Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Troubled Teen Industry => Topic started by: Deborah on June 26, 2006, 11:34:00 PM
-
THE MARATHON WORKSHOP
(and its value as a counseling tool in emotional growth schools)
by: Linda Shaffer, Ed. Consultant
Sandpoint, Idaho
208-263-8394
All emotional growth schools are not alike! In their counseling tools, nineteen among the more well-known schools use a tool the others do not, the Interactive or Marathon-Like Workshop.
In most emotional growth schools it is standard practice to utilize the group session process 2 to 3 times a week with feedback among peers as a major counseling tool ? all guided by the staff facilitators. Individual counseling also is implemented on a regular basis with an assigned therapist. The more informal version of this style of counseling is the ride in the pick-up truck or the walk down to the pond or the farm.
Not every school, however, utilizes the Interactive or Marathon-Like Workshop. I find in assisting families that some are open to this counseling style for their children and for themselves (in the parent workshops). And, some prefer to participate only in the more private one on one family counseling sessions a school may offer.
Those schools who Do Use these workshops are: Cascade School, Whitmore, CA; Mount Bachelor Academy, Prineville, OR; Swift River Academy, Cummington, MA; Hidden Lake Academy, Dahlonega, GA; Crater Lake School, Sprague River, OR; CEDU Schools, CA and ID; Spring Ridge Academy, Spring Valley, AZ Cross Creek Manor, LaVerkin, UT; Paradise Cove, Apia, W. Samoa; Tranquility Bay, Mandeville, Jamaica; Spring Creek Lodge, Thompson Falls, MT; Copper Canyon Academy, Camp Verde, AZ And for the over 18 year old students ? Northstar, Bend, OR and Benchmark, Redding, CA
Two other schools considering implementing the Interactive Workshop are Aspen Ranch in Loa, Utah and Montana Academy in Marion, Montana.
Various Components of these interactive workshops include psychodrama, role playing, dads, bioenergetics, creative visualization exercises, supportive music, and various types of ?stretch? exercises to take one outside one?s comfort zone.
Students in the interactive workshop often are excited about them because they indicate Points Of Passage within their school and their goal of getting ?to the top of the mountain? and completing all the workshops.
Where did these workshops come from? From creative minds. They came from often controversial influences and beginnings ? Synanon, Lifespring, est, ? out of the ?60?s ? and from many of the earliest creative innovators in the mental health field. Through years of evolution, and years of individual creativity in adapting these workshops to adolescents, came ?workshops? and ?seminars?. I see them, if designed with care and sensitivity to the individual, as benefiting anyone ? but, especially the frightened and refusing child, the counseling savvy/issue dodging child who knows what to say, and the intellectual child who tries at all costs to not touch upon feelings.
Training for the originators of today?s workshops often involved participation themselves in some earlier workshops in Their Own Growth Process and, thus, redesigning these workshops for their own schools. Some have established companies that offer various versions of these workshops today for Corporate America and also design special programs for emotional growth schools.
I would suggest the spread of these workshops in the emotional growth school setting says something about the insights and results for participants. And after all, isn?t that what it?s all about - Results Education, both academic and emotional.
http://www.strugglingteens.com/archives ... /oe03.html (http://www.strugglingteens.com/archives/1996/2/oe03.html)
-
Deb, just whats the point of posting that textual abortion?
And one wonders just what means you 'need' an "emotional growth school" or if they think everyone needs that or if its an option for 'healthy, normal people'.
But whatever... you do (or at least should) know by now what kind of a crock and how abusive and dangerous those seminars are.
So, again, why did you post that? :question:
-
It's an industry essay which lists the programs that are known to use Marathon Workshops and confirms the workshops are based on est/ lifespring. Many parents, whose kids have already been through a program, don't know that, or deny it. I'd be curious to know if any of these programs disclose this in their literature, or prior to enrollment. How many parents have researched and understand the experimental techniques they and their children will be subjected to? I'm guessing few, if any.
-
Uh- it's 10 years old.
-
Your point being?
-
Various Components of these interactive workshops include psychodrama, role playing, dads (sic), bioenergetics, creative visualization exercises, supportive music, and various types of ?stretch? exercises to take one outside one?s comfort zone.
Well, there it is in plain English. Each item listed in the techniques above is garbage. These techniques have zero therapeutic value.
Notice the article is written by an Ed Con and she's in way over her head discussing this dangerous technique.
Basically, the entire article can be dismissed as bunk pop-psyche babble.
-
They have zero therapeutic value, but some of them have a great deal of "value" in coercive persuasion---that is, disorienting someone mentally and emotionally so that they can be manipulated temporarily and usually harmfully.
"Coercive persuasion" is a more precise term for the various degrees of brainwashing as practiced by governments, cults, and high-pressure sales organizations--usually MLM types.
Julie
-
Yes, we were informed about the 4 lifesteps that are followed up by family resolutions before admission. We are told exactly what excercises are done, and told by both the therapist and the student afterwards how it went, Our son's TBS has been changing the context and tone of their lifesteps. AFter much research on their end, they are changing the old emotional tear-down that is followed by a self-esteem buildup, to a more positive approach. This is new within the last few months. I can only speak for our son's TBS. The program IS looking outside the box and improving these lifesteps. Many kids actually like them and for some it marks a turning point in their therapy. I have seen a drastic turnaround after the last one for our son. Again, perhaps the ones that were done in the past were humiliating and degrading. But some schools are revisiting these programs and improving them
-
Riiiiiiight.
What program is this, again?
-
I can't believe you KNEW what they were doing and still sent our son off to one of these places. Disgusting :eek:
-
Three Springs Way GooKin and Milk Gargling Death,
I want to thank you for stating your opinions, calmly and rationally. In some ways, you MAY be right about the methods used. As for our program, great strides have been made to improve upon the system that was in place when you were sent, several years ago. I do understand where you are coming from.
I want you to understand where we were coming from, as our son is set to graduate in less than two months. You claim that Chinese water torture and other methods are inhumane. We agree on this point. But jail, IMO, would be far worse. SOME of these programs are run by loving caring individuals (can't speak for the parent companies who are profiting) It worked for us, and I can tell you that it was a decision of last resort. Was it the best decision- only time will tell. I really do appreciate your intent and thank you for not jumping all over me with vulgar language etc. Your mission is an admirable one. Perhaps the focus should concentrate more on trying to reform the system. To perhaps make these programs more like boarding schools with "program parents", the NA/AA groups fail miserably with adolescents. I would like to see stronger support for these kids BEFORE they get to the point where staying at home is no longer an option. Contrary to popular belief, I do think that we can both educate each other. Thanks for hearing me out.
-
I am with 3 springs on the abolition of the industry. i dont see how it can be done though! Therefore i would lobby for strict enforceable regulations whixh limit the power of the places to do bad shit. That and strong education campaigns which show caring parents how misguided they are. As for the parents and step parents who are just selfish Arses who knows. A good hard kick in the teeth perhaps
-
I wholeheartedly agree that there are a thousand better models for deling with troubled kids. i also question how "troubled" many kids who end up at these vile places are when they are sent. I am sure that there are also many ways to get around the child protection laws but i also think that this is because they are not enforced adequately. I would also ban "levels" kind of systems because of the possibility or retribution of whistel blowers. Not to mention insane cult like group therapy sesions.
unfortunately though i can not see how you can get the programmes banned though in any real way and therefore dont think it is workable. How would you actually go about it three springs?
to me a serious attempt at reform at least gives some of these kids a fighting chance.
So at least the poor things are not dying because of a flu like the kid in the prevoius post! If those in charge of that boy were in jail for criminal negligence and manslaughter because the legal system took seriously what happened i am sure it would send a wake up call to their colleagues.
To think- that kid ended up essentially getting the death penalty for a stupid boyhood prank. for stealing a damn golf buggy. The injustice of it makes me weep with anger!
-
***AFter much research on their end, they are changing the old emotional tear-down that is followed by a self-esteem buildup, to a more positive approach.
Lifesteps sounds like ASR?
Are you willing to elaborate? Specifically, I'd like for you to list each old technique and how it has been changed.
How exactly did they inform parents that they were doing away with the old "tear them down" techniques?
Did they cite any research showing it to be negative, or how did they decide, that after two -
three decades, it probably wasn't a good idea?
Did they cite any research to support the "new" technique? Or is it another experimental approach?
I personally feel that kids have been guinea pigs in this social experiment for too long. If they keep "improving" it will become obvious that the place to deal with family difficulty is at home.
And here we go again, "Some" programs are revisiting these techniques and changing them? Which ones? How many programs are you keeping tabs on?
[ This Message was edited by: Deborah on 2006-06-28 06:40 ]
-
yes but how in any practical sense would you get rid of programmes?
-
I would like to share your idealism and I really hope you are right, but i just dont think education is enough, because people react to scare campigns more than they do to reason. Education plays an important part, and sites like this are useful. Lord knows they helped me!
However I just think that aspens "Its always worse than you think" mentality or the famous "Dead or in Jail" line wins the public over every time. At least strong enforceable& enforced legislation minimises the harm. At least charging those who have been negligent with abuse and jailing them sends the message that the wellbeing of the kids means something real.
I am aware that one of the big stumbling blocks to properly regulating the industry is the fact that America values individual states rights over a more fedealist mentality thus it is hard to get all states to comply equally, but if you have a Federal food and drug administration for instancce, then i see no reason that there cant be a similar model for this industry. That way tthe worste programmes would get shut down, the dubious would be monitored for safety and be forced to face real consequences for breaking the rules and mean while at the very least the kids would come out alive, well fed and with a basic uniform standard of education. Sure it would be perfect if they did not go at all to these places but i dont hold my breath!
-
This thread is hereby a CLUSTERFUCK.
Programs DONT WORK. Theyve been around 30+years and not one has ever proven they can work, and all the studies shown have a huge (and obvious) bias that "oh well someday... they have potential" but no proof of it. EVER.
I also like how the obligatory programmie poster has to come in and waffle about anything negative, but then jump in head first on anything thats supportive of the programmies desired outcome.
Regardless, trying to FIX a program is like trying to FIX Saddam Hussein's regime or FIX the soviet union. You cant "fix" it without making it something totally different. You might as well 'fix' scientology!
Now, specifically to that "seminar/workshop" topic... its the same old rehashed, debunked psycho-babble nonsense that has no long term effect except for possibly trauma and therapy bills.
It has no therapeutic value and they (LGATs) have been around for far longer than programs themselves, which have a 30 year history of no therapeutic value.
All the arguements are constructed around a bias of them wanting to work, or at least reduce the debate into a "waffley" case of "oh well it might" "oh well it could" sort of obfuscation instead of simply admitting there is ZERO proof of it ever being effective and tons of it to the contrary.
Also, this is probably another troll, or just someone so stupid this is how they actually think - and either way Im done giving a fuck.
Now if you think Im too 'harsh' to the self centered parents who want me to help them with their confirmation bias because they can't grow up, and man up to the fact that they fucked up, you can kiss my ass :em:
-
hey you guys. What is a clusterfuck?
Three springs, i dont understand why you seem to associate more effective laws with an increased volume of laws.
My understanding, & correct me if i am wrong, is that the reason why there is so much legislation is in 52 different states you guys have 52 different sets of regulations,rules and laws. The US is big on states rights to enforce as opposed to the feds being the final word. Thus if 1 state deems a programme abusive & shuts it down or revokes the right for some fuckwit to work with kids, Said fuckwit can take his nutbar school & reopen it with a new name in a different state.
With one federal set of reguations which were strongly enforced so that criminal negligence was uniformly dealt with in a serious way, and a strict set of guidelines, the totally abusive operator would be shut down for good & hopefully in jail, the well meaning but psycholgically nuts programmes whould have limited powers to fuck up kids & harm is minimised.
By all means work toward shutting these places down by educating the public and boosting parents confidence in their ability to parent but in the meantime have an enforceable back up to help keep these kids alive & well.
-
"Clusterfuck"
A disastrous situation that results from the cumulative errors of several people or groups. In semi-polite company this is referred to as a Charlie Foxtrot (from the NATO phonetic alphabet) .
-
On 2006-06-30 04:55:00, Three Springs Waygookin wrote:
"We have 50 states.
The nature of our judicial and political system is not conducive to a big anal probe of federal laws. For instance the FBI only becomes involved by request of state police, or if it is a crime that involves bank robbery or kidnapping across state lines. Other than that they stay in their office and make their pencil holders safe from terrorists.
The problems you bring up are local issues requiring local solutions. "
For the second time I feel like a dick (5 states.) I get the feeling there is a left vs right divide here! i being a gore esque douche bag you being a grumpy conservative! Anyhoo!
So what you are telling me is that for example, different states all have different criteria for what constitutes manslaughter? i use this as an example because most of these kids seem to have died from it in one fashion or another. If this is the case, This is one thing i am saying is wrong!
The pledge is meant to be 1 nation undwr god with liberty & justice for all, (or something similar)
Not 50 states some with wacky ideas with liberty and justice for all adults!
I realise that enforcing a national set of industry guidelines is tricky (particularly with an industry which odes not know if it is medical or educational) even if i am a fan, but how hard is it for all of the states to agree on what manslaughter, murder and criminal negligence are and charge the alleged purpertrators accordingly?
-
On 2006-06-28 04:27:00, Three Springs Waygookin wrote:
"To give the kids a fighting chance I sure as hell would not send them to Three Springs.
Look its like this in Florida most people do not realize that the contract facilities(private companies under DJJ contract) are some of the most heavily regulated in the country.
Yet somehow Martin Anderson was still beat to death. Some kid just died from strep throat at a DJJ contract Outward bound facility, and by my own witness I saw just how easy it was to bend the laws and regulations in favor of the program.
You keep saying you want to reform these facilities. I say ban them all as I promise you there is just no long term promises that can be made regarding the safety of youth in these programs. I used to be a big fan of Eckerd Youth Alternatives as I worked for them as a wilderness counselor for two years.
There they have weekly uninterupted phone calls, uncensored mail, each group has its own teacher, group treatment coordinator, and an on facility nurse.
Ok this is all nice and juicy. Even better a resident has the right to call the abuse hotline at any time of the day or night. He can also file a grievance in a locked box that can only be opened by a program director. These grievances recieve immediate attention and are logged in a file for DJJ auditors to review.
The food is relatively decent, and the counselors recieve better than average training for a program that is kept basic and streamlined.
Sounds good?
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Man the shit that went down in that place was unbelievable. Group's rioting and beating the hell out of their group members. A counselor went nuts and had to be fired for nearly attacking a resident. Master counselors, supervisors, restraining kids for cursing in huddles.
Despite the supervision of the State of Florida and I promise at the time it was fairly heavy. DJJ auditors do not eff around in anyway when they go through a program in the state of florida. Despite all of this abuses still happened on a regular basis as the power to bend the laws in the favor of staff still exists, and always will exist no matter what pencil dick laws get passed.
Ban all the damn TBS programs. Send mental health kids to mental health treatment programs not friggin BM warehouses.
The drug war places Leo in a round room and instructs him to piss in a corner.
--Antigen
"
How are kids hurt by regulation, inspection, and standards? Sure situations occur. But their is a greater burden to cover-up and bend a rule, than if the standards are not their at all.[ This Message was edited by: Badpuppy on 2006-06-30 11:26 ]
-
I absolutely agree that power is a huge corruptor & probably a BIG part of the problems in these programmes. Particularly the lord of the flies style ones that let senoir kids make the decisions. The total lack of communication with the outside world also does not help at all on this score. But there is no minimum standard that the schools have to keep up with in this regard.
I also agree with you that there needs to be an emphasis on families parenting their own kids.
I am just wondering though. Who holds normal american boarding schools accontable? As far as i am aware they do not seem to carry the same tradition of abuse. Does America have mandatory reporting? Over here we are a federalist system as well but the child protection rules do not vary much from state to state (bearing in mind we only have 7 so it is much easier in that regard)
Apply the same standards to TBS and wilderness programmes. Have a single body which over sees the child protection at a federal level. Yes that means one more federal body instead several state ones, and when kids are injured & the hands of their carerss call in law enforcement to press charges. This doesnot have to be the FBI. It just needs to be whoever charges ordinary citizens with Murder, manslaughter or any other rank and file charge. What needs to be uniform is what the charge is not whether federal or state police charge the alleged perpetrator
I like bad puppy dont see how this can do anyharm. I am not suggesting that it would fix the whole industry, I am with you when you say the industry should not exist at all and that there are probably a lot of problems within that cant be fixed, but at least it is a start.
-
If you fixed the industry it wouldn't be what it is.
"fixing" a program means taking out the programmie bullshit and making it just schools with actual therapy and no coersive bullshit.
How many times do I have to fucking repeat that?
-
actually i disagree with both of you. I dont think boarding school is a place to provide therapy. Kids who have mental ilnesses or severe ad geniune addictions should be seen by doctors. Everyone else should probably be with their family & community.
I just dont think that the industry can be shut down because it has so much money and power. This is why I think that the only thing that can at least moderate the industry isstrict enforceable rules. The 2 arguments are mot mutually exclusive.
-
No shit a boarding school isn't gonna give you therapy. :roll:
Here we go again.
My point is progrmas are based off of coersion and control. If you 'fixed' a program its just a boarding school. If you give therapy there, then its like seeing an outpatient therapist after school living at home.
Now, I will be the FIRST to tell you I think sending people off and keeping them in isolation is bad, its not theraputic, and its very stressful. I think sending people away is wrong and not good for anything except possibly punishing them if you want to do that for some reason or another.
Dont read too much into what I Say, plshelp. I think programs and sending kids away is wrong, period.
-
fine. But if you are to shut them down there needs to be some kind of practical way of doing it. Education deos not seem to be enough because the industry seems to be growing not shrinking.
-
If the facts were all over the evening news this would be over and done with very quickly. But until that happens you cant expect the government to do a goddamned thing about it.
-
On 2006-06-30 19:37:00, Three Springs Waygookin wrote:
"You really have no clue how America works do you?"
I have some idea, but what makes you say that?
-
Ginger is right that public awareness must happen for the problem to be fixed.
Where she and I disagree is that she doesn't think any legislative solution will be an improvement.
I think we need consumer protection laws for mental health therapies.
I think we need an agency like the FDA, or an expansion of the FDA, to cover talk or behavioral therapies. For purposes of argument, figure we expand the FDA.
Just as, even with the FDA, people can still take various herbal and nutritional supplements, people would still be able to get any talk or behavioral therapy they wanted---so long as it's not demonstrably very dangerous.
What needs to be restricted is the practices that are very dangerous, and the claims made by various facilities. The FDA needs to be able to make therapists comply with standards for what therapies they claim to provide.
Specifically, if a therapist claims to provide a particular kind of proven therapy, like CBT, that therapist should have to have qualifications to provide that therapy or should have to post a disclaimer saying she doesn't have those qualifications.
If a facility or therapist claims to use certain therapies and deliver a certain percentage of results with them, then that facility or therapist had better be making truthful claims---just like the FDA verifies that when you buy a bottle of pills from the pharmacy, what it says on the label is what's really in the bottle.
If a facility or therapist provides unproven therapies exclusively or in addition to the proven ones, they should have to say so. They should have to say if they're unqualified to provide whatever it is. Consumers have a right to know what's in the bottle matches what's on the label.
If they make claims unverified by the FDA, the FDA should have the right to make them post a disclaimer---wherever and to whatever specifications the FDA decides---to protect the consumer.
Children should have consumer protections from ineffective or harmful treatments.
Right now, if your child clearly needs mental health help, then it's child neglect if you don't get them seen to the same as if the kid had an abcess. Child welfare may or may not catch it or pursue it, but they could make a case out of it if they chose.
Problem is, the mental health "help" you get them can be any old kind of snake oil gobbledegook you want.
With an expansion of the FDA, if a relative or a neighbor alleges that a parent is taking their child who clearly needs mental health help and sticking them in something ineffective or harmful---with clear, objective definitions of what works and what doesn't---then child welfare has a clean cut set of criteria for doing an investigation and has some basis to help them evaluate whether a particular child is being abused or neglected.
Another thing this would do is if another family member was seeking custody of the child, the use of harmful treatments if the child was fine, or the use of ineffective treatments or unqualified personnel if the child needed help, would give the other family member some grounds for bringing the case in front of a family court judge. Then the judge could decide in that kid's individual case how to rule in the custody case. He'd just have a lot more clear, objective information about the treatments happening to the kid if the FDA had authority to do normal consumer protection.
Personally, I think this would have the effect of shutting down these behavior mod facilities because they don't work.
Most of them would shut down through lack of demand if they had to provide the parents with prominent disclaimers written by the FDA saying that they don't work, and if the claims they could make to parents were heavily limited and enforced by the FDA.
The few that would still be able to fill beds in their facilities after the resulting industry shakeout would then be mostly shut down as neighbors and relatives of the kids looked at the disclaimers, looked at the parents, picked up the phone, and called child welfare authorities.
You guys point out that the behavior mod facilities comprise a huge industry. That's true. So did the medicine shows selling tonics like Lydia Pinkhams. So did the processed food industries when they didn't have to tell you what was really in the box or the can. When the FDA was created and got the power to make those folks tell the truth, the medicine show industry went away. Tonics like Lydia Pinkhams disappeared like the dinosaurs or, like Coca Cola, transformed into a relatively harmless soft drink that quit making health claims (and quit including cocaine).
I'm a fiscally conservative, socially libertarian Republican. I hate big government as a "solution" to social problems. I believe the private sector solves most problems much better for most consumers, more quickly, for a much better price.
But I'm not an anarchist.
I believe strong consumer protection laws are a necessary limit on a market economy.
I believe half the problem driving these behavior mod facilities is that the parents believe the claims Programs make.
Parents believe Programs because they are accustomed to the benefits of consumer protection laws in the other parts of their lives and naturally assume that the Programs they send their kids to are regulated in equivalent ways.
Our society moved away from Caveat Emptor a long time ago. People aren't used to thinking that way. There are some good reasons for choosing the present consumer protection system over straight laissez-faire capitalism.
The biggest public policy problem with the Programs, and with mental health care in general, is that we don't subject them to the same kinds of consumer protection laws we apply to most similarly important things.
If consumer protection laws enforced a certain level of truth in advertising and truth in labeling on the Programs, I believe Ginger's public awareness campaign would probably take care of the rest of the problem.
Julie
-
You can argue for your so called libertarian beliefs all you want, but as long as the corporations are using the government to pass legislation to favor themselves, maybe its about time the people pass something to enhance their own lives and well being. Can't have it both ways, if the government doesn't want to do anything about it then they shouldn't be surprised when violence breaks out and people decide to take action themselves.
-
The idea that educating parents of these facilities, is the absolute worst path to follow in my opinion. I think a lot of kids know why... our parents knew what was going on and still kept us there. I wish polical ideology could be shelved for a moment.
-
Consumer protection laws work.
Their greatest benefit is preventing fraud.
The problems in this industry are not simply matters of common sense. They're matters of fraud. They're matters of specific, harmful practices.
What we have to do is outlaw the Program itself.
We all recognize the Program. We know it when we see it.
The Program is:
1) Institutionalizing kids who could be provided any services they need in a community setting.
2) Institutionalizing mentally ill kids in a setting where they can only get incompetent treatment and emotional abuse.
3) Making kids punish other kids as a condition of getting out of the Program.
4) Depriving kids of all privacy, including bathroom, sleeping, and showers.
5) Providing kids with only bad, unappetizing food and doling out minimal improvements in that food as a tactic for manipulating the kids.
6) Making the kids wear ugly, inadequate clothing.
7) Providing the kids with only substandard, inadequate education, and depriving kids of even that little education on a whim.
:cool: Depriving kids of timely and necessary medical and dental care.
9) Abusive and excessive use of chemical and physical restraints to deliberately inflict pain and suffering on the kid.
10) Forced intimate self disclosure followed by ridicule.
11) Forcing kids to ridicule the intimate self disclosures of others as a condition of escaping the Program.
12) Sleep deprivation as a systematic tool to force compliance.
13) Abusive and injurious use of forced, repetitive, strenuous exercise.
14) Total destruction of the kid's healthy emotional boundaries by forcing the kid to "accept responsibility" for all sorts of bad acts committed by other people---whether their parents, the program staff, or the kid's rapist.
15) Depriving kids of unmonitored outside contact whether via phone, visit, or mail. Absolutely cutting kids off from their home community, their friends, their extended family, advocacy groups, independent second opinions, child welfare authorities, and an attorney.
16) Indeterminate and arbitrary length of stay.
17) Abusive restrictions on interpersonal communication between the kids.
18) Stupid and arbitrary rules, enforced arbitrarily, used to hammer in unquestioning and immediate compliance with authority.
19) Forcing kids outside in harsh and extreme conditions for extended periods, and/or shelter provided is inadequate or intentionally designed to cause discomfort.
20) Intentional infliction of isolation and/or boredom to force compliance. Various kinds of isolation are used.
21) Sanitation conditions that are hazardous to the kid's health.
The various implementations of The Program use different elements of the list in different ways. Many or most do not necessarily include every item on the list.
To shut down the Program, we have to outlaw the Program itself. To outlaw the Program, we have to ban certain specific practices on the list, and we have to require certain specific protective acts that are mutually exclusive with other practices on the list.
The laws that outlaw the Program, to be effective, have to be able to change as fast as the Program operators change to try to get around the new rules. That takes a regulatory agency like FDA, USDA, EPA, SEC---an agency with national rulemaking authority delegated by Congress under an overall governing statute.
A federal regulatory agency is the only entity with enough flexibility and scope to actually outlaw the Program itself and shut it down, instead of just continuing the current shell game of the same bad people shuffling around within the same old Program under different names and with different cosmetic tweaks.
I hate federal bureaucracy, too. But not enough to hide my head in the sand like an ostrich while the Program goes on hurting kids.
We have to outlaw the Program itself, or we can't shut down the places that use it.
Julie
-
i couldnt agree with Julie more. What is education going to do with the element of parents for whom quality of care is not the test? There is an element of families where new stepmom could care less whrther the kid is being malnourished, made to join psycho cry fests and being denied adequate medical care.
-
Luckily it is not up to you.
-
On 2006-06-30 11:25:00, Badpuppy wrote:
"
How are kids hurt by regulation, inspection, and standards? Sure situations occur. But their is a greater burden to cover-up and bend a rule, than if the standards are not their at all.[ This Message was edited by: Badpuppy on 2006-06-30 11:26 ]"
Regulation would be useful if programs were required to report abuse, deaths, assaults, sexual impropriaties, etc. That data is not available and it's difficult to educate some without it.
The way that it could possibly hurt them is if their parents were complacent, assuming that the government was protecting their child. In fact, state regulatory agencies only visit every year or two, unless there have been prior violations. In many states the licensing agency supports the program and overlooks violations.
Many foster kids end up in programs. Take a look at the Fed track record with foster kids. Would they do any better with programs?
http://www.nccpr.org/index_files/page0006.html (http://www.nccpr.org/index_files/page0006.html)
A friend just turned me on to the NCCPR group today, so I haven't fully researched what they're about... but I like this:
Q: Isn't foster care used only in the most severe cases of abuse?
A: No. Although some parents really are brutally abusive or hopelessly addicted, many more are not. Some accused parents are innocent of any wrongdoing. In other cases, the family is poor, and that poverty has been confused with child "neglect." In still other cases, the parent is neither all victim nor all villain, but any problems in the family could have been solved with the right kind of help, while keeping the family together safely.We believe that no child should ever be removed from the child's family for neglect alone, unless the child is suffering, or is at imminent risk of suffering, identifiable, serious harm that cannot be remediated by services.
Q: What should be done instead?
A: That depends on the case. Sometimes, the best thing child protective services can do is apologize to an innocent family, close the door and go away. In other cases, basic help to ameliorate the worst effects of poverty may be all that is needed. For example, a family living in dangerous housing may simply need enough emergency cash to pay a security deposit on a better apartment. In more serious cases, Intensive Family Preservation programs have kept together tens of thousands of families that child protective services was prepared to tear apart - and they've done it with a better safety record than foster care (See NCCPR Issue Papers 1, 10 and 11). Other states and localities have gone further, creating entire systems of care that have reduced the number of children in foster care while making children safer. Other innovations, such as the Annie E. Casey Foundation's Family to Family initiative and the Center for the Study of Social Policy?s Community Partnerships for Child Protection also show great promise as ways to keep children safely with their own parents. (The Casey Foundation also helps to fund NCCPR).
Q: But isn't using foster care a matter of "erring on the side of the child?" Doesn't it at least ensure that a child is safe?
A: No. As noted above, taking a child when there has been no abuse in the home is, in itself, an abusive act. [Programs included] A young child often will assume that he has done something terribly wrong, and now is being punished. For other children, the experience can be as traumatic as a kidnapping. And that's even if the child is placed in a good foster home. Most foster parents try to do the best they can for the children in their care (like most parents, period). But the size of the abusive minority is alarming. That minority grows when more and more children are taken into care, forcing agencies to lower standards and overcrowd foster homes. These conditions also can lead to foster children abusing each other (See NCCPR Issue Paper 1). Overall, real family preservation programs, like those we advocate, have a better track record for safety. For most children most of the time, family preservation is erring on the side of the child.
Q: Who funds NCCPR?
The Annie E. Casey Foundation and the Open Society Institute, a part of the Soros Foundations Network. We thank them for their support, but acknowledge that the views expressed on this website are those of NCCPR alone and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of our funders.
http://www.nccpr.org/index_files/page0002.html (http://www.nccpr.org/index_files/page0002.html)
And this bit from the report on Texas.
Much has been said about the problem of addiction in child welfare. But the biggest addiction problem in child welfare is not the one that afflicts some birth parents, though that is serious and real. The biggest addiction problem in child welfare involves well-heeled, well-connected private child welfare agencies with blue-chip boards of directors that are addicted to their per-diem payments. And sadly, these agencies are putting their addiction ahead of the children.
We know this because of what happened in Illinois, where changing financial incentives was crucial to the state?s successful reform effort.
Like many addicts, the Illinois agencies were ?in denial.? They insisted that per-diem payments had no impact on their decisions. They said they truly wished they could find permanent homes for children but, they said, the parents were so very, very dysfunctional and the children?s problems were so very, very intractable.
But finally, the state worked up the political courage to force private agencies to kick the per-diem habit. Private agencies in Illinois now are rewarded for keeping children safely in their own homes. They also are rewarded for adoptions. But they are penalized financially if they allow children to languish in foster care.
When the financial incentives changed, an amazing thing happened. Suddenly the ?intractable? became tractable the ?dysfunctional? became functional, the foster care population plummeted, and child
safety improved. Illinois succeeded where Kansas did not partly because the two states used different models of privatization.
http://www.nccpr.org/reports/texasreport2.pdf (http://www.nccpr.org/reports/texasreport2.pdf)
-
Deborah--I agree with you about the need for reporting requirements as a good first step.
The other information was good, too.
Julie
-
On 2006-07-02 19:06:00, Deborah wrote:
"
On 2006-06-30 11:25:00, Badpuppy wrote:
"
How are kids hurt by regulation, inspection, and standards? Sure situations occur. But their is a greater burden to cover-up and bend a rule, than if the standards are not their at all.[ This Message was edited by: Badpuppy on 2006-06-30 11:26 ]"
Regulation would be useful if programs were required to report abuse, deaths, assaults, sexual impropriaties, etc. That data is not available and it's difficult to educate some without it.
The way that it could possibly hurt them is if their parents were complacent, assuming that the government was protecting their child. In fact, state regulatory agencies only visit every year or two, unless there have been prior violations. In many states the licensing agency supports the program and overlooks violations.
Many foster kids end up in programs. Take a look at the Fed track record with foster kids. Would they do any better with programs?
http://www.nccpr.org/index_files/page0006.html (http://www.nccpr.org/index_files/page0006.html)
A friend just turned me on to the NCCPR group today, so I haven't fully researched what they're about... but I like this:
Q: Isn't foster care used only in the most severe cases of abuse?
A: No. Although some parents really are brutally abusive or hopelessly addicted, many more are not. Some accused parents are innocent of any wrongdoing. In other cases, the family is poor, and that poverty has been confused with child "neglect." In still other cases, the parent is neither all victim nor all villain, but any problems in the family could have been solved with the right kind of help, while keeping the family together safely.We believe that no child should ever be removed from the child's family for neglect alone, unless the child is suffering, or is at imminent risk of suffering, identifiable, serious harm that cannot be remediated by services.
Q: What should be done instead?
A: That depends on the case. Sometimes, the best thing child protective services can do is apologize to an innocent family, close the door and go away. In other cases, basic help to ameliorate the worst effects of poverty may be all that is needed. For example, a family living in dangerous housing may simply need enough emergency cash to pay a security deposit on a better apartment. In more serious cases, Intensive Family Preservation programs have kept together tens of thousands of families that child protective services was prepared to tear apart - and they've done it with a better safety record than foster care (See NCCPR Issue Papers 1, 10 and 11). Other states and localities have gone further, creating entire systems of care that have reduced the number of children in foster care while making children safer. Other innovations, such as the Annie E. Casey Foundation's Family to Family initiative and the Center for the Study of Social Policy?s Community Partnerships for Child Protection also show great promise as ways to keep children safely with their own parents. (The Casey Foundation also helps to fund NCCPR).
Q: But isn't using foster care a matter of "erring on the side of the child?" Doesn't it at least ensure that a child is safe?
A: No. As noted above, taking a child when there has been no abuse in the home is, in itself, an abusive act. [Programs included] A young child often will assume that he has done something terribly wrong, and now is being punished. For other children, the experience can be as traumatic as a kidnapping. And that's even if the child is placed in a good foster home. Most foster parents try to do the best they can for the children in their care (like most parents, period). But the size of the abusive minority is alarming. That minority grows when more and more children are taken into care, forcing agencies to lower standards and overcrowd foster homes. These conditions also can lead to foster children abusing each other (See NCCPR Issue Paper 1). Overall, real family preservation programs, like those we advocate, have a better track record for safety. For most children most of the time, family preservation is erring on the side of the child.
Q: Who funds NCCPR?
The Annie E. Casey Foundation and the Open Society Institute, a part of the Soros Foundations Network. We thank them for their support, but acknowledge that the views expressed on this website are those of NCCPR alone and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of our funders.
http://www.nccpr.org/index_files/page0002.html (http://www.nccpr.org/index_files/page0002.html)
And this bit from the report on Texas.
Much has been said about the problem of addiction in child welfare. But the biggest addiction problem in child welfare is not the one that afflicts some birth parents, though that is serious and real. The biggest addiction problem in child welfare involves well-heeled, well-connected private child welfare agencies with blue-chip boards of directors that are addicted to their per-diem payments. And sadly, these agencies are putting their addiction ahead of the children.
We know this because of what happened in Illinois, where changing financial incentives was crucial to the state?s successful reform effort.
Like many addicts, the Illinois agencies were ?in denial.? They insisted that per-diem payments had no impact on their decisions. They said they truly wished they could find permanent homes for children but, they said, the parents were so very, very dysfunctional and the children?s problems were so very, very intractable.
But finally, the state worked up the political courage to force private agencies to kick the per-diem habit. Private agencies in Illinois now are rewarded for keeping children safely in their own homes. They also are rewarded for adoptions. But they are penalized financially if they allow children to languish in foster care.
When the financial incentives changed, an amazing thing happened. Suddenly the ?intractable? became tractable the ?dysfunctional? became functional, the foster care population plummeted, and child
safety improved. Illinois succeeded where Kansas did not partly because the two states used different models of privatization.
http://www.nccpr.org/reports/texasreport2.pdf (http://www.nccpr.org/reports/texasreport2.pdf)
"
Two absolutely incorrect premises:
That private facilities are not required to report such sentinel events (check reporting rules of any public health department, in any state) and that federal government can do ANYTHING better or more efficiently than state government. :roll:
-
You all make it seem so hard, I wonder if you really even want to help these kids. Make it a law so every facility has to have a payphone where the kids have access to it freely to call for help if they are being abused. Also make it law to hand the kids a sheet of paper and have their rights explained to them, since adults like to use their authority to convince kids "they are not really being abused". It's not hard to do, it's just that nobody gives a shit.
-
Don't confuse skepticism with apathy.
Who will decide what the kids rights are?
Who will ensure that every kid gets a copy?
Will this law apply only to "licensed" facilities?
If states can't ensure that programs are licensed and following minimum regulations, how will the feds accomplish this?
-
Hey, that's too many questions, it's getting complicated. Better just throw up my hands, accept the fact my government cannot help!
-
The point is that the only government action that will solve the problem is complete and permanent shutdown of these pits. It's the same reason the government doesn't "regulate" heroin or cocaine, and these places are approximately as harmful.
You don't regulate child abuse. You ban it, and put the perpetrators in jail or Hell where they belong.
-
On 2006-07-03 08:25:00, Milk Gargling Death Penalty wrote:
"The point is that the only government action that will solve the problem is complete and permanent shutdown of these pits. It's the same reason the government doesn't "regulate" heroin or cocaine, and these places are approximately as harmful.
No, the reasons for prohibition of drugs has nothing to do with how dangerous the drug is or isn't. And I would argue that heroin and cocaine themselves are not inherently dangerous. The abuse of them is, but not the drugs themselves.
You don't regulate child abuse. You ban it, and put the perpetrators in jail or Hell where they belong."
:nworthy: :nworthy: :tup:
-
...No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were. Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee...
-
On 2006-07-03 19:32:00, Three Springs Waygookin wrote:
"
You don't regulate child abuse. You ban it, and put the perpetrators in jail or Hell where they belong."
Excellent concept worthy of being a fornits quote."
Ditto :tup:
-
On 2006-07-03 21:21:00, Three Springs Waygookin wrote:
To me anyway the entire concept of regulating the TBS industry is like having OSHA do a visit on ww2 concentration camps to make sure they are using save labour practices.
You meant "safe"... Very good analogy nonetheless!
-
The entire concept of therapeutic communities is fucked, PERIOD. There is no improving, there is no regulating, there is no making it better or safe. TCs come from Synanon and the like. They don't "work" (and I use that term loosely, the 'work' in the sense that they do change people but for the worse and at a high price) without those dangerous components (i.e. confrontational approach, seminars, isolation etc) so there is no way to improve them. At all.
-
No, they can't be reformed.
But, we still need mental hospitals for people who are acutely ill and need to be stabilized, then released.
We still need RTCs for severely mentally handicapped kids who become violently unmanageable, and are bigger than their parents now, so they can't live at home, but have to live somewhere.
Parents and kids want the mundane equivalent of Hogwarts to still be out there. Real prep schools. The snobby sort.
The Program will try to hide under the label of any of those, or several at once, just like slimy grubs hide under rocks.
The only way to outlaw The Program is to outlaw its fundamental attributes.
Then to jail the people who violate those laws---as they sometimes will.
We outlawed medicine shows by outlawing their attributes. One of the primary reasons for the creation of the FDA was to put them out of business, and that's exactly what it did.
The Program pretends to be other things to skate through the laws and keep scamming the parents out of junior's college fund all while slamming junior into compliance brutally and providing a spartan existence on the cheap rationalized as "tough love."
You can't successfully outlaw The Program by outlawing behavioral modification facilities. They'll just say they're something else.
Make all the things The Program does, all the things The Program is, individually illegal and separate violations of the law, and you can put those bastards away on multiple felony counts until they rot.
Julie
-
BTW--if we make all the individual bad things The Program does illegal, then whenever we catch some bunch operating a Program we can prosecute the whole kit and caboodle under federal racketeering laws (RICO) and confiscate not only the grounds the Program is on, and the building, but the personal fortunes of the SOB owners themselves. Every damned penny.
Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch.
Julie
-
On 2006-07-03 22:16:00, Anonymous wrote:
"No, they can't be reformed.
But, we still need mental hospitals for people who are acutely ill and need to be stabilized, then released.
We still need RTCs for severely mentally handicapped kids who become violently unmanageable, and are bigger than their parents now, so they can't live at home, but have to live somewhere.
I agree but it scares me to think of how easily this can and is being abused. That whole adolescence/pathology issue. Those damn questionnaires on most 'treatment center' sites are so vague they could describe damn near every teen in America and that attitude seems to be perpetuated in the mental health field more and more.
Make all the things The Program does, all the things The Program is, individually illegal and separate violations of the law, and you can put those bastards away on multiple felony counts until they rot.
Julie"
:wstupid: :tup: :tup: :tup:
-
On 2006-07-03 22:16:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
You can't successfully outlaw The Program by outlawing behavioral modification facilities. They'll just say they're something else."
Precisely. Here are a few tidbits from the Aspen timeline I'm compiling.
Feb 2000- Sainer on ?Youth Services Committee? of NAPHS
Launches Advocacy Campaign to ?Make Behavioral Health for Youth a Priority?. Campaign is under the direction of the NAPHS Youth Services Committee, chaired by Elliot Sainer.
?The Lewin report and analysis by our Board and the NAPHS Youth Services Committee confirm what we are hearing from many venues ? including the recent report on mental health by the U.S. Surgeon General.
[Note: ? there is only weak evidence for their (RTCs) effectiveness]http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/mentalhealth/chapter3/sec7.html#treatment
Treatment works, but not all young people have equal access, coverage, or opportunity to use the services we know can help improve their lives,? said NAPHS Executive Director Mark Covall.
According to the Lewin report, approximately 20% of children and adolescents (or about 11 million youth ages 9 to 17) have a diagnosable mental, emotional, or behavioral health disorder, from attention deficit disorder and depression to bipolar illness and schizophrenia. Many children and youth simply ?fall between the cracks? of the major systems involved in delivering care, which include education, child welfare, and juvenile justice, and mental health and substance abuse authorities, the Lewin report finds. One study suggests only 11% of children at risk receive services in a mental health setting.
The NAPHS-commissioned Lewin Group report provides baseline information on current knowledge and thinking about care for youth with psychiatric, emotional, and behavioral problems. The report is based on a literature review, tested and reinforced by extensive structured interviews with members of the NAPHS Youth Services Committee (comprised of leading providers serving children and youth).
http://www.naphs.org/News/youthservices.html (http://www.naphs.org/News/youthservices.html)
The Lewin Report
http://www.naphs.org/youth_services/lewinpaper.html (http://www.naphs.org/youth_services/lewinpaper.html)
Mar 2004- Sainer/ Education Industry Asso, Inc goes to Washington.
Recognizing that the climate for the education industry in Washington is at an unprecedented high, members of the EILB Steering Committee ? ?..and Elliot Sainer (AEG) ?put together one of the most high-level meetings ever held in Washington for education industry executives.
The current Administration is eager to work with industry leaders to bring about beneficial changes in education policy that will produce positive implications for the industry. The spring EILB meeting provided significant interaction among industry executives and members of the Bush Administration and Congress.
The program agenda included:
*Informative updates from Bush Administration officials about implementation of the ?No Child Left Behind? legislation
*Engagement with Capitol Hill and Department of Education personnel involved in the pending reauthorizations of legislation affecting both higher education and special education
*Highlights on the successes of education companies
*Strategy development for industry public relations activities sponsored by the EILB and the EIA.
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:_5Je ... =clnk&cd=1 (http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:_5Je1Smdx_EJ:www.educationindustry.org/newsletter/newsletter.php%3Fid%3D7+EILB+Steering+Committee&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1)
Apr 2004- Education Companies Play ?Let?s Make a Deal?
The requirements of the federal No Child Left Behind Act, along with an improving economy, mean more moneymaking opportunities in areas such as tutoring, student assessment, and online content, industry observers say. Help for students with special learning needs has also proved to be an increasingly key market, according to analysts.
The AEG, a Cerritos, Calif.-based company that manages 46 alternative education programs or schools in 10 states, in November acquired Cedars Academy, a private boarding school in Bridgeville, Del., for students with attention difficulties. That deal immediately followed Aspen Education?s acquisition of Explorations Inc., a group of Montana-based wilderness and experiential programs for troubled students.
Since 1994, Aspen Education?s revenue has grown from some $10 million to almost $100 million. "We?ve developed a real niche in a national referral base for underachieving kids," said Elliot A. Sainer, the company?s CEO.
http://www.plato.com/downloads/aboutus/news/EdWeek.pdf (http://www.plato.com/downloads/aboutus/news/EdWeek.pdf)
May 2005- Aspen Youth Services changes name to Aspen Education Group
"This emphasis on education simply recognizes the many learning opportunities that are inherent in all of our programs," said Elliot Sainer, President and CEO. "Even though we will continue to focus primarily on youth under age 18, this name change will allow us to explore other growth opportunities in this sector. We will continue to focus on our strength, which is offering private pay education programs for families and students across the country who need our services," said Sainer.
States 43 programs in 8 states
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:EOv_ ... clnk&cd=63 (http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:EOv_rj3U3p8J:www.findwealth.com/aspen-youth-services-changes-name-907137pr.html+%22elliot+sainer%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=63)
Jan 2006- AEG markets to 10-12 year olds. Sainer believes kids are ?experimenting with drugs? at an earlier age. Moving from ?generalized? to ?specialized? program. Due to internet access, parents are holding programs to a ?higher standard?. Will wrap-up a 3-year, independent, ?clinical outcome study? this summer.
http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/p ... 5262.shtml (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/article_5262.shtml)
Whadda ya think?
[ This Message was edited by: Deborah on 2006-07-03 22:58 ]
-
I dont think anyone on this thread thinks that these places should not be banned & if the US govt shut them all down tomorrow, and jailed the owners of the biggest industry players i am sure there would be a bun fight over who got to throw the biggest party.
HOWEVER again nobody answered my original question- how can shutting these schools down be achieved through education alone? Is my perception that the industry is growing in spite of a vast amount of information against it wrong? (I am not being sarcastic here i genuinely want to know)
The Help @ any cost book seemed to get a fair bit of press in the US but so it seems did that mother/daugher book in praise of WWASPS.
-
(http://http://www.blowfish.com/catalog/toys/images/t-doc-1621.jpg)
-
yo dude that looks more like a dildo than anything.
-
yo dude that looks more like a dildo than anything.
-
Its a fucking anal probe you doofus :mad:
-
Stimulating conversation you got going on here...