization anyway).

More importantly, what was your point in posting that statement? Re-opening some sensitive areas for some fornits posters? Seeding dissension and mistrust between fornits and Cafety? What better way to obfuscate the real issue and hinder progress, eh?




I would suggest incorporating some prune juice into your diet.


Agreed, divisive and inaccurate analogy.  Fornits is the main forum, made up of a series of posts, related to the teen industry. It is what it is because of the people who come here to share their experience and debate.  It is not an organization b/c, well, there is no consensus and no organizing done here.  As a forum, it has helped inform the public and helped people connect.  Without Fornits there would be no CAFETY. I'm grateful that Fornits existed, particularly at a time when I was trying to make sense of my own experiences.  It was the impetus to me trying to take organizing and advocacy to the next level.

 CAFETY does not compete with fornits, nor any other organization for that matter.  Fornits is quite complimentary to advocacy work at large, and CAFETY's specifically.  Many posters here and other forums have volunteered significant time and energy to CAFETY, while others have disagreed, or otherwise not found their home in CAFETY - for numerous reasons related to CAFETY's approach and/or advocacy positions and seek to pave their own way in a more decentralized manner or along side other orgs.  There's no right way... there's just difference.  Hopefully, where one strategy fails, another will pick up where the other falters - in action, we all work basically to plug in the holes... Or sadly, in some cases, to create more.  

Obviously, I found an approach in CAFETY that best suits me and others seem to have found the same (which is great and what grassroots organizing is all about). At the end of the day, finding what best suits us is all each of us can do.

my 2 cents.

15
The Troubled Teen Industry / Re: perverted by language
« on: July 03, 2009, 06:07:34 PM »
Quote from: "Froderik"
Quote from: "Ursus"
Also... lack of forced treatment and "informed consent" can be relative terms, when you are dealing with people who have vested interests. If everyone and their uncle is of the mind that you should be sent away to such-and-such, and you're a kid who aims to please... well, ya might think you're informed, and ya might think you consent, but are and do you really?
Thought provoking....

Yes, my personal position follows Minkowitz's line of thinking.  The use of coercion, intimidation, or punishment for any reason related to a disability based discrimination (on the basis of mental health) is unacceptable, oppressive and paternalistic - at the end of the day, is akin to torture.  But with youth, in particular, it's difficult because youth are so vulnerable to being influenced, agreed.  But there are ways around that, namely the expectation that youth, like adults, are given (by law) all the information and able to decide - w/o the use of coercion, intimidation, or punishment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rASg_Pgw ... r_embedded

At the end of the day, its really a powerplay... so I do believe that a culture of change, where youth are PARTNERS and collaborators in their own care and domestic legislative changes consistent with the CRPD and CRC will take us in the right direction...

Speaking of the CRPD - Here's info on a Human Rights Teach-In Tour, in case anyone is in the area:

http://www.usnusp.org/upcoming_events

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 37