Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Troubled Teen Industry => Topic started by: Che Gookin on October 05, 2007, 07:08:33 AM
-
Ladies and gentlemen I bring to you news of something that really shouldn't be a surprise. Our esteemed Congressperson George Miller is going to be holding hearings regarding abuse in private programmes. This committee will be hearing witnesses to shed light on the abuses found in private facilities. I've just learned, via an anonymous source, survivors will not be testifying in front of this committee.
What this implies my fellow rabble rousers is that your story isn't important enough to George Miller. The hardships, pain, agony, and sheer hell of your program experience just doesn't much to Mr. George Miller. At this up and coming hearing in front of Congressman Miller's committee your voices will not be heard. I find the irony of the situation staggering.
Here we have a man presenting legislation to increase the funding, fifty million dollars worth, to ensure licensing of programmes. No where in this legislation does it call for the abolition of unlicensed programmes. No where in this legislation does it even attempt to define what exactly consists of a programme. In this legislation you will find no attempts made to safe guard the rights of children either. At best this legislation, in my opinion, is a hollow shell.
The same sort of hollow shell that was first presented to congress in the Nixon administration. It was back then the funding for SEED was approved by congress. Funding for a programme based on synonan of all places. Remember synonan at all anyone? I seem to recall that Synonan at best can be described as a deranged cult. With the collapse of the SEED we saw the spawning of Straight.
Straight the same government approved, funded, and supported programme that incarcerated how many young men and women? It gets even better. Straight was fully licensed in the state of Florida. From what I understand it was fully licensed in other states. One only needs to think back to the story of Ginger Warbis to know that she was forcefully extradited back to the state of Florida on behalf of Straight after fleeing for her freedom, life, and what was left of her sanity.
This new bill is an empty vessel. It in no way furthers our cause. Here we are fighting to keep children safe. This bill allows those programmes under license to skip along their merry way. That treasured license will no doubt be cold comfort for the parents, friends, and family of the young men and women who die at the hands of those licensed programmes. Perhaps the funerals of the falled children will have a flag draped over their coffin in the pattern of the programme's license? I worked for two different programmes for nearly four years.
Both of these programmes were, and are, licensed by government. Three Springs of Alabama has not only been shown to be abusive by myself, but other staff and young men and women have stepped forward with the same sad claims. Three Springs of Wayne County Georgia suffered a tragic death due to dehydration and yet this programme was allowed to continue on. Eckerds, specifically Camp E-Kel-Etu of Silver Springs Florida, killed a young boy named Michael Wiltky(spelling?). Both of these companies are licensed and there are so many more programmes that are licensed who are abusive or have killed young men or women.
SAFE of Orlando
Benchmark
Peninsula Village
Youth Care
Aspen Educational Group
Elan
Hyde
Carlbrook
Remember though none of your stories are important enough to be heard by Congressmen George Miller and his little committee. Survivors from the above organizations, all licensed of course, and places like WWASP will recieve no voice. Your examples will be unheard by our representatives.
The examples of young men and women killed, abused, injured, and left mentally scarred are so endless my very existence is in danger of imploding to even try to recount all the occurances. Because we are being ignored, more importantly the young men and women who have survived these places are being ignored, I'm hoping some or all of you will join with me to try and stop this legislation. I see no benifits stemming from Congressman George Miller's legislation. I can only see more blood, tears, and dead children coming away from all of this.
-
Get yourself cooler
Lay yourself low
Coincidental murder
With nothing to show
With the judges constipation
Will go to his head
And his wifes aggravation
Youll soon end up dead
Its the same old story
Same old song and dance, my friend
Its the same old story
Same old song and dance, my friend
Gotcha with the cocaine
They found with your gun
No smooth face laywer
Could get ya undone
Say love aint the same
On the south side of town
You could look
But you aint gonna find it around
Its the same old story
Same old song and dance, my friend
Its the same old story
Same old story
Same old song and dance
Fate comes a-knockin
Doors start lockin
Your old time connection
Change your direction
You aint gonna change it
Cant rearrange it
Cant stand the pain
When its all the same to you, my friend
When youre low down and dirty
From walkin the street
With your old hurdy gurdy
No one to meet
Said love aint the same
On the south side of town
You could look
But you aint gonna find it around
Its the same old story
Same old song and dance, my friend
Its the same old story
Same old story
Same old song and dance
-
SAFE of Orlando
Benchmark
Peninsula Village
Youth Care
Aspen Educational Group
Elan
Hyde
Carlbrook
Remember though none of your stories are important enough to be heard by Congressmen George Miller and his little committee. Survivors from the above organizations, all licensed of course, and places like WWASP will recieve no voice. Your examples will be unheard by our representatives.
Just a point of clarification, fwiw. While SAFE, PV, YC and some AEG programs are licensed...... Benchmark, Elan, and many AEG programs are not. Not sure about Carlbrook and Hyde.
-
Just a point of clarification, fwiw. While SAFE, PV, YC and some AEG programs are licensed...... Benchmark, Elan, and many AEG programs are not. Not sure about Carlbrook and Hyde.
What difference does that make?
-
One more thing. I really didn't pay any attention to the GAO thing. Just didn't expect much. But awhile back, a good friend convinced me that it was an ingenious plan to get our stories on the public record as sworn testimony and affidavit.
So much for that.
Fuck those assholes. All good intentions aside, they're just not on our side.
-
I'm sorry but it looks like at lot of people are jumping to doomsday conclusions. Did I miss the memo? Where was it said that survivors would not be allowed to testify? I only saw an accusation made in another post that now seems to be taken as fact.
In regards to the legislation, haven't read it sadly. However licenses ain't exactly hollow. Spring Creek Lodge would have been investigated had they been licensed because a few officials cared about and believed the kids. Nothing happened because in that State they had no authority over that hell hole and now that opportunity has passed. Let's not even bring up States like Missouri.
I know that getting programs licensed will not stop the abuse. That's not the point, the point is to give us something to fight with. We still have to do the work, we still have to fight corrupt States like Tennessee, we still have to spread the word and give survivors places to speak.
Ending abuse, ultimately, will only come with the societal change that ended Jim Crow and made nigger a word people were ashamed to speak. Victory is never found in the Congress, the White house, or the Courts. They only get involved after the war has been won in the streets and hearts of the public.
-
We gave our statement to the GAO investigator; and I sincerely hope that survivors will be speaking at this hearing on behalf of my daughter.
Since a witness list has not been publicy published; I will wait and see if survivors have been excluded from this hearing.
-
Just a point of clarification, fwiw. While SAFE, PV, YC and some AEG programs are licensed...... Benchmark, Elan, and many AEG programs are not. Not sure about Carlbrook and Hyde.
What difference does that make?
Not much. TSW listed a few programs that aren't licensed. A "point of clarification, fwiw."
The benefit of licensing? Few, but check out the latest inspection report for Ridge Creek. Record-breaking violations.
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?p=285705#285705 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?p=285705#285705)
One small way parents can gain information about programs if they choose to look. Not all states posts this info publicly, but it's available upon request.
It has been my understanding all along that Miller's primary focus was WWASP and ASTARTs was "unlicensed/unregulated" programs.... misleading at best, as abuse, neglect, human right violations occur in licensed programs as well. Neither have ever held the goal of 'shutting down programs'. Is that really 'news' to people?
I have always questioned ASTARTs agenda, particularly Robert Friedman, with his connects to CHADD, SAMHSA, Bazelon, and the New Freedom Commission.
http://wwf.fornits.com/viewtopic.php?p=142657#142657 (http://wwf.fornits.com/viewtopic.php?p=142657#142657)
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?p=282091#282091 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?p=282091#282091)
Friedman/ Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute supports Teen Screen
http://cfs.fmhi.usf.edu/cfsnews/2004new ... grants.htm (http://cfs.fmhi.usf.edu/cfsnews/2004news/10million_grants.htm)
Teen Screen
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?p=213026#213026 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?p=213026#213026)
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?p=52430#52430 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?p=52430#52430)
A Look at Private Residential Treatment Facilities for Youth:
Over the past decade in the United States, hundreds of private residential treatment facilities for youth have been established, and many are neither licensed as mental health programs by states, nor accredited by respected national accrediting organizations. Unfortunately, reports from a number of these programs reveal that a significant number of children are being mistreated, and in some cases, are even dying in them.
In order to address the rising concerns of mistreatment and financial gain at the expense of desperate parents, a multi-disciplinary group of mental health professionals and advocates formed the Alliance for the Safe, Therapeutic and Appropriate use of Residential Treatment (A START). A START was initiated in 2005 as a collaborative effort involving the Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute (FMHI) at the University of South Florida and the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law. A START members, including FMHI interim Dean Robert Friedman and Allison Pinto from the institute’s Department of Child & Family Studies, recently contributed to an article published in a special issue of the American Journal of Orthospychiatry focused on residential treatment for children and adolescents. The Journal is dedicated to informing public policy and professional practice and expanding knowledge related to human rights and social justice.
Unlicensed [should be scratched]Residential Programs: The Next Challenge in Protecting Youth reviews the licensing, regulatory and accrediting procedures associated with the protection of youth in residential programs, or the lack thereof. It describes a range a mistreatment and abuse described by youth, families and journalists, listing poor quality education, harsh discipline, inappropriate seclusion and restraint, unqualified staff, medical and nutritional neglect, rights violations and even death. The article also outlines policy implications and provides recommendations for the protection of youth and families who pursue residential treatment.
“A START recognizes that residential treatment is an appropriate placement for some youngsters and that there are high quality programs being administered by committed and competent staff,â€
-
It has been my understanding all along that Miller's primary focus was WWASP and ASTARTs was "unlicensed/unregulated" programs.... misleading at best, as abuse, neglect, human right violations occur in licensed programs as well. Neither have ever held the goal of 'shutting down programs'. Is that really 'news' to people?
Whitmore Academy was licensed by the State of Utah when we enrolled our daughter in October 2004.
As stated by Deborah - being "licensed" does not guarantee the facility will not be abusive, neglectful.
Whitmore Academy is now closed. The criminal case against the owner, Cheryl Sudweeks ended in a plea bargain; and there is currently an on-going civil case against the owners/Whitmore Academy.
Licensing, without oversight and monitoring is not very effective, IMO.
-
Has anyone actually seen a list of witnesses, or is this just all gossip? Do we know for CERTAIN there won't be any survivors? There is supposed be an opportunity for letters to be read, I am currently trying to confirm this. I had hoped to be called as a witness to testify that my son DIED in a LICENSED, ACCREDITED facility with a medical staff of 3 people. He went there voluntarily, with a medical diagnosis. And that the program he was in was marketed as a step down facility from a psych unit for kids with psychiatric disorders, with a medical program. If so, why is he DEAD? Why couldnt' they respond to a medical emergency if they are so qualified? Even if the committe doesn't buy into the abuse from survivors, how can they ignore a medical neglect situation like this, or like Michelle Sutton's medical neglect, or Ian August, or Aaron Bacon, or all the other kids whose medical needs were IGNORED? I was hoping to present a mainstream horror story for the committe. This could happen to their kids or grandkids.
-
When (if) the list of witnesses is made available, people can draw their own conclusions but I am of the opinion that the committee was unfairly and unduly influenced by a group of "parents" with ties to A-START who could be accurately described as a "special interest" group.
If there are any survivors asked to testify, why haven't they come forward?
TSW's information is accurate. Miller's staff is contacting people to testify and so far, the grapevine does suggest there are no survivors on board. That may change if people make a big enough stink - but I suggest survivors not wait for confirmation. The handwriting is already on the wall. The committee gets to hear testimony only from people cherry-picked by Miller's staff.
Survirors, please get a move on and be ready to present your statements at the hearing to the media. Even one survivor testifying would help but clearly, this isn't and never was about survivors. It's about parents of dead children having a "voice" and a chance for special interest groups to make their case for reform, not abolishment of a fraudulent, deadly industry. Politics are most definitly at play here.
And Miller has indeed, dropped the ball. Both on the hearings, and the bill, which as written, does nothing to protect children from loss of liberty and exploitation in the name of "treatment". Some people saw this early on others are just now figuring it out.
The question is what are you going to do about it? If you can afford to go to the hearing, then do so and represent yourself. Bring statements from fellow survivors and staff who can't go. Don't roll over. Don't be invisible!!!!
Survivors should be front and center. Not delegated to the back of the room to make room for parents and special interest groups with surveys and testimonials collected from unwitting participants (survivors) who can and should be allowed TO SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES instead of being used by these groups to push their OWN agenda.
:flame:
-
Why should survivors of "institutionalized" child abuse be used by any special interest group and even certain controversial so-called advocates with ties to the referral industry and others who have an intestest in providing what they consider legitimate "treatment" to youth?
This is a political football and the hearings nothing more than a full-on dog and pony show. I am disgusted.
-
Elan School License:
Elan School
P.O. Box 578
Poland, ME 04274
ADMISSIONS: Connie Kimball, 207-998-4666.
AGES/GRADES: Males and females ages 13-18 in graded 7 day per week, 12 month per year program.
THERAPEUTIC SERVICES: Intensive life skills program incorporates group and family meetings and individual work as needed.
THERAPEUTIC ORIENTATION: Character building confrontational orientation, emphasizing honesty, integrity and hard work using interpersonal, cognitive behavioral, psychodynamic and community approaches.
POPULATION SERVED: Behavioral, emotional, ADD, oppositional defiant disorder, conduct disorder, juvenile offender, and learning disabilities.
LICENSURE: Licensed by the State of Maine as a private, special purpose school, MA Chapter 766 approved, INS approved, NATSAP member.
INSURANCE ACCEPTED: No.
COMMENTS: Elan works with juveniles and young adults to help them see the causes and consequences of their conduct and teaches them the skills of responsible living.
Benchmark License:
While mostly bogus, benchmark does have permission by the state of Calfornia to operate in the form of their Private School affidavit.
http://http://homepage.mac.com/psyborgue/licensing.html
One could easily argue that the state of California's reluctance to terminate said affidavit represents a de facto state approval to operate.
[/quote]
-
Elan School License:
Elan School
P.O. Box 578
Poland, ME 04274
ADMISSIONS: Connie Kimball, 207-998-4666.
AGES/GRADES: Males and females ages 13-18 in graded 7 day per week, 12 month per year program.
THERAPEUTIC SERVICES: Intensive life skills program incorporates group and family meetings and individual work as needed.
THERAPEUTIC ORIENTATION: Character building confrontational orientation, emphasizing honesty, integrity and hard work using interpersonal, cognitive behavioral, psychodynamic and community approaches.
POPULATION SERVED: Behavioral, emotional, ADD, oppositional defiant disorder, conduct disorder, juvenile offender, and learning disabilities.
LICENSURE: Licensed by the State of Maine as a private, special purpose school, MA Chapter 766 approved, INS approved, NATSAP member.
INSURANCE ACCEPTED: No.
COMMENTS: Elan works with juveniles and young adults to help them see the causes and consequences of their conduct and teaches them the skills of responsible living.
Benchmark License:
While mostly bogus, benchmark does have permission by the state of Calfornia to operate in the form of their Private School affidavit.
http://http://homepage.mac.com/psyborgue/licensing.html
One could easily argue that the state of California's reluctance to terminate said affidavit represents a de facto state approval to operate.
The affidavit isn't an authorization from the state to do anything... The "school" simply registers the school with the state ( a requirement to operate ). Anybody can do this. Home-schoolers are required to as well. Benchmark filed lies in it's affidavit (signed, of course, like all affidavits, under penalty of perjury) but the DoE does not have the jurisdiction to do anything about the perjury... I was told flat out that you can lie on a private school affidavit, set up a school, and get away with it (this is George Miller's State, btw).
A private school affidavit is not a licence or accreditation of any sort, and to claim as such is illegal (but again, benchmark does, and again, nothing is done).
Benchmark claims it's a school to some and an RTC to others, while at the same time arguing that it needs licensing or regulation as neither. Among other things, this "name game" is something that I don't think is thoroughly addressed in Miller's bill.
-
Whitmore Academy's license to operate a Therapeutic Residential Treatment facility was "surrendered" in December 2004 to the State of Utah following the allegations of abuse against the owners Mark and Cheryl Sudweeks, and the on-going criminal investigation which began in October 2004.
But, Whitmore Academy continued to operate; and to accept new students. The owners simply "renamed" Whitmore Academy a "boarding school" and no longer required licensing - as discused in this article in the Salt Lake City Tribune:
Private school doesn't like state's 'therapeutic' label
By Kirsten Stewart
The Salt Lake Tribune
4/29/2005
A private Utah school is fighting against state regulation, arguing it is not a "therapeutic" facility - which are covered by a new law that seeks to crack down on the state's thriving teen help industry.
Administrators at Whitmore Academy in Nephi say they run a boarding school, not a treatment facility catering to troubled teens. They are asking for an exemption to the new licensing category, which goes into effect on May 2.
But state Human Services licensing director Ken Stettler believes "they're hiding behind the moniker of a boarding school" to avoid state oversight.
"All the information they've provided to parents of kids there is they provide counseling for emotional growth and behavioral changes. They cater to kids who have failed in their settings at home," said Stettler.
The new law defines "therapeutic schools" as serving students "who have a history of failing to function at home or public school" and that offer "room and board and specialized structure or treatment related to a disability or emotional development."
Matt Sudweeks, who owns Whitmore with his wife, Cheryl, says he has gotten out of the teen-help business. Whitmore formerly also operated a residential treatment center. But Sudweeks surrendered the center's license last December after a student alleged he was physically and verbally abused at Whitmore.
Utah's Division of Child and Family Services substantiated eight counts of abuse and neglect. The facility is still under criminal investigation by the Juab County Attorney's Office.
Whitmore's attorney, Matt Hilton in Kaysville, says the school - now enrolling 32 students, ages 12 to 17 - employs an educational counselor, but does not submit students to therapy.
Said Sudweeks, "We're licensed with state Board of Education as a boarding school. We cater to kids having trouble in public school system."
Stettler says Whitmore is the only one of five schools under review for regulation to balk at the new rules.
Whitmore, located in a historic mansion on Nephi's Main Street, also was recently cited with numerous fire code violations.
Brent R. Halladay, assistant state fire marshal, says the school has until mid-May to update its automatic sprinkler and fire alarm systems, build a new set of stairs to provide more than one exit, install fire extinguishers and repair electrical problems.
Halladay says the Sudweeks have "been very cooperative."
But violations were such that, until they are corrected, Sudweeks is required to have someone keep fire watch over the building every day from 7 p.m. until 7 a.m.
Although the Sudweeks lost their license to operate a "therapetutic residential treatment facility;"....and although criminal charges were filed by County Attorney Jared Eldridge against the owner, Cherly Sudweeks - and the criminal case ended with Cheryl Sudweeks accepting a plea bargain:
Whitmore Academy continued to operate for well over a year; until the Sudweeks decided to close this facility, themselves.
Ken Stettler, Head of Licensing of Utah admits in this article that facilties can "rename" themselves and avoid "oversight."
-
Like I said, the "name game" is what the programs often use (say to the school authorities "were an RTC" and "we're a school" to the RTC authorities). Benchmark uses it, Whitmore used it.. countless programs use/used it... It works...
-
Elan apparently is listed with the DOE as a private school.
http://www.natsap.org/program_details.asp?id=30 (http://www.natsap.org/program_details.asp?id=30)
State of Maine, Department of Education
They are not LICENSED by the
Department of Health & Human Services
Meaning, that while the academic aspect of the program may be evaluated by the DOE, the 'therapeutic' aspect of the program is not monitored or inspected by DHHS because they aren't licensed.
They also have no academic accreditations (ex NAAS) or professional accreditations (ex JCAHO), for what that's worth.
-
I agree with psy and everyone else re. name game business. What Hyde does according to anyone who has experienced it should go under the rubric of "therapy," but they employ no such professionals and, moreover, hold said industry in disdain. They call themselves a school, yet many of the "teachers" there have not even finished college yet, and in the summer program, may have nothing more than a high school diploma, more often than not from Hyde. The primary and only qualification for teaching at Hyde seems to be that you buy the party line and suck enough administrative ass.
Re. the GAO hearings, I always thought that it might be another foot in the door that could be used for survivors' benefit in specific cases, but never that it would make a significant change in the Industry per se. The public awareness of what goes on is not widespread enough, as well as being limited in its depth. You get a lot of people who know a wee bit, and what wee bit they know sounds good to them, in principle. Most people do not think it through enough to even realize how flawed the "in principle" part is; they've just heard the "tough love" refrain so long throughout their lives that they think it's normal, and an appropriate thing to do to their child.
It is my general impression that: progress that has been made thus far has often been with specific facilities, where someone was sharp enough to use what little ammunition they had in the form of particular licensing violations, etc. Often what brought said program to its knees was some small thing compared to the actual big picture of injustice going on there, but people kept hammering with what little they had, and eventually the program found it more trouble than it was worth.
Perhaps the GAO hearings might give us some more ammunition to hammer with. I never assumed that it would produce any more progress than that, perhaps that is why I am not so disappointed or surprised. I do wish more survivor stories would be aired but... public demonstrations could also accomplish that. Perhaps even more effectively, as it would highlight their deliberate exclusion from the hearings.
-
I agree with psy and everyone else re. name game business. What Hyde does according to anyone who has experienced it should go under the rubric of "therapy," but they employ no such professionals and, moreover, hold said industry in disdain. They call themselves a school, yet many of the "teachers" there have not even finished college yet, and in the summer program, may have nothing more than a high school diploma, more often than not from Hyde. The primary and only qualification for teaching at Hyde seems to be that you buy the party line and suck enough administrative ass.
Are you sure Benchmark isn't related somehow to Hyde.. lol.
Re. the GAO hearings, I always thought that it might be another foot in the door that could be used for survivors' benefit in specific cases, but never that it would make a significant change in the Industry per se. The public awareness of what goes on is not widespread enough, as well as being limited in its depth. You get a lot of people who know a wee bit, and what wee bit they know sounds good to them, in principle. Most people do not think it through enough to even realize how flawed the "in principle" part is; they've just heard the "tough love" refrain so long throughout their lives that they think it's normal, and an appropriate thing to do to their child.
It is my general impression that: progress that has been made thus far has often been with specific facilities, where someone was sharp enough to use what little ammunition they had in the form of particular licensing violations, etc. Often what brought said program to its knees was some small thing compared to the actual big picture of injustice going on there, but people kept hammering with what little they had, and eventually the program found it more trouble than it was worth.
And the staff migrate... It's like fucking whack a mole (need a sledge to take out the whole game). The practice of forced treatment needs to be stopped under the premise that it violates the fundamental freedoms of human beings, who have the right to decide for themselves whether they need, or do not need treatment (and may not actually have a problem other than controlling parents (who, of course, never see things from that perspective out of arrogance, and ultimately a lack of respect for the ability of their children to make choices of their own, live with the consequences, and grow up unique.)).
Perhaps the GAO hearings might give us some more ammunition to hammer with. I never assumed that it would produce any more progress than that, perhaps that is why I am not so disappointed or surprised. I do wish more survivor stories would be aired but... public demonstrations could also accomplish that. Perhaps even more effectively, as it would highlight their deliberate exclusion from the hearings.
Well. Look. I know a person who talked to the GAO, and he told me what he recommended: they take more time, they take more people, and they do a more thorough job of investigating what they need to to really catch these people red handed. He's keeping hush about what exactly is going on, but it is possible that the GAO has decided that they really do need more time (and I can believe that is possible).
However this is purely speculative, and even if the above were the case (second investigation later), I don't see why survivors aren't speaking. Maybe they're afraid some survivor will give the senator a piece of his mind on CSPAN... Oh...
Ya know what. Political pressure is just like any other weapon. We should tell Miller: either guarantee us publicly, a second, thorough investigation to be published publicly in full* or we're going to protest...
* (minus survivor and parent names redacted since they are the victims after all)
-
Everybody's screaming "fire" a little early. Presenters will be there with five minutes each to speak. This is more like a preliminary, to determine the need for more work, and it has really nothing to do with the GAO findings (their report isn't finished).
No survivors will be there, but parents who lost their kids in programs will speak.
Like I said, this ain't the full-on, custom deluxe version yet. But, I gotta admit, I expect the same ol' song and dance, too. We've been around the wheel too many times and had big hopes get crushed. I'm not optimistic, I'm trying not to be pessimistic, I'm just watching and waiting.
One of the proposed presenters gave me the run-down on the festivities. I really hope it goes the way this person wants it to, and they want at most to get a foot in the door and a monkey wrench in NATSAP's machine. One program death makes a thousand NATSAP letters null and void, as far as I'm concerned.
-
5 minutes per parent? That's what 15-30 minutes tops?
Come on! Enough of the games - who else is testifying?
If not a single survivor - then who?
-
Who's left? A Start, that's who.
Great. And how does a special interest group trump survivors?
They don't.
Way to go Miller.
:roll:
-
There is a way to get media attention and that is to use the most "sympathetic" victims first. Unfortunately, because the industry has done such a good job of demonizing survivors as unreliable "druggies," the most "sympathetic" victims are parents of dead kids.
One might imagine that starting with them is a PR strategy, not any kind of attempt to "silence" or "neglect" survivors, but a way to get the industry at its weakest spot and get the press more riled up. The ground needs to be laid before the message of survivors will be given a fair hearing.
-
You know, if you think about it having parents who lost their child to a program is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it helps to expose the deadly dangerous side of the industry while at the same time providing insight into what drives parents to send their kids away for treatment in the first place. Anger? Frustration? Desperation? Punishment? Whatever the reason, the decision to place their child's life into the hands of strangers is one they have to live with for the rest of their lives. That's a terrible price to pay for any parent no matter what the reason. Of these parents, it will be interesting to see if any of them hired transport companies, worked with an ed con, etc. because those are the side issues that the bill really does not address at all.
Overall, I expect to see some powerful opposition to the bill from advocacy groups who aren't in bed with any of the special interest groups.
Stay tuned - anon is right. This is the first-act. THe real fireworks are yet to come.
:wink:
-
There is a way to get media attention and that is to use the most "sympathetic" victims first. Unfortunately, because the industry has done such a good job of demonizing survivors as unreliable "druggies," the most "sympathetic" victims are parents of dead kids.
One might imagine that starting with them is a PR strategy, not any kind of attempt to "silence" or "neglect" survivors, but a way to get the industry at its weakest spot and get the press more riled up. The ground needs to be laid before the message of survivors will be given a fair hearing.
Actually, I disagree. I think Miller's staff got it ass-backwards - thanks to what I suspect was some serious lobbying by the special interest groups, parents and the GAO.
Just wait. Whatever happened behind the scenes will come out. It always does.
Bottom line: No survivors testifying is an absolute disgrace and no amount of spin (posturizing) from the anons posting here who appear to be in "the know" can change that.
It is what it is.
:roll:
-
There is a way to get media attention and that is to use the most "sympathetic" victims first. Unfortunately, because the industry has done such a good job of demonizing survivors as unreliable "druggies," the most "sympathetic" victims are parents of dead kids.
One might imagine that starting with them is a PR strategy, not any kind of attempt to "silence" or "neglect" survivors, but a way to get the industry at its weakest spot and get the press more riled up. The ground needs to be laid before the message of survivors will be given a fair hearing.
well, I'm the the most recent parent of a dead child, so I would be among those "most sympathetic victims first" list, but I was NOT asked to testify. Shoots that theory pretty dead. I know for a fact that some other parents of kids who died were also NOT asked to testify.
The parents of kids who died in programs are among the most abused of the survivors, their children did NOT EVEN SURVIVE. think about it.
-
Sorry, but I honestly don't think of parents of dead kids as survivors of institutionalized child abuse.
In fact, that is probably the most offensive analogy I have heard yet.
I will agree parents are victims in the sense of exploitation and fraud.
But no, the survivors of institutionalized child abuse are the children who lived it, not their parents, no matter how guilt-ridden, sorry, ashamed, etc. a parent may feel - they aren't the ones who were institutionalized.
Big difference, don't you agree?
-
Let us not forget:
The biggest victims here are the ones who are completely unable to testify by virtue of the singular fact that they are six feet under. The closest people to those victims, the ones most likely to be able to tell their story, are their parents and family.
Squabbling about the finer details of further breakdown of the "victim hierarchy" seems to be counterproductive at best.
-
Sorry, but I honestly don't think of parents of dead kids as survivors of institutionalized child abuse.
In fact, that is probably the most offensive analogy I have heard yet.
I will agree parents are victims in the sense of exploitation and fraud.
But no, the survivors of institutionalized child abuse are the children who lived it, not their parents, no matter how guilt-ridden, sorry, ashamed, etc. a parent may feel - they aren't the ones who were institutionalized.
Big difference, don't you agree?
I think both sides need to stand side by side, actually. Portraying one side as the most credible or the ones having suffered more is wrong, imo... I can't put my feet in parent's shoes and they can't walk in mine, so there is really no point arguing about whose has the bigger pebble stuck in it (ie: who has the more discomfort/pain). People deal with pain differently and it is not possible to comparatively quantify emotional pain.
As Ursus points out, squabbling over the "victim hierarchy' is counterproductive, however, they started it by quantifying some as having suffered more than others. You don't think there's one survivor the GAO might have contacted (maybe... high impact) who might have suffered a little bit? Quantifying abuse disrespects those who have suffered it. Abuse, regardless of severity is wrong. The worst of it, in my view is the obliteration of the self, by any means, and it really doesn't matter whether it's verbal or physical abuse that provides the pressure for that to happen.
Playing the politics of credibility, bowing to prejudice and participating rather than fighting, is getting in the way of telling the truth, (the whole story, from multiple perspectives), and letting the public have a more raw, un-cut version of what is going on where anything goes and veracity of information is left to the reader to decide, training them to think again rather than consume at the media trough.
-
Actually, I think this is an interesting discussion.
Parents are indeed, victims, of their own kind of hell. I know many survivors who while they love their parents, can't and won't ever forgive them. The reason? The parents don't want forgiveness. They want acceptance. To be told that even though they helped to abuse the rights of their own child, they did it out of love. As though ignorance were an excuse and abuse is something that can be made more tolerable knowing at least your parents loved you enough to pay a small fortune to ensure you got plenty of it at the "program" of their choice.
Think about what that means.
But I agree the children who died need to be heard and that in their case, there is no one else to speak for them but a parent.
It's the survivors though who can best speak for the children who didn't make it. Why didn't anyone think of that?
Oh yeah. Survivors aren't important enough to speak for themselves, much less someone else.
Total unadulterated bullcrap, if ya ask me. I hope Miller comes to his senses before the 10th. Although being a token "survivor" invited to testify is a sad commentary, it sure beats nothing at all or being completely ignored in favor of parading parents and survey takers.
:(
-
Why is it that every time someone has a different opinion and dares to challenge a parent it's called infighting?
This board is being read by plenty of people who need as much insight into these complex issues as possible.
I say let it all hang out. People can make up their own minds but at least give them something to think about instead of the same ole' propaganda and whitewashing.
Do not excuse the absence of "survivors" as being understandable or at least "helpful" to the fucking cause.
Get your heads out of your ass and demand an explanation from Congressman Miller or tell him to change the name of his bill.
-
The End Institutionalized Abuse Against Parents Act 2008
Now, do you see how fucking ridiculous that is?
This is about institutionalized CHILD ABUSE.
Show me any parent who was institutionalized in a children's program, and maybe I will change my thinking.
-
My wife and I aren't typical "program parents" - we didn't place our girl in PV, her biological father did. My wife had to watch her daughter being restrained in a gang pile-up, then was forbidden any contact with her daughter for having the presence of mind to use her camera during the restraint. On top of that, the staff went to work on my step daughter, saying her mother asked for her to be restrained. Luckily, she wouldn't believe that. PV issued a list of conditions for my wife to follow if contact was to resume, one of them being to say nothing negative about the program, anywhere. Even after agreeing to the terms, my wife was denied participation because the treatment team "couldn't be sure" she would actually follow the rules. That is a fine example of program logic.
So, parents are victims of programs, too, as well as grandparents who are definitely left out of the loop. Everyone involved is victimized, more so for offering resistance or questioning the program.
-
George Miller is focusing mainly on the military style boot camps and proposing that they get further regulation. None of this will make much of a difference to TBS or wilderness programs in the long run. This bill/Regulation does nothing more than create a new bureaucratic arm of the government, funding for individual states to hire some close supporters' family members who cant get a job in the private sector because of their lack of education or drive, so they put them to work inspecting boarding schools, looking at their record keeping process, number of fire escapes, staff to student ratio,nurses office has its license on the door and is current, number of chairs in the cafeteria and adequate heating system etc. Then the director of admissions is typically tapped on the shoulder to take this guy out to the nicest restaurant in town and review their findings, make a cash donation to the guys favorite charity and wait for their license to be renewed for another year.
The problem with regulation is its all paperwork and bs (reviewing regulations) no one will talk to a kid ever!! What do the kids know? how would you document that? They are not old enough to sign anything or attest. Who wants to talk to a bunch of kids bitching about how shitty the food is….would you ever get a positive response?
The only way I see to curb abuse is:
Instead of regulation take the same amount of money and they should hire child advocates who enter a school and audit 10 children at random and talk to the kids (no one else), answer some standard questions and then monitor the responses compared to state averages. If abuse is suspected then they go back in and pull 25 children and compare it to state responses and so on. If abuse is found then the child advocate waits for authorities (DSS, police) to show up and the advocate goes home (no interfacing with school officials).
-
I don't think anyone is saying survivors aren't important enough to speak for themselves-- but would you rather having survivors speaking for themselves and simply getting attacked as a bunch of druggies and the legislation going nowhere because no one wants to be seen as "pro-drug" or would you rather have a strategic campaign that lays the groundwork and frames the issue carefully first so that survivors can be heard in a sympathetic, rather than program-defined light?
"Nothing about us without us" is a wonderful slogan, but it's not always the best way to win in politics.
of course, some people would rather go down idealistically standing on principle and avoiding any dirty political realities and to heck with effectively making change... while others prefer to be pragmatic. it's a constant battle within any movement and well worth thinking about...
what i just hope people avoid is allowing it to divide and conquer...
-
Newton is focusing mainly on the military style boot camps and proposing that they get further regulation.
Newton? A little confused, or a Freudian slip? What are the connections here...Miller....Newton....and you're from Newton....
-
Newton is focusing mainly on the military style boot camps and proposing that they get further regulation.
Newton? A little confused, or a Freudian slip? What are the connections here...Miller....Newton....and you're from Newton....
Thanks, not sure, I was eating a fig newton but maybe subconsciously wanted a cold Miller or is that the other way around?
-
Newton is focusing mainly on the military style boot camps and proposing that they get further regulation. None of this will make much of a difference to TBS or wilderness programs in the long run. This bill/Regulation does nothing more than create a new bureaucratic arm of the government
No. That's exactly what it doesn't do. Read the bill. All it does it throw money at the problem, trusting in the states. Arguably, it means more waste in the local government and that's about it. There is still no federal level investigation / enforcement. The bill relies on the states to carry this out. Existing corruption should already show that's a bad idea. If there was a government agency dedicated to looking over these facilities it might be a little more effective (not that the whole concept of these places isn't still hopelessly misguided, ethically wrong, and destined to failure).
But for once I agree with you. This legislation is crap.
[/quote]funding for individual states to hire some close supporters' family members who cant get a job in the private sector because of their lack of education or drive, so they put them to work inspecting boarding schools, looking at their record keeping process, number of fire escapes, staff to student ratio,nurses office has its license on the door and is current, number of chairs in the cafeteria and adequate heating system etc. Then the director of admissions is typically tapped on the shoulder to take this guy out to the nicest restaurant in town and review their findings, make a cash donation to the guys favorite charity and wait for their license to be renewed for another year.[/quote]
My GOD... You're admitting it functions that way. What hath the WHO WROUGHT TODAY. MY GOD I think it's an instance of the who telling the brutal, honest truth about the industry...
[/quote]The problem with regulation is its all paperwork and bs (reviewing regulations) no one will talk to a kid ever!! What do the kids know? how would you document that? They are not old enough to sign anything or attest. Who wants to talk to a bunch of kids bitching about how shitty the food is….would you ever get a positive response?[/quote]
And then it's comments like that put you bump you up higher on my shit list, not to mention make me want to tear your head off and ram it up your ass.
Oddly enough, you seem to be asking an interesting question "would you ever get a positive response?" You ask that as if it's rhetorical and you're expecting the answer to be "no" in almost, if not all cases. In essence, you're admitting that it is highly unlikely that any of the incarcerated kids think what's happening to them is a good thing, and those who do have a certain eerie religious fervor about their devotion to the school (or eyes that quickly dart in the staff's direction on "difficult" questions). Ever notice how enthusiastic so many "sucess stories" / testimonials are.
The only way I see to curb abuse is:
Instead of regulation take the same amount of money and they should hire child advocates who enter a school and audit 10 children at random and talk to the kids (no one else), answer some standard questions and then monitor the responses compared to state averages. If abuse is suspected then they go back in and pull 25 children and compare it to state responses and so on. If abuse is found then the child advocate waits for authorities (DSS, police) to show up and the advocate goes home (no interfacing with school officials).
-
I don't think anyone is saying survivors aren't important enough to speak for themselves-- but would you rather having survivors speaking for themselves and simply getting attacked as a bunch of druggies and the legislation going nowhere because no one wants to be seen as "pro-drug" or would you rather have a strategic campaign that lays the groundwork and frames the issue carefully first so that survivors can be heard in a sympathetic, rather than program-defined light?
"Nothing about us without us" is a wonderful slogan, but it's not always the best way to win in politics.
of course, some people would rather go down idealistically standing on principle and avoiding any dirty political realities and to heck with effectively making change... while others prefer to be pragmatic. it's a constant battle within any movement and well worth thinking about...
what i just hope people avoid is allowing it to divide and conquer...
Enough of the bullshit whitewashing (damage control) anon - the fact is that survivors should not have been purposely EXCLUDED to serve the interests of a group of people who think they are somehow more politically savvy than survivors of institutionalized child abuse.
You should be ashamed of yourself of trying to peddle this crap but then again, I would imagine there is great concern that this secret little plan just might backfire.
Tell me something. Who better to speak about institutionalized child abuse than the children who survived the experience?
Where is the harm in giving equal time to the children who were in these programs?
I am writing to Congressman Miller and telling him in no uncertain terms that as a result of this travesty, he has lost my personal respect and my confidence in my own government. I don't expect a reply but will exercise my right to an opinion.
I am also writing to the mainstream media (CNN, FOX, MSNBC, NY TIMES, LA TIMES, etc.
I hope others do the same.
Let the media see the dirty truth that suvivors were purposely not invited to testify. Let them ask the question WHY.
And let Congressman Miller think about what kind of message he is sending to the TRUE VICTIMS of institutionalized child abuse.
:flame:
-
Newton is focusing mainly on the military style boot camps and proposing that they get further regulation. None of this will make much of a difference to TBS or wilderness programs in the long run. This bill/Regulation does nothing more than create a new bureaucratic arm of the government
No. That's exactly what it doesn't do. Read the bill. All it does it throw money at the problem, trusting in the states. Arguably, it means more waste in the local government and that's about it. There is still no federal level investigation / enforcement. The bill relies on the states to carry this out. Existing corruption should already show that's a bad idea. If there was a government agency dedicated to looking over these facilities it might be a little more effective (not that the whole concept of these places isn't still hopelessly misguided, ethically wrong, and destined to failure).
But for once I agree with you. This legislation is crap.
funding for individual states to hire some close supporters' family members who cant get a job in the private sector because of their lack of education or drive, so they put them to work inspecting boarding schools, looking at their record keeping process, number of fire escapes, staff to student ratio,nurses office has its license on the door and is current, number of chairs in the cafeteria and adequate heating system etc. Then the director of admissions is typically tapped on the shoulder to take this guy out to the nicest restaurant in town and review their findings, make a cash donation to the guys favorite charity and wait for their license to be renewed for another year.
My GOD... You're admitting it functions that way. What hath the WHO WROUGHT TODAY. MY GOD I think it's an instance of the who telling the brutal, honest truth about the industry...
The problem with regulation is its all paperwork and bs (reviewing regulations) no one will talk to a kid ever!! What do the kids know? how would you document that? They are not old enough to sign anything or attest. Who wants to talk to a bunch of kids bitching about how shitty the food is….would you ever get a positive response?
And then it's comments like that put you bump you up higher on my shit list, not to mention make me want to tear your head off and ram it up your ass.
Oddly enough, you seem to be asking an interesting question "would you ever get a positive response?" You ask that as if it's rhetorical and you're expecting the answer to be "no" in almost, if not all cases. In essence, you're admitting that it is highly unlikely that any of the incarcerated kids think what's happening to them is a good thing, and those who do have a certain eerie religious fervor about their devotion to the school (or eyes that quickly dart in the staff's direction on "difficult" questions). Ever notice how enthusiastic so many "sucess stories" / testimonials are.
The only way I see to curb abuse is:
Instead of regulation take the same amount of money and they should hire child advocates who enter a school and audit 10 children at random and talk to the kids (no one else), answer some standard questions and then monitor the responses compared to state averages. If abuse is suspected then they go back in and pull 25 children and compare it to state responses and so on. If abuse is found then the child advocate waits for authorities (DSS, police) to show up and the advocate goes home (no interfacing with school officials).
You missed the point and the sarcasm...... George Miller doesnt want a bunch of kids complaining and bitching on the 10th....regulation isnt going to do crap to change anything because the regulators wont be talking to the kids either if the bill is passed regulation is ineffective.............. you need independent agencies to go in and speak to the kids themselves...
and yes the kids will bitch about everything from the food to the clothes they are wearing, talk to any high school teacher or kid in high school and ask how they like the food or their classes, homework assignments, dress codes...most of them would rather be someplace else, that is why you need to compare the responses to national averages and listen for signs of abuse.
-
Does anyone else see what is happening here? The excuse for not including survivors to testify is because they can't be trusted to further the special interests of those who are testifying?
My God.
This is truly unbelievable.
Forget writing to Miller - I am calling his staff and every single member on the committee.
Here's a handy list I found on Google.
http://www.frac.org/pdf/110thHouse_EdLabor.pdf (http://www.frac.org/pdf/110thHouse_EdLabor.pdf)
Anybody else up for the task?
We can NOT let this go without at least registering an opinion. I am sure these committee members have fax numbers and voice mail boxes.
How dare these people use survivors to further their agenda then not support their right to testify? I can not wait to see who (besides the parents) will be testifying. The parents I can at least understand, if they lost children, though I still wouldn't say they are any more important than survivors. Parents and Survivors would have been the better option.
-
Another twisted irony is that these parents of the children who died have to live with the fact that their child would not have the right to testify to their maltreatment had they survived it.
How's that for the ultimate hypocrisy?
Somebody please tell me this isn't happening. 4 decades of being silenced, then when there is a hearing - what happens? The door slams in our faces.
-
(http://http://www.turboconnection.com/images/picard.jpg)
The urge to pack my bags is immense.
The only thing that would be of any use it seems is to warn people about it, tell parents that are willing to listen if their kids are already there, and help everyone GTFO.
Including myself.
We'll see how this plays out... but Im really expecting to spend the 10th playing Episode 2 and Portal, not seeing anything worth seeing on C-Span.
-
I see a lot of rumors about who is and who isn't going to testify. I don't think it's been officially announced that NO survivors are going to testify. Wait and see, don't make up your mind before it even happens. Maybe the survivors who are going to testify are keeping it quiet. Just because I wasn't asked to testify doesn't mean other parents who have had a child die aren't going to. In the meantime, do SOMETHING to have your voice heard. Looking at the big picture, other than raising awareness, the hearing isn't really going to accomplish all that much. No action is going to be taken directly as a result of the hearing. The propsed bill isn't going to accomplish a lot either, even it it gets passed, which takes a long time. Regulation isn't going to do much but legitimize the industry. My son died in a fully LICENSED and ACCREDITED facility that had not had complaints of abuse. If the hearing and media coverage just expose abuse and neglect to the general public and mainstream media, then you have a start at real action. I posted this on another GAO thread, but it bears repeating here, the hearing isn't the only way to be heard, I'm even providing the contact links for you:
Contact the media. Tell them about the hearing in DC. Tell them about the special interest groups. Here is a link to FOX News Affiliates around the country. I am pitching a story to Fox News in Salt Lake City about my son's death, and how the neglect resulting in his death relates to the hearing on Wednesday. Contact your local affiliate and ask them if they are covering the story about the hearing and the abuse in the industry. Give them some statistics. Give them information they can verify independently. Cite well written articles that have previously appeared in the news. it gives more credibility to your story.
http://http://www.fox.com/links/affiliates.htm
Contact CNN http://http://www.cnn.com/feedback they have many options for news tips
Contact CSPAN http://http://www.c-span.org/about/contact.asp?code=About
Contact the Washington Business Journal
http://http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/contactus/contact_editor.html
Contact the Washington Post http://http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email
Contact your local paper and ask them if they are covering the hearing. Find someone who has previously covered a related story.
Read Deb's post, she has a great idea, at http://http://wwf.fornits.com/viewtopic.php?t=23447&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30
Make phone calls, write emails, send faxes, get the committe members' names off the website here http://http://edlabor.house.gov/about/members.shtml
Do what Deborah suggests, rent a hotel room or conference room and invite the media. They'll show up. Blow up photos to poster size. I realize all of this is a lot of work, but bitching and moaning isn't going to accomplish anything unless you have the appropriate forum. If you're not doing SOMETHING, shame on you.
-
I decided to ask the GAO investigator if she knows survivors are being excluded from the hearing: Attached is my email to the investigator.
TO: ......... Senior Special Agent
Government Accountability Office
From: Joyce Harris
Hello .............,
I gave you my family’s statement regarding our experience at Whitmore Academy in Nephi, Utah – and our experience with Sue Scheff, and her company PURE for the investigation your agency is conducting.
There has been a lot of posting; and discussion on the internet; especially on the discussion forum FORNITS: about the upcoming hearing that may be taking place on October 10, 2007.
The major discussion revolves around “THE EXCLUSION OF SURVIVORS OF THESE ABUSIVE FACILITIES FROM THIS HEARING.â€
-
Look forward to learning what kind of response you get Joyce.
Meanwhile, I have had the impression that this hearing is a preliminary thing. More will follow. I have the impression that for now - it has been decided to focus on the glaring example of why federal involvement and intervention is needed. I believe this is why there is a focus on the Thayer Learning Center - no better example exists of why the states can not be trusted to protect the American citizens who find themselves in these private (faith based?) facilities.
I expect there is, at this point, a limit to how many they can have testify. I do believe this is expected to grow - and that in time many more - students included - will have a chance to speak out.
That's my impression. I think it is much to early for everyone to be so upset. Why see this glass as half empty? We have got the attention of people in DC who can help - finely - So, maybe we shouldn't shoot our gift horse in the head just yet.
-
I sent the GAO investigator who interviewed me a very similar email, along with copies of my recent correspondence from the Utah Attorney General's office regarding why I am being prevented from attending the licensing hearing for Youth Care about their licensing suspension for negligence in my son's death.
I've also started faxing every member of the committe not only my son's story of neglect, but also information about special interest groups, NATSAP, and my outrage that there is not a wider group of witnesses.
http://http://www.frac.org/pdf/110thHouse_EdLabor.pdf
-
C-SPAN EMAIL ADDRESSES
C-SPAN PROGRAMMING: SEND COMMENTS/QUESTIONS
Book TV: radio@c-span.org (http://mailto:radio@c-span.org)
Washington Journal: Ask a Guest a Question
Washington Journal: Contact the Producers
PROGRAMMING QUESTIONS & SUGGESTIONS
Viewer Services: Questions about our schedule, how to buy videotapes, and for any other general comments about C-SPAN - viewer@c-span.org
Suggest Events: Submit a public event that you think C-SPAN should cover - Fax us at 202-737-6226
-
Hey Joyce. I appreciate the emial but could you redact ****'s name please
-
Look forward to learning what kind of response you get Joyce.
Meanwhile, I have had the impression that this hearing is a preliminary thing. More will follow. I have the impression that for now - it has been decided to focus on the glaring example of why federal involvement and intervention is needed. I believe this is why there is a focus on the Thayer Learning Center - no better example exists of why the states can not be trusted to protect the American citizens who find themselves in these private (faith based?) facilities.
I expect there is, at this point, a limit to how many they can have testify. I do believe this is expected to grow - and that in time many more - students included - will have a chance to speak out.
That's my impression. I think it is much to early for everyone to be so upset. Why see this glass as half empty? We have got the attention of people in DC who can help - finely - So, maybe we shouldn't shoot our gift horse in the head just yet.
Well said BuzzKill- I'm sure the GAO investigation and the hearing will be a process, the hearing coming up this week is not the "end all/be all" event. The idea is to educate the members of Congress who no doubt have formed opionions from the same marketing parents are exposed to, so ANY witnesses who testify that can get their attention have accomplished what everyone wants, which is to expose abuse. Instead of getting in a fury about who gets to testify and who doesn't, just agree to get the committe as much pertinent information as possible. Making a big stink about who testifies and who doesn't is more likely to derail the main issue than anything else. Use this opportunity well.
-
Look forward to learning what kind of response you get Joyce.
Meanwhile, I have had the impression that this hearing is a preliminary thing. More will follow. I have the impression that for now - it has been decided to focus on the glaring example of why federal involvement and intervention is needed. I believe this is why there is a focus on the Thayer Learning Center - no better example exists of why the states can not be trusted to protect the American citizens who find themselves in these private (faith based?) facilities.
I expect there is, at this point, a limit to how many they can have testify. I do believe this is expected to grow - and that in time many more - students included - will have a chance to speak out.
That's my impression. I think it is much to early for everyone to be so upset. Why see this glass as half empty? We have got the attention of people in DC who can help - finely - So, maybe we shouldn't shoot our gift horse in the head just yet.
Well said BuzzKill- I'm sure the GAO investigation and the hearing will be a process, the hearing coming up this week is not the "end all/be all" event. The idea is to educate the members of Congress who no doubt have formed opionions from the same marketing parents are exposed to, so ANY witnesses who testify that can get their attention have accomplished what everyone wants, which is to expose abuse. Instead of getting in a fury about who gets to testify and who doesn't, just agree to get the committe as much pertinent information as possible. Making a big stink about who testifies and who doesn't is more likely to derail the main issue than anything else. Use this opportunity well.
It could go either way, depending on how such a "stink" is done, how shocking it was, and whether the cameras were getting it (and motivated to use it.. contact the right wing press). I don't doubt that the industry will be there as well to make it's own stink. Don't doubt for a second they wouldn't do it. Prepare for that at the very least or be prepared to demand they be thrown the fuck out (I know I will). They don't belong in the same room as the parents or survivors they tormented.
-
I'm betting any survivors that are allowed to testify will be under the umbrella of Cafarty.
-
Full Committee and Subcommittee Schedule
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Full Committee
Hearing on "Cases of Child Neglect and Abuse at Private Residential Treatment Facilities," scheduled at 10:30 a.m. in room 2175 Rayburn H.O.B.
Witnesses:
Greg Kutz
Managing Director
Forensic Audits and Special Investigations
Government Accountability Office
Cynthia Harvey
Mother of Child Victim
Bob Bacon
Father of Child Victim
Paul Lewis
Father of Child Victim
Allison Pinto
Research Psychologist &
Assistant Research Professor
Louis de la Parte Florida Medical Health Institute
University of South Florida
Jan Moss
Executive Director
National Association of
Therapeutic Schools and Programs
-
Yup, not a single survivor. What a disgrace. Like they couldn't take an extra 30 minutes for 6 of them to testify? These are 5 minutes testimonials from what I understand.
The good news is the parents testimony will be extremely powerful! Do not underestimate the ripple effect of their heartwretching stories. They will stretch beyond this hearing given the extensive media coverage expected at the hearing.
Not surprised to see A START included, that was pretty much a given.
As for NAPSAP - all I can say is good luck. These stories from the parents will do great damage to the industry no matter how they (NAPSAP) tries to spin it.
-
GIt's the "wilderness experience" at its most extreme--rehabilitation of wayward teenagers delivered with the in-your-face discipline of a boot camp. But in the past five years at least four young people have died, the victims of alleged beatings, starvation, and emotional abuse, and the so-called therapy is looking more like murder.
---------------------------
The long-distance connection was good, but as Sally Bacon stood in her Phoenix kitchen, she couldn't make sense of what she was hearing. A month before, she'd sent her 16-year-old son, Aaron, to a Utah wilderness school called North Star Expeditions. Now a disembodied voice from North Star was telling her, "Aaron is down. We can't get a pulse."
"What does that mean, you can't get a pulse?"
"Aaron's been airlifted to the hospital in Page, Arizona," came the reply. "Call your husband. He's been given the hospital phone number." Sally frantically dialed Bob Bacon at his office. Sounding numb, he repeated what he knew: Aaron had collapsed in the desert. It was a freak accident. There was nothing anyone could do. Their son was dead.
-------------------------------------
To read entire article click here:
http://teenadvocatesusa.homestead.com/foreveryoung.html (http://teenadvocatesusa.homestead.com/foreveryoung.html)
Special Message to Parents:
Please remember that no program is a good program if your child's attitude and behavior is subject to being controlled and/or changed in an environment ruled by FEAR.
If you believe or even suspect your child is at risk of abusive care and treatment (including being deprived of an education) please take the appropriate and necessary steps to protect and enforce your child's safety and well-being.
Thank You,
Barbe Stamps
TAUSA
http://www.teenadvocatesusa.homestead.c ... Ahome.html (http://www.teenadvocatesusa.homestead.com/TAUSAhome.html)
GAO WITNESS: Bob Bacon
-
EricasMom
Familiar Face
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20
Posted: Thu May 20, 2004 11:55 am Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erica Harvey died of hyperthermia (heat-stroke) with dehydration. I'm her mom: this is fact. The girl you knew at Cascade (H.T.)also went to Catherine Freer (before Erica) and may have gotten her information from someone at Catherine Freer. It's not correct. Erica, at 5'5" and 130 lbs. was a strong, healthy young woman who died from preventable causes.
The 2 year anniversary of Erica's death is May 27.
GAO Witness: Cynthia Harvey
-
Credible speakers. I'm glad they're all on the list.... but they're all wilderness programs.
The full impact of the abuse Aaron Bacon endured is laid out in this court document
http://wwf.fornits.com/viewtopic.php?p=240633#240633 (http://wwf.fornits.com/viewtopic.php?p=240633#240633)
CFW was able to keep the details of Harvey's death out of the media.
Ryan Lewis
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?p=206709#206709 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?p=206709#206709)
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?p=4233#4233 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?p=4233#4233)
http://wwf.fornits.com/viewtopic.php?p=198456#198456 (http://wwf.fornits.com/viewtopic.php?p=198456#198456)
-
Full Committee and Subcommittee Schedule
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Full Committee
Hearing on "Cases of Child Neglect and Abuse at Private Residential Treatment Facilities," scheduled at 10:30 a.m. in room 2175 Rayburn H.O.B.
Witnesses:
Greg Kutz
Managing Director
Forensic Audits and Special Investigations
Government Accountability Office
Cynthia Harvey
Mother of Child Victim
Bob Bacon
Father of Child Victim
Paul Lewis
Father of Child Victim
Allison Pinto
Research Psychologist &
Assistant Research Professor
Louis de la Parte Florida Medical Health Institute
University of South Florida
Jan Moss
Executive Director
National Association of
Therapeutic Schools and Programs
Thanks, Pitbull, for posting this information.......looks like a good balance of representation for the first go around... I will be interested in how they Document/write up the information/Testimony presented.
-
And not one single survivor.........
jesus.. what a joke.
Ah well it is free air time hopefully someone gets some use out of it.