Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Troubled Teen Industry => Topic started by: Deborah on October 22, 2007, 01:14:13 PM
Title: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: Deborah on October 22, 2007, 01:14:13 PM
A-START SURVEY By: Denise Woodbury, JD
As a parent of a graduate of both a short term wilderness program and a long term therapeutic boarding school, I filled out the on-line questionnaire.
I also studied the structure of the survey as a lawyer first admitted to the Bar 27 years ago, in which I have worked with issues involving juvenile crime and negative behaviors, interstate compact and child abuse, and over 15 years as a prosecuting attorney where I also represented the state’s Department of Health and Welfare on child protection and mental health issues. I have been court appointed on numerous occasions as a guardian ad litem for youth.
In my opinion, this survey would fall into what is recognized in law as “junk scienceâ€
Title: Re: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: ZenAgent on October 23, 2007, 12:21:35 AM
Quote from: ""Deborah""
A-START SURVEY By: Denise Woodbury, JD
"The announcement of the existence of the survey and the invitations to participate were primarily initially made to to a small group of self-selected websites hostile to this private industry. This suggests a desire on the part of the people involved with the survey to make the worst case possible when evaluating the results, and consequently, an unprofessional bias"
MREEEOOWW! MREEEOOWW! HISSSSSS!
Does anybody remember Lon posting info about this survey http://www.strugglingteens.com/survey.html (http://www.strugglingteens.com/survey.html) here on Fornits, or CAFETY, or anywhere outside of the warm and fuzzy confines of StrugglingTeens?
I give my permission for my responses to be used in aggregate totals to be published from time to time in the Woodbury Reports Inc. newsletters. (Surveys without an electronic signature cannot be used and will be discarded). By checking this box I agree to these terms and wish to continue with the rest of the survey. Email Your Age Your Sex Male Female Today's Date Student's Age (at time of attendance) Student's Sex Male Female Your relationship with the school/program at the time of attendance
Student/Patient Mother Father Step-Mother Step-Father Other Name, city & state of school/program attended (address & phone if known)
Dates of Attendance (Arrival date) — (Ending date) Completed Program Yes Left Early Still Attending Please write a brief phrase that describes the school/program.
What were the behaviors/issues/diagnoses that led to the placement?
How did you hear about the program?
What made you choose this school/program?
Please list up to five or six adjectives that best describe this school/program.
Please list up to five or six adjectives that best describe your experience with this school/program.
What in your view were the most effective or beneficial elements and/or persons of the school/program (if any)?
What in your view were the weakest or most troublesome elements and/or persons of the school/program (if any)?
What behaviors/issues/diagnoses were identified and worked with in the school/program (if any)?
What changes in the student/patient had occured upon leaving the school/program (if any)?
If it has been some time since graduation, what long-term changes do you attribute to this school/program (if any)?
How would you rate this program on a scale of 0 to 5? 0 - having a negative effect 1 - having no effect 2 - a little helpful 3 - helpful 4 - very helpful 5 - very effective and appropriate May Woodbury Reports Inc. contact you for an interview or to ask for your permission to participate in further research? YES NO Any additional comments you'd like to include are welcome.[/i]
Quote from: ""Denise on A START's survey""
The survey tends to focus more on the negative than the positive. For example, in the section asking for information about Privilege & Discipline Policies and Practices, there is one question on privileges, asking if the system of privileges and rewards was motivating for the child, while there are 32 questions asking about negative discipline policies and practices.
Notice the total lack of questions about "negative discipline policies and practices" in StrugglingTeen's Confidential Survey. Those unpleasant subjects are detrimental to the industry's profits, and Lon's got his eye on the bottom line. The industry is big business, teens are the raw material being processed and packaged. So why isn't an official agency outside the industry responsible for checking what's coming off the production line?
Argh. There is a "one size fits all" description for programs: The "Industry". Denise's analogy about imposing wide-sweeping regulations on programs being akin to "classifying a chiropractor, a brain surgeon, and a natural healer into the same category and then trying to apply the same criteria to all of them" is lame. Bazelon broke off relations with A START because the group wouldn't take a stand against all programs. That seemed like an odd thing to do, but now I understand Bazelon's decision: the task of trying to sort "good" from "bad" programs would be endless as the programs shifted policies, re-directed investigations, anything to deliberately slow the sorting process. A piecemeal approach like that would be bogged down forever, while dozens of new programs opened, undetected. Bazelon's right, nothing can be done to end industry abuse without taking action against the industry as a whole.
First industry-wide regulation: re-familiarize program "clinicians" with the Hippocratic Oath, specifically "I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone."[/color]
Leaving it up to program clinicians' ability and judgment is a proven failure. They need effective oversight and real penalties for non-compliance.
Title: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: Anonymous on October 23, 2007, 12:48:10 AM
tell me more about this Bazeleon group.. they sound full of win.
Title: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: ZenAgent on October 23, 2007, 12:52:44 AM
Quote from: ""Guest""
tell me more about this Bazeleon group.. they sound full of win.
Win?
Title: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: Anonymous on October 23, 2007, 12:56:21 AM
Are they or are they not jacking off to the middle ground theory of programmie compromises and other assorted cornholery?
-TSW
Title: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: Anonymous on October 23, 2007, 12:57:55 AM
We might have a number of 4chan/ED/Green-Faced Anonymous types on this board. Their lingo is the new leetspeak.
Full of win =~ Awesome.
Who or what is Bazelon?
And listening to ST garbage is like shoving rotten fruit in one's ears and calling it music.
Title: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: ZenAgent on October 23, 2007, 01:07:05 AM
Quote from: ""Guest""
Are they or are they not jacking off to the middle ground theory of programmie compromises and other assorted cornholery?
-TSW
Obviously not, they wanted the industry as a whole, not selective, unlicensed facilities. That takes far too long, and every license money can buy doesn't mean anything - PV is a prime example of a JCAHO/SACS/TDMHDD/NATSAP flag-waving shithole.
Title: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: Anonymous on October 23, 2007, 02:12:02 AM
What pray tell do they want? A nice little congressional rub and tug or a vampire killing stake to the heart?
Title: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: ZenAgent on October 23, 2007, 02:29:21 AM
Quote from: ""Guest""
What pray tell do they want? A nice little congressional rub and tug or a vampire killing stake to the heart?
I have no idea what Bazelon currently, pray tell, wants. Check out their page. http://www.bazelon.org/ (http://www.bazelon.org/)
Title: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: TheWho on October 23, 2007, 09:21:15 AM
Quote from: ""ZenAgent""
Argh. There is a "one size fits all" description for programs: The "Industry". Denise's analogy about imposing wide-sweeping regulations on programs being akin to "classifying a chiropractor, a brain surgeon, and a natural healer into the same category and then trying to apply the same criteria to all of them" is lame. Bazelon broke off relations with A START because the group wouldn't take a stand against all programs. That seemed like an odd thing to do, but now I understand Bazelon's decision: the task of trying to sort "good" from "bad" programs would be endless as the programs shifted policies, re-directed investigations, anything to deliberately slow the sorting process. A piecemeal approach like that would be bogged down forever, while dozens of new programs opened, undetected. Bazelon's right, nothing can be done to end industry abuse without taking action against the industry as a whole.
Blaming the entire industry or placing them all into one bucket is the easier path. Its what many call the “Blue collarâ€
Title: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: Anonymous on October 23, 2007, 09:24:12 AM
Quit your jibber-jabber, fool!
It boils down to whether or not the program is coercive, period.
Title: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: TheWho on October 23, 2007, 09:40:19 AM
Quote from: ""Guest""
Quit your jibber-jabber, fool!
It boils down to whether or not the program is coercive, period.
Exactly!! and we will not know that unless we look at each program or school.... by joe I think someone turned up the dimmer switch!!
Keep it going!! Think individually!! Challenge other peoples thoughts!! Put the flag down!!
Title: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: ZenAgent on October 23, 2007, 10:13:00 AM
Shut up, D.S. Log in if you're going to sputter your condescending, restraint-loving bullshit.
Gee, Who - you'd think your "good" programs would be blazing a path toward reasonable safety guidelines for the not-so-good programs to aspire to.
All NATSAP has done is whine and mewl, and Catherine Freer's people have arrogantly insulted every program survivor.
You've got to find some leadership, D.S.
Title: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: Anonymous on October 23, 2007, 10:30:13 AM
Quote from: ""ZenAgent""
Shut up, D.S. Log in if you're going to sputter your condescending, restraint-loving bullshit.
Gee, Who - you'd think your "good" programs would be blazing a path toward reasonable safety guidelines for the not-so-good programs to aspire to.
All NATSAP has done is whine and mewl, and Catherine Freer's people have arrogantly insulted every program survivor.
You've got to find some leadership, D.S.
::roflmao:: ::roflmao::
I wondered why he hadn't been around lately.
D.S. huh?
:rofl:
Title: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: Anonymous on October 23, 2007, 10:38:09 AM
It's not even the same guy. This Who isn't the pre-October 20th Who. I think the old one got fired and now they have someone higher up writing the shill posts.
Probably because, with rapidly declining income due to negative publicity on the Internet and the assrape of the GAO hearings, they couldn't afford him anymore.
Title: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: ZenAgent on October 23, 2007, 10:52:51 AM
Quote from: ""Guest""
It's not even the same guy. This Who isn't the pre-October 20th Who. I think the old one got fired and now they have someone higher up writing the shill posts.
Probably because, with rapidly declining income due to negative publicity on the Internet and the assrape of the GAO hearings, they couldn't afford him anymore.
I agree. Some masochism drove me to read through the old Who thread last night - the previous Who was much more shrill and prone to fits of anger, not nearly as frou-frou and bitchy as this New Who, v.2.1
Title: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: TheWho on October 23, 2007, 12:00:19 PM
Quote from: ""ZenAgent""
Gee, Who - you'd think your "good" programs would be blazing a path toward reasonable safety guidelines for the not-so-good programs to aspire to.
No, you need to understand the business a little better. The good programs don’t want the bad ones to get better…its best to just expose them, let them go out of business and then fill the void with a better school.
Quote
All NATSAP has done is whine and mewl, and Catherine Freer's people have arrogantly insulted every program survivor. You've got to find some leadership, D.S.[/
Never heard of this freer person until recently, but NATSAP doesn’t have the power to close or change programs. Over the next decade they will have little influence over the industry, if any, unless they quit dragging their feet. If major changes are going to take place it will be by the government or from within.
...
Title: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: Troll Control on October 23, 2007, 12:15:15 PM
Quote from: ""ZenAgent""
Quote from: ""Guest""
It's not even the same guy. This Who isn't the pre-October 20th Who. I think the old one got fired and now they have someone higher up writing the shill posts.
Probably because, with rapidly declining income due to negative publicity on the Internet and the assrape of the GAO hearings, they couldn't afford him anymore.
I agree. Some masochism drove me to read through the old Who thread last night - the previous Who was much more shrill and prone to fits of anger, not nearly as frou-frou and bitchy as this New Who, v.2.1
No, it's the same old asshole. He just understands that his credibility is in the toilet due to his previous posts and he's trying to reinvent himself and put time and space between his recent posts and the old ones. But, make no mistake, it's the same tired, hackneyed jerkoff with the same dilapidated rhetoric.
Title: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: Anne Bonney on October 23, 2007, 12:35:39 PM
Quote from: ""Guest""
Quote from: ""ZenAgent""
Quote from: ""Guest""
It's not even the same guy. This Who isn't the pre-October 20th Who. I think the old one got fired and now they have someone higher up writing the shill posts.
Probably because, with rapidly declining income due to negative publicity on the Internet and the assrape of the GAO hearings, they couldn't afford him anymore.
I agree. Some masochism drove me to read through the old Who thread last night - the previous Who was much more shrill and prone to fits of anger, not nearly as frou-frou and bitchy as this New Who, v.2.1
No, it's the same old asshole. He just understands that his credibility is in the toilet due to his previous posts and he's trying to reinvent himself and put time and space between his recent posts and the old ones. But, make no mistake, it's the same tired, hackneyed jerkoff with the same dilapidated rhetoric.
That's what I'm thinking too.
Title: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: Anonymous on October 23, 2007, 01:14:48 PM
I would not take Ms. Woodbury's "opinion" seriously, simply because their is a conflict of interest involved. She is married to Lon Woodbury.
I would rather hear from someone who doesn't have personal ties to the industry.
I shall never forget writing to former Governor Rose Mofford, Arizona, along with three other Mom's to follow, only to find out years later that Ms. Mofford sat on the Board of Directors for Arizona Boys Ranch.
This is like having the wolf in sheeps clothing guarding the hen house.
I find it kind of peculiar behavior when a person throws around their law degree. Kind of reminds me of Sue Scheff.
No one has the right to disreguard the FACT that MANY children have suffered in this out-of-control industry. This is a Chrildren's Civil Rightslit issue that should be brought to a Supreme Court level. I would like to see Ms. Woodbury and her law degree in such a court room. How many children have been neglected, abused, tortorured and died in one of the programs supported and promoted by Educational Consultants. I'm afraid we shall never know because, "Who's watching the Children? Who's counting how many have been neglected, abused and tortorured. There needs to be a Federal regulated Clearing House keeping track. Better yet, a law to hold these people accountable, starting with legislators on down to those who are directly in contact with the child. There are eight sides to a STOP SIGN. I have used a stop sign in my crusade many times. I had no problem filling all eight sides with those who are partly culpable for what is happening to children all over the world in the name of help and whatever..............
Now I'm feeling angry!
Time to go do something else. I sound like a broken record again.
Michelle Sutton Memorial Fund, Inc. Catherine
Title: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: Anonymous on October 23, 2007, 04:17:21 PM
Quote from: ""Campsafety""
I would not take Ms. Woodbury's "opinion" seriously, simply because their is a conflict of interest involved. She is married to Lon Woodbury.
I would rather hear from someone who doesn't have personal ties to the industry.
I shall never forget writing to former Governor Rose Mofford, Arizona, along with three other Mom's to follow, only to find out years later that Ms. Mofford sat on the Board of Directors for Arizona Boys Ranch.
This is like having the wolf in sheeps clothing guarding the hen house.
I find it kind of peculiar behavior when a person throws around their law degree. Kind of reminds me of Sue Scheff.
No one has the right to disreguard the FACT that MANY children have suffered in this out-of-control industry. This is a Chrildren's Civil Rightslit issue that should be brought to a Supreme Court level. I would like to see Ms. Woodbury and her law degree in such a court room. How many children have been neglected, abused, tortorured and died in one of the programs supported and promoted by Educational Consultants. I'm afraid we shall never know because, "Who's watching the Children? Who's counting how many have been neglected, abused and tortorured. There needs to be a Federal regulated Clearing House keeping track. Better yet, a law to hold these people accountable, starting with legislators on down to those who are directly in contact with the child. There are eight sides to a STOP SIGN. I have used a stop sign in my crusade many times. I had no problem filling all eight sides with those who are partly culpable for what is happening to children all over the world in the name of help and whatever..............
Now I'm feeling angry!
Time to go do something else. I sound like a broken record again.
Michelle Sutton Memorial Fund, Inc. Catherine
Very Well Said :nworthy: :nworthy: :nworthy: :nworthy: :nworthy: :nworthy:
Title: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: Anonymous on October 23, 2007, 07:35:58 PM
Quote from: ""TheWho""
Quote from: ""ZenAgent""
Gee, Who - you'd think your "good" programs would be blazing a path toward reasonable safety guidelines for the not-so-good programs to aspire to.
No, you need to understand the business a little better. The good programs don’t want the bad ones to get better…its best to just expose them, let them go out of business and then fill the void with a better school.
Quote
All NATSAP has done is whine and mewl, and Catherine Freer's people have arrogantly insulted every program survivor. You've got to find some leadership, D.S.[/
Never heard of this freer person until recently, but NATSAP doesn’t have the power to close or change programs. Over the next decade they will have little influence over the industry, if any, unless they quit dragging their feet. If major changes are going to take place it will be by the government or from within.
...
You insult Zen by saying he doesn't understand the nature of the bid'ness, and then say something completely idiotic about "this Freer person"? You should learn a little more about the industry you're defending, pal. You're starting to reveal the smoke and mirrors.
Title: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: TheWho on October 23, 2007, 08:17:13 PM
Quote
You insult Zen by saying he doesn't understand the nature of the bid'ness, and then say something completely idiotic about "this Freer person"? You should learn a little more about the industry you're defending, pal. You're starting to reveal the smoke and mirrors.
Zen has never insulted me and I would never insult him….so that didnt happen. So you are one up on me by knowing Kathy freer, I have never met her and I feel I am getting along okay. I don’t defend the industry nor claim to know a whole lot about it, but I think we are all still learning (I know I am).
...
Title: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: Nihilanthic on October 23, 2007, 08:35:55 PM
Quote
don’t defend the industry nor claim to know a whole lot about it
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Title: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: Anonymous on October 23, 2007, 09:13:20 PM
Quote from: ""Nihilanthic""
Quote from: ""TheWho""
don’t defend the industry nor claim to know a whole lot about it
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
You don't "know a whole lot about it?" Then why are you constantly trying to juggle and cook numbers on violence in public schools vs. RTC's, completely avoiding one of the key reasons why parents pay an RTC to store their kids? They think they're paying for a safe environment and licensed, responsible caregivers. The newspapers are rife with stories of death, rape and abuse taking place in programmes, quite often due to unqualified, unlicensed staff. Staff who's experience, educational backgrounds and licensures the programmes fraudulently misrepresent to parents.
Oh, I forgot, juggling and cooking numbers is your thing.
Quote from: ""TheWho""
No, you need to understand the business a little better.
That was very telling. You don't much about programmes, but you know the business well.
Back on topic. Go read about Catherine Freer Wilderness Therapy Programs so you'll quit looking like an ass. Maybe you need to follow an honored programmy - AA maxim: Shut up and listen, you might learn.
Attacking Dr. Pinto's survey for asking questions about aversive techniques while Woodbury's own survey totally avoided the issue is a bit immature, don't you think?
Don't respond, think about it.
Title: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: TheWho on October 23, 2007, 09:38:46 PM
Quote
You don't "know a whole lot about it?" Then why are you constantly trying to juggle and cook numbers on violence in public schools vs. RTC's, completely avoiding one of the key reasons why parents pay an RTC to store their kids? They think they're paying for a safe environment and licensed, responsible caregivers. The newspapers are rife with stories of death, rape and abuse taking place in programmes, quite often due to unqualified, unlicensed staff. Staff who's experience, educational backgrounds and licensures the programmes fraudulently misrepresent to parents.
Oh, I forgot, juggling and cooking numbers is your thing.
Seems you are still learning yourself. I presented raw numbers, no one was cooking the data that I was aware of or atleast I wasnt presented that result. The results just dont present the way people would like them to here. That’s why fornits is long on stories and short on data.
Parents are paying for a safe environment and that is what they are getting. 20,000 kids a year attend these schools and we have a handful of people who post here who had bad experiences, with the majority of the information dating back 30 years.
Not sure which papers you read but many of the schools are proven safe havens. All the newspapers are rife with stories about the public schools (2,500 kids sexually abused by their teachers, who are licensed by the way, over the past 5 years). You don’t see numbers like that in the private schools.
...
Title: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: try another castle on October 23, 2007, 09:44:53 PM
Let's see... where did Ginger hide this again?
Oh wait, here it is..
Title: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: hanzomon4 on October 23, 2007, 09:50:51 PM
The GAO identified 1,619 incidents of child abuse in programs that were reported to the Department of Health and Human Services in 2005 alone , but reporting is voluntary and not all states comply. And you say that 20,000 kids a year attend these schools compared to the millions that attend public school, I'd say statistically speaking programs are pretty unsafe by comparison.
Title: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: TheWho on October 23, 2007, 09:55:32 PM
Quote from: ""try another castle""
Let's see... where did Ginger hide this again?
Oh wait, here it is..
Hey, that’s funny, thanks I saved the link!! I have someone who would enjoy that.
I feel like I am pounding my head against the wall……. We have an industry (our public school system) which is highly regulated with licensed teachers and reporting systems coming out of our ears and the kids are not being protected… we have thousands committing suicide, thousands being sexually abused by the licensed teachers and nut cases here on fornits want to use this as a model template for the private school industry!!!
Is this wacked or what?
...
Title: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: TheWho on October 23, 2007, 09:58:21 PM
Quote from: ""hanzomon4""
The GAO identified 1,619 incidents of child abuse in programs that were reported to the Department of Health and Human Services in 2005 alone , but reporting is voluntary and not all states comply. And you say that 20,000 kids a year attend these schools compared to the millions that attend public school, I'd say statistically speaking programs are pretty unsafe by comparison.
We would have to compare this to how many kids are abused in the public sector. I havent seen that number.
I think that number includes military style boot camps and the such which may be included in the public sectors numbers, it will be interesting to see the data when it becomes available and how many of those are from Therapeutic Boarding schools.
...
Title: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: Anonymous on October 23, 2007, 10:10:17 PM
Quote from: ""TheWho""
Quote
You don't "know a whole lot about it?" Then why are you constantly trying to juggle and cook numbers on violence in public schools vs. RTC's, completely avoiding one of the key reasons why parents pay an RTC to store their kids? They think they're paying for a safe environment and licensed, responsible caregivers. The newspapers are rife with stories of death, rape and abuse taking place in programmes, quite often due to unqualified, unlicensed staff. Staff who's experience, educational backgrounds and licensures the programmes fraudulently misrepresent to parents.
Oh, I forgot, juggling and cooking numbers is your thing.
Seems you are still learning yourself. I presented raw numbers, no one was cooking the data that I was aware of or atleast I wasnt presented that result. The results just dont present the way people would like them to here. That’s why fornits is long on stories and short on data.
Parents are paying for a safe environment and that is what they are getting. 20,000 kids a year attend these schools and we have a handful of people who post here who had bad experiences, with the majority of the information dating back 30 years.
Not sure which papers you read but many of the schools are proven safe havens. All the newspapers are rife with stories about the public schools (2,500 kids sexually abused by their teachers, who are licensed by the way, over the past 5 years). You don’t see numbers like that in the private schools.
...
Sshhhhhh...what did I say? It's quiet time for Who. Quit being so oppositional and defiant, or I'll escort you to the time-out room.
Jesus, Who. Name the government agency that's been receiving and tracking abuses and deaths in programmes for thirty years and can provide accurate numbers. It's an agency that's reliant on programmes reporting deaths and abuse complaints. Do you give up? So do I.. That government agency is non-existent, much like your soul. Now consider the public school system and the various agencies monitoring them. You got the easy job there, Sac.
Title: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: hanzomon4 on October 23, 2007, 10:17:56 PM
Quote from: ""TheWho""
Quote from: ""hanzomon4""
The GAO identified 1,619 incidents of child abuse in programs that were reported to the Department of Health and Human Services in 2005 alone , but reporting is voluntary and not all states comply. And you say that 20,000 kids a year attend these schools compared to the millions that attend public school, I'd say statistically speaking programs are pretty unsafe by comparison.
We would have to compare this to how many kids are abused in the public sector. I havent seen that number.
I think that number includes military style boot camps and the such which may be included in the public sectors numbers, it will be interesting to see the data when it becomes available and how many of those are from Therapeutic Boarding schools.
...
You're the one that through out the public sector number 2,500 in 5 years(AP article). That's compared to 1619 in just one year(The GAO hearing on programs) with a much smaller population.
Quote from: ""guest""
Jesus, Who. Name the government agency that's been receiving and tracking abuses and deaths in programmes for thirty years and can provide accurate numbers. It's an agency that's reliant on programmes reporting deaths and abuse complaints. Do you give up? So do I.. That government agency is non-existent, much like your soul. Now consider the public school system and the various agencies monitoring them. You got the easy job there, Sac.
^^^^Oh yeah, Guest just ownd
Title: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: Anonymous on October 23, 2007, 10:23:04 PM
Don't get lost in the numbers...
Allegations certainly aren't convictions. Just because someone alleges something has happened doesn't mean it happened.
To much of a stretch to believe that some percentage of the 1619 allegations in 2005 are bullshit?
Not at all.
Again.. the GAO fucks up and provides us with a toothless piece of shit document.
I wonder how much the bribes were to create such a worthless piece of wank paper?
Title: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: TheWho on October 23, 2007, 10:25:39 PM
Quote from: ""Guest""
Quote from: ""TheWho""
Quote
You don't "know a whole lot about it?" Then why are you constantly trying to juggle and cook numbers on violence in public schools vs. RTC's, completely avoiding one of the key reasons why parents pay an RTC to store their kids? They think they're paying for a safe environment and licensed, responsible caregivers. The newspapers are rife with stories of death, rape and abuse taking place in programmes, quite often due to unqualified, unlicensed staff. Staff who's experience, educational backgrounds and licensures the programmes fraudulently misrepresent to parents.
Oh, I forgot, juggling and cooking numbers is your thing.
Seems you are still learning yourself. I presented raw numbers, no one was cooking the data that I was aware of or atleast I wasnt presented that result. The results just dont present the way people would like them to here. That’s why fornits is long on stories and short on data.
Parents are paying for a safe environment and that is what they are getting. 20,000 kids a year attend these schools and we have a handful of people who post here who had bad experiences, with the majority of the information dating back 30 years.
Not sure which papers you read but many of the schools are proven safe havens. All the newspapers are rife with stories about the public schools (2,500 kids sexually abused by their teachers, who are licensed by the way, over the past 5 years). You don’t see numbers like that in the private schools.
...
Sshhhhhh...what did I say? It's quiet time for Who. Quit being so oppositional and defiant, or I'll escort you to the time-out room.
Jesus, Who. Name the government agency that's been receiving and tracking abuses and deaths in programmes for thirty years and can provide accurate numbers. It's an agency that's reliant on programmes reporting deaths and abuse complaints. Do you give up? So do I.. That government agency is non-existent, much like your soul. Those are the kids being sexually abused and comitting suicide[/color]... the agencies may be collecting data but they are not protecting the kids. This is my point, we dont want to duplicate a system like this for the private sector which will force the schools to hang onto underqualified teachers because they have tenure or passed a state test.
The public system is broken, it doesnt work, regulation and licensing doesnt help the kids it just feeds the government and they collect data and go home.
...
Title: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: TheWho on October 23, 2007, 10:30:52 PM
Honzomon4 wrote:
Quote
You're the one that through out the public sector number 2,500 in 5 years(AP article). That's compared to 1619 in just one year(The GAO hearing on programs) with a much smaller population.
No, 2,500 kids were sexually abused in the last 5 years. Your 1,619 number is all abuses (sexual abuse would be a subset of that number).
Title: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: Anonymous on October 23, 2007, 10:36:16 PM
Considering the amounts parents pay private sector programs, they should damn well be able to expect far better than the chaos of the public school system. The teachers have at least been required to pass a written test and hopefully their teaching degrees are legit. In programs, there are stump-head counselors conducting group therapy with GED's - and no one is asking, and parents won't get details on counselor qualifications if they ask for them. On the contrary, some smug clinician will throw his head back laughing and say "No one EVER asked for THAT before!"
Title: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: Nihilanthic on October 23, 2007, 10:43:54 PM
I like how in your obfuscation you've yet to demonstrate why if public school is bad, WHY a program would be safer, considering the isolation and captive nature.
I mean, ignoring the lack of any proof they work after 30 years to do so, the lack of ethics, the lack of any morality behind it, and how nonsensical the concept of staying until a program is completed instead of treating and releasing, just on that...
How exactly is a program going to be more safe because they're not regulated?
Title: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: Deborah on October 23, 2007, 11:03:23 PM
This is what they're pissed about, no longer able to "fly under the radar".
Posted: Aug 26, 2006 08:30 By: Lon Woodbury
When I first started working in this industry of private Parent-Choice residential schools and programs in 1984, we had the luxury of being pretty much "under the radar." That is, few took notice of these schools and programs, partly because few had any idea of what we were doing and because there were very few schools and programs of this type. However, those who took the time to investigate were amazed at the positive results they saw and became advocates. When word got out to parents about a "last chance" choice that produced good results, even after the child had failed in mainstream RTCs, psychiatric and school facilities, the industry expanded to accommodate the increasing demand.
School and program officials tended to like being "under the radar" because local officials usually reacted hostilely and assumed the worst without any effort to be fair and open-minded. For example, when I first moved to Bonners Ferry to work at Rocky Mountain Academy during the original CEDU expansion into north Idaho, the local prosecutor was almost drooling over the opportunity to expose the school and obtain his 15 minutes of national fame. Although he had never set foot on the school's property, had no idea of what they did or how, he invested a lot of time and energy into his efforts of trying to close it down. He was unsuccessful because his efforts were founded on a fear-based fantasy that was ignorant of any facts. In some cases elsewhere, local fears did manage to force programs to move on to other jurisdictions that were more open to these new ways of helping struggling teens, but the good schools and programs not only survived, they thrived.
[Hmm. Local prosecuters aren't out to get "private schools". Something tells me there's more to this story than was revealed. Anyone know the real story?]
In the early 1990s, this lack of visibility started to change when three young people died in southern Utah boot camps that were masquerading as wilderness programs. When the national media pounced on this juicy story, they inaccurately associated these tragedies with wilderness programs instead of boot camps because of their lack of understanding. This was the start of the media paying attention to the developing parent-choice residential school and program phenomena. Over the next decade, the media increasingly assigned reporters to write stories on some aspect of the parent-choice industry. In part, the increased media attention and questions led several states to begin grappling with the issue of licensure.
15 deaths in Outdoor Programs in the 90s. Probably didn't have anything to do with the 11 (reported) deaths in the 80s. In this article http://www.strugglingteens.com/archives ... ews02.html (http://www.strugglingteens.com/archives/1990/11/news02.html) Lon attempts to distinguish Challenger from other Wilderness programs.
When Steve Cartisano started Challenger Foundation in 1988, there was a significant difference from previous wilderness survival groups for children with emotional and behavior problems. The main difference was the addition of a military model. In Challenger's marketing, terms like "Boot Camp for troubled teens", and "forced marches" came into use for the first time. Experienced professionals privately expressed to me concern over what was happening. They felt it was based on punishment more than natural consequences, that fear was used as a motivator instead of building up an inherent sense of what was right, anger was used as a tool more than firmness, and that Challenger was growing too fast to maintain standards of quality and safety. One professional expressed to me the prediction that "Some kid is going to get hurt." It is clear Challenger was a totally different type of wilderness program.
Forced marches are the bedrock of all wilderness programs, to this day. As are "punishments", rather than "natural" consequences. Fear is still used as a "motivator". Anger and restraints are still used instead of de-escalation.
From 1993- Amidst the controversy Woodbury was still advertising Cartisano's programs. New Short Term Program For Children Steven A. Cartisano has started a new short term program for children with behavioral and emotional problems called Health Care America, headquartered in the US Virgin Islands. Steve's prior work in this area was as Head of Wilderness Challenger in Utah, which he closed in 1990 amid some controversy. Wilderness Treatment Center in Montana has consolidated its Bozeman facility with the original facility near Kalispell.
However, because the states didn't understand exactly how different the private parent-choice schools and programs were from the already existing schools and programs, they were as confused as the media. It soon became obvious that these new approaches did not fit under the old categories of regulation. Some states, like Utah and Idaho, worked with representatives of the industry to develop new categories and regulations that were specifically designed for these new types of programs. Others, like the state of Washington, just lumped them into some already existing category, which was often such a poor fit that the consequences were ridiculous. For example, one program in the state of Washington for substance abusing teen-age boys was put under the category of group homes. Then, because the state regulations for that category required it, the program had to spend $15,000 to put in a second hot water system that was capable of sterilizing diapers.
Sounds a bit exaggerated. 160* for five minutes "sanitizes". Any home unit can accomplish this. What's more likely is that they had to put in a system large enough that all could have warm showers. Most states have long since had regs for RTCs. I haven't read one set of regs that wasn't appropriate to "the industry", if anything, too lame.
The industry itself adjusted in several ways to this increased scrutiny from the media and the States. First, professionals in the field learned how to work with the media when there was a tragedy, giving them the facts to work with rather than letting reporters speculate and write articles based on wild rumors and inaccurate assumptions.
Um, yeh. This was good. Mar 1996- Inc Magazine- Public Relations: Planning Damage Control A CEO explains the importance of developing a public-relations strategy before a disaster strikes. Don't wait until disaster strikes to whip up a public-relations strategy. Elliot Sainer, CEO of Aspen Health Services, a wilderness therapy program for troubled teens in Huntington Beach, Calif., already had a publicity plan at work when a teenager died while at a competitor's program in 1994. Still, Aspen beefed up efforts to battle the onslaught of bad press. As kids withdrew from Aspen's program and new-business calls dropped by 20%, Sainer added an employee to his in-house public-relations team. Already hard at work touting Aspen's safety record to those who referred new business to Aspen, the team sped up the distribution of information on graduates' progress and turned the annual newsletter into a quarterly. Next, Sainer agreed to a story request from U.S. News & World Report. "We were seeing our industry getting slammed," he says. He allowed the reporter to join one group at the end of its program, when the participating teens are happiest. Sainer was pleased with the article and mailed copies to more than 200 referral sources. Today Aspen is back on track with about $6 million in 1995 revenues and with incoming calls back to normal. Sainer credits the company's survival to the strategy. http://www.inc.com/magazine/19960301/1587.html (http://www.inc.com/magazine/19960301/1587.html)
They're also learning how to keep deaths and 'accidents' out of the media.
Second, the professionals in the industry were in the forefront of favoring state oversight, and worked with many states in developing regulations that made sense. They helped write regulations that would give the state adequate oversight, thus making it harder for incompetent or inexperienced programs to gain state licensure.
The industry has never been in the forefront in favoring regulations, unless they were involved. The travesty is that several states (and JCAHO) have allowed them to write their own regs.
In another area, the professionals working in the field developed professional organizations to recognize those schools and programs that were competent and ethical. The major organization in this was the National Association for Therapeutic Schools and Programs (NATSAP),
Anyone who has been led to believe that NATSAP programs are ethical and competent should view the GAO hearing. http://edlabor.house.gov/hearings/fc101007.shtml (http://edlabor.house.gov/hearings/fc101007.shtml)
which is working at bringing all the programs together with a single voice, and requires all members to sign ethical and good practices statements. On the educational consultant side, the Independent Educational Consultants Association (IECA) stepped up their efforts to ensure that their members who work with special needs have adequate backgrounds and experience to do a good job.
Ed Cons aren't regulated, and should be. For a heafty fee, they will be happy to refer to their favorite program(s).
Now when parents don't know whom to believe, they can always check to see if the referring source, school or program is a member of one of these organizations. The standard purpose of professional organizations is to confirm to the public that that person or program has made at least a minimal effort to be evaluated and accepted by their professional peers.
Parents need to do their own research. Explore the roots of the industry. http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?p=232942#232942 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?p=232942#232942) Research the program and all the staff. Ask specific questions about the 'treatment' their child will receive. Request copies of the parents manual and contract to review with an attorney and psychologist.
In addition, many professionals are individually speaking out with their concerns about the competency of some schools, programs and referring agencies. One thing they are trying to say is that it is inaccurate and unfair to lump all programs together and judge them all based on the activities of just the most controversial schools, programs or referring agencies.
They all may not be identical, but they all sprang from the same root, CEDU/Synanon/est/Lifespring. They all sever contact with parents, monitor phone calls and censor mail. That's enough to lump them all together.
These actions are evolving adjustments by this industry to a healthy and growing public scrutiny. Currently there are two new factors that reflect this:
First is the response to demands that the schools and programs prove their effectiveness through properly conducted research. In the past, success was mostly demonstrated by antidotal evidence and testimonials, but this lack of serious research is beginning to be properly addressed. In 2002, the Outdoor Behavioral Healthcare Industry Council sponsored a research study through the University of Idaho on therapeutic wilderness programs, indicating positive outcomes http://www.obhic.com (http://www.obhic.com). This research study is continuing. In addition, Dr. Ellen Behrens just released this month the first phase results of a three-year residential outcomes study for NATSAP at the American Psychological Association conference in New Orleans. This study is a vital first step in establishing a body of research that will answer the question; how effective are private residential programs for adolescents?
These are not independent studies, as was mentioned in my previous post. The data is not to be trusted. The most ironic of all being Catherine Freer participating in the OBHIC 'study' and using it in its marketing to taut the safety of wilderness 'therapy', then three deaths occur in less than a year.
The other factor that indicates there is an increase in public scrutiny and interest in this industry is illustrated in the recent surge of interest by investment firms looking into the investment prospects of private parent-choice residential schools and programs. Although some investment firms have invested in this industry during the past few years, I and many other Educational Consultants have been inundated by phone calls from investment firms this month who are trying to understand this industry. They want to know who the major players are, if it looks like the industry will continue to expand, etc. Obviously there are some immediate investment opportunities available that sparked this interest.
Maybe they'll all go the way of CEDU/Brown.
So, as this industry comes of age, long gone are the days when we were working "Under the Radar." We now need to firmly establish minimum standards based on professional competency and ethics, and research-based practices. That is gradually what is happening.
Lip Service. This industry will change when its forced to change. More media coverage is needed. Heavy scrutiny of methods and procedures.
Title: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: ZenAgent on October 23, 2007, 11:39:54 PM
Quote from: ""Deborah""
This is what they're pissed about, no longer able to "fly under the radar".
Posted: Aug 26, 2006 08:30 By: Lon Woodbury
School and program officials tended to like being "under the radar" because local officials usually reacted hostilely and assumed the worst without any effort to be fair and open-minded. For example, when I first moved to Bonners Ferry to work at Rocky Mountain Academy during the original CEDU expansion into north Idaho, the local prosecutor was almost drooling over the opportunity to expose the school and obtain his 15 minutes of national fame. Although he had never set foot on the school's property, had no idea of what they did or how, he invested a lot of time and energy into his efforts of trying to close it down. He was unsuccessful because his efforts were founded on a fear-based fantasy that was ignorant of any facts. In some cases elsewhere, local fears did manage to force programs to move on to other jurisdictions that were more open to these new ways of helping struggling teens, but the good schools and programs not only survived, they thrived.
[Hmm. Local prosecuters aren't out to get "private schools". Something tells me there's more to this story than was revealed. Anyone know the real story?]
Quite the opposite, from my family's experience. It would be political suicide for a local prosecutor to go after Peninsula Village - Peninsula Hospital and the Behavioral Health facilities are crucial to Blount County's economy. The local Billy-Bobs won't try to force PV to move on, but they they would damn well send strong signals to the prosecutor indicating his need to move on. Also, any local prosecutor making noises like he was trying to audit PV could legally be denied access for a while, until the prosecutor gets a Court order. PV would play the "For the best interests of the therapeutic process" card to stall, and then they would be like a second skin on any investigators who seemed to "not get" the program. My step daughter's guardian ad litem had to resort to harsh words to a PV counselor in order to have privacy with her client. PV wanted to hear everything...
The Blount County Sheriff's Department blatantly violated the law by not performing a welfare check. The DCS Judicial office told me the Sheriff was required to do a welfare check on any child who was reported as being physically abused - no matter if it's at PV or in front of the local convenience mart. I guess that's why Deputy Dawg wouldn't tell my wife his name.
Even the TDMHDD jumps through hoops for Covenant. The Department's investigator says she goes to PV often and gets restraint reports, never questioning the accuracy of what PV reports. The TDMHDD Investigator doesn't want to find anything wrong, and PV isn't going to show her anything incriminating. Very cozy, and when the investigator leaves the Department for the private sector, she can call in a favor from Covenant Health for a nice position.
Yeah, PV remained "under the radar" for about twenty years, but they had the help of local officials and State agencies. Go to PV's website and you'll see the TN Department of Mental Health's Seal of Approval on the place, and the TDMHDD doesn't want to look like they had the wool pulled over their eyes, so they look the other way and deflect complaints.
Woodbury's spinning like the spin doctor he's paid to be.
Title: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: Anonymous on October 23, 2007, 11:48:09 PM
Quote from: ""Guest""
Don't get lost in the numbers...
Allegations certainly aren't convictions. Just because someone alleges something has happened doesn't mean it happened.
To much of a stretch to believe that some percentage of the 1619 allegations in 2005 are bullshit?
Not at all.
Again.. the GAO fucks up and provides us with a toothless piece of shit document.
I wonder how much the bribes were to create such a worthless piece of wank paper?
Fuck you!
Title: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: Deborah on October 24, 2007, 12:10:32 AM
Lon wrote:
Quote
So, as this industry comes of age, long gone are the days when we were working "Under the Radar." We now need to firmly establish minimum standards based on professional competency and ethics, and research-based practices. That is gradually what is happening.
How the really feel about "research-based" (best practices).
Best Practices Weak on Creativity and Using Cutting Edge Research By: Lon Woodbury
By all accounts, the May 25th NorthWest Get-Together in Sandpoint, ID, was a success. As indicated by those who lingered after the last presentation, the informal format facilitated visiting and networking, while allowing everyone to conclude conversations or finalize arrangements for further collaboration. The small size of the group (exactly 80 lunches served), was a relief to those who had mixed memories of the huge swap meets at the twice annual IECA Conferences and the increasing size of the annual NATSAP conference. The last minute reception held the evening before by Echo Springs was appreciated by about two dozen people either in town early or within easy driving distance of Sandpoint. It is obvious that the dedicated and caring professionals who work in the parent-choice network of Emotional Growth/ Therapeutic residential schools and programs are hungry for a chance to meet and learn from their colleagues elsewhere in the network.
The two substantive presentations kept the audience engaged, with a lot of active participation. These two presentations were from Larry Stednitz who defined the history and implications of Best Practices, and Linda Zimmerman who talked about the rapidly expanding knowledge of the "brain", and the new tools made available to programs based on that new knowledge.
Taking these two presentations together, I learned that anything designated "Best Practices" will be based on original research that is probably more than 10 years old, and the standard process of adopting original research findings is very slow. As new knowledge is released, it has to be tested and researched for a number of years before a definitive judgment is rendered. It takes time for any information to receive the designation of a Best Practice.
We learned from the Larry Stednitz presentation that the concept of Best Practices came from the federal government with very specific protocols, and has been widely adopted by State and local governments. Presumably, the impulse is that taxpayer money should be spent only for practices that have been proven through extensive research. In other words, the goal is to provide only the best for our children. Another part of the goal is to avoid having the taxpayers pay for speculative methods, which could wind up a waste of time and money. This very appealing goal has its limitations however. Achieving the designation of Best Practice for a new method can easily take 10 years or longer because it must be replicated in other settings with multiple research efforts that demonstrate efficacy.
The industry's been at it for 30 years. Time enough, according to Lon, to have several independent studies on the efficacy of the industry's experimental methods. Synanon, est, lifespring.... none have been proven. At the least, programs should have to disclose the methods they will be using in their so-called 'treatment'.
From Linda Zimmerman, assisted by Dr. Judith Pentz and Loi Eberle, we learned about the many promising tools she has been using with positive results in her Sandhill Center for seriously damaged young people up to the age of 14. Linda described recent findings related to how the brain works, the various areas of brain activity, and the stages of growth of the brain in children. She also explained that any intervention with a child only works when the relevant part of the brain is active. Linda described some of the tools and approaches she has found effective, many of which are computer-generated games played by using various types of sensors rather than a joystick. Being a game, it is easier to engage the child's interest. To play the game, the child tries to moderate his/her brain wave activity, or relax through breathing techniques similar to yoga exercises, or through dance steps. The specially designed sensors provide immediate computer feedback. These tools, and the knowledge they are based on, have become available only in the last few years. The important thing is that they are showing a profound and very positive impact on children.
Good for Zimmerman... but who talked about the "under the radar" treatments that amount to humiliation, abuse and neglect? Where's the proof that they are effective?
Much of the knowledge and tools currently used by Linda Zimmerman will have to undergo many years of research before they qualify for Best Practices. Regardless of how promising the results, how satisfied the parents are, or what the outcome studies show, the timeframe remains the same.
Some of the implications when comparing these two presentations are that the concept of Best Practices as commonly used, while laudable in its intentions, does make this a very conservative and cautious worldview. When public grants are based on Best Practices, there is a basic limitation in the ability of public agencies to be creative and take advantage of new research and knowledge. On the other hand, private schools and programs, without any mandate or political pressure to adopt Best Practices, can be much more creative and flexible in pioneering new approaches. This allows a rapid response to a changing society, with children's evolving needs.
A program that utilizes "research-based" techniques is not going to be denied grants if sometime during the day kids take part in yoga or video games. Only if the is the only "treatment" being provided. Creativity and flexibility are not words I associate with the 'treatment' my son received.
A healthy public-private partnership would rapidly expand our knowledge base as society's needs change. The public sector could fund the tried and true and a relatively independent private sector could freely encourage visionaries to pioneer new knowledge. As these new pioneering methods prove themselves, the public sector could then adopt the best of them.
This informal partnership would of course be the best of both worlds, but could be devastated by current proposals of draconian and aggressive controlling regulation as proposed by some activists. The loss of the independence of the private sector through aggressive regulatory controls would in the long-run hurt the children, by slowing the adoption of methods based on knowledge gained by exciting new research. http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/p ... 5326.shtml (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/article_5326.shtml)
What's with the whining exaggeration, "draconian, aggressive, controlling regulation"? Go read some regs. They are very basic. But, they don't allow contact to be severed between parent and child. They don't allow for monitored phone calls or censored mail. They require kids to be fed well and educated. They forbid many of the blanket policies this industry has in place to control and manipulate desperate parents.
Title: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: Deborah on October 24, 2007, 12:22:57 AM
Quote from: ""Guest""
Don't get lost in the numbers... Allegations certainly aren't convictions. Just because someone alleges something has happened doesn't mean it happened. To much of a stretch to believe that some percentage of the 1619 allegations in 2005 are bullshit? Not at all. Again.. the GAO fucks up and provides us with a toothless piece of shit document. I wonder how much the bribes were to create such a worthless piece of wank paper?
Allegations?
Quote
For example, during 2005 alone, 33 states reported 1,619 staff members involved in incidents of abuse in residential programs. GAO could not identify a more concrete number of allegations because it could not locate a single Web site, federal agency, or other entity that collects comprehensive nationwide data.
Is an average of two per day inconceiveable for you? Seems very realistic to me. I'd venture to guess you haven't even read it. Why don't you start a thread and list your bitches about the report. Get it off your chest.
Title: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: ZenAgent on October 24, 2007, 12:23:57 AM
The regs would take away the tools programs rely on to modify, the main one being absolute control over a kid. For the "treatment" to work, the child has to "break" and lose hope of getting out. Then, supposedly the programs "build them anew". Riiiiigght. I'm sure a goon staffer with a GED might be especially creative in breaking a kid down to nothing, but no one at PV, not the psychologist with the shady license and credentials, the substance abuse Nazi with far more sinister credential problems, or any therapist had the skill and patience to restore a kid. Torture and release seems to be the policy.
Title: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: Anonymous on October 24, 2007, 12:53:20 AM
Poor Lon - he censored any mention of programs (by name) on his discussion board for reasons that appear to have more to do with his profession than anything else, IMO. He also has a history of banning critics that dates back to the late 90's when he was king of the hill. Those days are long gone.
Title: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: ZenAgent on October 24, 2007, 02:00:24 AM
Quote from: ""Deborah""
Lon wrote:
We learned from the Larry Stednitz presentation that the concept of Best Practices came from the federal government with very specific protocols, and has been widely adopted by State and local governments. Presumably, the impulse is that taxpayer money should be spent only for practices that have been proven through extensive research. In other words, the goal is to provide only the best for our children. Another part of the goal is to avoid having the taxpayers pay for speculative methods, which could wind up a waste of time and money. This very appealing goal has its limitations however. Achieving the designation of Best Practice for a new method can easily take 10 years or longer because it must be replicated in other settings with multiple research efforts that demonstrate efficacy.
As these new pioneering methods prove themselves, the public sector could then adopt the best of them.
This informal partnership would of course be the best of both worlds, but could be devastated by current proposals of draconian and aggressive controlling regulation as proposed by some activists. The loss of the independence of the private sector through aggressive regulatory controls would in the long-run hurt the children, by slowing the adoption of methods based on knowledge gained by exciting new research.
"As these new pioneering methods prove themselves, the public sector could then adopt the best of them,"
I can't believe Lon wrote that crap - he's suggesting troubled teens be guinea pigs for some duck farm's "visionary pioneer" quack to get "creative" on. Screw that. Okay, the public could choose the best of the new methods, if there are any. What about the "bold new methods" that don't rate among the best? Maybe the quack's creative new methods end up being tragic mistakes, physical and mental torture that do longterm damage or worse.
Programs don't want Federal regulations, that's an unknown arena, it might be damned hard to screw a nosy Federal auditor's head down around the idea of positive results coming from 8 hours a day in seclusion, peppered occasionally with verbal abuse and the unexpected nerve-shattering airhorns, screaming, and violence of a "physical incident". That's problematic for programs.
The industry would rather go with State oversight, and it's obvious why: The States have let programs get away with abominable shit for over thirty years. A program can work it's financial tentacles into the County officials, then the State level agencies, and there may be trouble occasionally, but no real punitive measure like license suspension or revocation occurs. In December 1998, the Tennessee Board for Licensing Health Care Facilities did a Performance Audit on the Department of Health’s legislative mandates and the department’s Division of Health Care Facilities. They found noncompliance on the part of the facilities AND the agencies charged with overseeing them, gross failure to perform investigations in a timely manner, and the passage of time made the allegations of abuse impossible to prove conclusively. Clean-up had been done.
It's a very interesting read, it looks like the Board auditors followed the stench of cronyism and bored incompetence straight to the offices of the TN Department of Health and the TN Department of Mental Health.
Title: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: ZenAgent on October 24, 2007, 02:23:46 AM
Extracts from the Comptroller audit of the Tennessee Board for Licensing Health Care Facilities, December 1998:
However, this registry does not comply with state law, which requires that the Department of Health establish an abuse registry containing the names of anyone found to have abused or intentionally neglected elderly or vulnerable individuals. But even if the registry listed all abusers, certified nursing homes are the only health care facilities required to check the registry before hiring, and no facilities are required to act on the information they find there. Furthermore, no facilities are required to periodically re-check the registry after hiring to ensure employees have not been placed on the registry after being hired. Finally, there is no national abuse registry, and little sharing of abuse registry data among states, to help ensure abusers do not simply move to another state and begin working with vulnerable persons again (page 22).[/i][/color]
It looks like the Board is scared of using the word "child".
Title: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: ZenAgent on October 24, 2007, 02:40:28 AM
This is interesting, it shows a "willful disregard" on the part of the TN Health Dept to follow the directives of the Board:
No Central Database for Tracking Facility Surveys*
The lack of central databases to track facility surveys and complaints was discussed in the 1996 Sunset Audit of the board. Since that audit, the division has developed and put into use a central database for tracking complaints, but no such database exists to track facility surveys (page 25).
* This issue was also discussed in the 1996 performance audit of the board. ¨ This issue was also discussed in the 1992 performance audit of the board.[/color]
OBSERVATIONS AND COMMENTS
The audit also discusses the following issues that may affect the operations of the Division of Health Care Facilities, the Board for Licensing Health Care Facilities, and the health, safety, and welfare of the people of Tennessee: variations in numbers of enforcement actions and complaints among the division’s three regions and among Tennessee and other states; waivers of board rules; the lack of jurisdiction over unlicensed facilities and certain types of facilities; conflict-of-interest issues; communication between state long-term care ombudsmen and the Division of Health Care Facilities; the regulation of methadone clinics in Tennessee; and the new federal minimum data set requirements (page 5).
ISSUES FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION
The General Assembly may wish to consider legislation (1) authorizing the Department of Health to enter and investigate unlicensed facilities in the state; (2) requiring emergency care walk-in clinics and dialysis clinics to obtain a license before operating; and (3) allowing the department to impose civil penalties against deficient facilities of all types, not just nursing homes, in order to encourage compliance with regulations and the law. The General Assembly may also wish to reassess those portions of the statute that require the state to prove “willfulâ€
Title: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: ZenAgent on October 24, 2007, 03:30:55 AM
The Abuse Registry was implemented in 2002, but the 2003 audit exposed more incompetence and deceit from The Division of TN Heath Dep't and the facilities.
THE ABUSE REGISTRY HAS BEEN IMPROVED, BUT WEAKNESSES STILL EXIST
he December 1998 performance audit of the board identified several weaknesses in the state’s abuse registry. Since that time, the registry has been improved by expanding its scope. A few weaknesses remain, however.
The 1998 audit found that the abuse registry did not comply with state law because instead of listing the names of anyone found to have abused or intentionally neglected elderly or vulnerable individuals, it only listed the names of certified nurse aides. Now, however, Tennessee’s Abuse Registry lists the names of all individuals who have been found to have abused or intentionally neglected elderly or vulnerable individuals, in accordance with both state 4 and federal regulations. As of June 6, 2003, the Abuse Registry listed 861 individuals. The chart below illustrates the various professions now listed on the registry.
Profession Number on Abuse Registry
Nurse Aide 639 Unknown 79 Developmental Technician 36 Nurse Technician 22 Licensed Practical Nurse 16 Housekeeper 14 Residential Technician 13 Nursing Home Employee 12 Community Living Specialist 7 Companion 7 Janitor 3 Locational Trainer 3 Psychiatric Technician 3 Registered Nurse 3 Community Living Assistant 1 Group Home Employee 1 Maid 1 Orderly 1
Total 861[/list]
The 1998 audit also reported that certified nursing homes were the only health care facilities required to check the abuse registry before hiring an individual to provide care to vulnerable persons. Legislation passed in 1999 corrected this problem by expanding the requirement to all facilities licensed by the board. According to Division of Health Care Facilities personnel, however, the division’s surveyors are not required, as part of a facility’s annual survey, to check personnel records for evidence of abuse registry matching. Therefore, the division has no way of knowing if facilities are complying with the new legislation. The weaknesses described in the 1998 audit regarding the sharing of abuse registry information among states appear to have changed little. According to division staff, there is still no national abuse registry, and there is little sharing of abuse registry data among states. As a result, an individual found to have abused in one state could move to another state and continue working with elderly or vulnerable individuals. The ability to share information with other states would be especially beneficial in Tennessee, where we are within easy driving distance of eight states (Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, and Virginia). For example, a facility located in Clarksville, Tennessee, could check to see if a potential employee had a substantiated case of abuse on record in Kentucky as well as in Tennessee.[/i]
Title: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: Deborah on October 24, 2007, 08:53:57 AM
Lon has now labeled Miller's efforts as "Drama" http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.ph ... 833#289833 (http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?p=289833#289833)
Wouldn't you love to have watched Lon give testimony and be shred to pieces. What's his worry? That he, as an Ed Con will also be regulated when it's all done? That he might actually have to divulge what he knows about programs he refers to?
Title: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: ZenAgent on October 24, 2007, 09:14:07 AM
Quote from: ""Deborah""
Lon has now labeled Miller's efforts as "Drama" http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.ph ... 833#289833 (http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?p=289833#289833)
Wouldn't you love to have watched Lon give testimony and be shred to pieces. What's his worry? That he, as an Ed Con will also be regulated when it's all done? That he might actually have to divulge what he knows about programs he refers to?
He's worried he won't have any programs to sell kids into.
Title: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: hanzomon4 on October 24, 2007, 09:21:54 AM
Quote from: ""TheWho""
Honzomon4 wrote:
Quote
You're the one that through out the public sector number 2,500 in 5 years(AP article). That's compared to 1619 in just one year(The GAO hearing on programs) with a much smaller population.
No, 2,500 kids were sexually abused in the last 5 years. Your 1,619 number is all abuses (sexual abuse would be a subset of that number).
Like the Guest said the Public schools are monitored by many gov agencies allowing for more accurate numbers. Private programs have no such monitoring so we have to rely on self reporting from people that admit to wanting to "fly under the radar". Oh and no we don't want orgs like Natsap to continue protecting abusive programs like these teacher trade orgs have protected bad teachers. That's why the beat down Natsap got at the GAO hearings was so damn good.
We do want to force private programs to provide data on instances of fraud, neglect, abuse, and deaths among other bits of reporting data. How is that a bad thing?
Anyway back on topic.......
Title: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: TheWho on October 24, 2007, 09:46:27 AM
Quote from: ""hanzomon4""
Like the Guest said the Public schools are monitored by many gov agencies allowing for more accurate numbers.
And the numbers are a good thing, I agree, but it is not helping the kids. I would have liked to see NATSAP step up and provide data or monitor the programs more closely. Maybe this is what they need to get their ass in gear (or put them out of business) and let someone else step in, a more independent body of people.
Quote
We do want to force private programs to provide data on instances of fraud, neglect, abuse, and deaths among other bits of reporting data. How is that a bad thing?
I believe we all want this… I think we may disagree on the proper reporting method or vehicle. I have been back and forth (flip flop) on the issue of regulation and I presently don’t see any value in it, except maybe as a means to collect information. Besides that it only serves to increase the size of the government… there is no evidence that kids have benefitted from it in the public school system.
...
Title: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: hanzomon4 on October 24, 2007, 07:13:50 PM
Bump
Title: FuckCartisano Steve
Post by: Anonymous on November 04, 2007, 10:15:25 AM
I was in Challenger when Kristen died. No one will ever know how bad it really was. I still can't believe I was in Utah. At that I hate the whole fucking state. To think that the piece of shit got away with everything makes me sick. I had not thought about Challenger for many years i have no idea what made me look it up but i truly feel sick from everything I have read. We must have the most ignorent fucking goverment in the world. I truly can't believe it. It is impossible to monitor a program like Challenger. I remember thinking I was going to die. It got to the point that I would pray not to wake up. The hardest thing for me was seeing the cruelty and abuse. I still can't believe they got away with everything. My parents had no idea of what was going on. I could go on and on with things that I experienced and saw. I stll can't believe they happened. They manipulated everyone. Fuck Mormons at that. I saw Steve one time and it was because 20/20 had showed up because of Kristens death. That fucker was never around, I never saw a doctor, and the fat piece of shit Darrell that talked to your parens he never fucking saw me. I saw him once the fat pice of shit could not get to where we were. So you can all write about what ever opinions you have. I think they are all bullshit.
Title: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: Anonymous on November 04, 2007, 01:17:52 PM
maybe the goverment does know and systematically they have been closing this society down.... we are almost a police state now! keep em fat and on drugs prescritions only!...keep em glued to a tv so we can tell the dumb f#$%s what to think.... dont want anyone to go using their own mind or to think they even could if they wanted to..."look what happened in the 60's, can't have the youth standing up to the government like that ever again!!!!damn it!" said cheyney
Title: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: Anonymous on November 04, 2007, 01:29:30 PM
I'm sorry for what you went through Marcia
Title: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: Anonymous on November 04, 2007, 06:53:34 PM
the police are corrupt. My freind called 911 to report abuse. They did nothing- they just turned around, and left her there to suffer.
the torturers should go to prison, and the police who let them get away with it
Title: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: psy on November 05, 2007, 02:38:25 AM
Quote from: ""TheWho (translated)""
Quote
You don't "know a whole lot about it?" Then why are you constantly trying to juggle and cook numbers on violence in public schools vs. RTC's, completely avoiding one of the key reasons why parents pay an RTC to store their kids? They think they're paying for a safe environment and licensed, responsible caregivers. The newspapers are rife with stories of death, rape and abuse taking place in programmes, quite often due to unqualified, unlicensed staff. Staff who's experience, educational backgrounds and licensures the programmes fraudulently misrepresent to parents.
Oh, I forgot, juggling and cooking numbers is your thing.
Seems you are still learning yourself. I presented raw sewage, no one was cooking the data that I was aware of or at least not totally... Well maybe close. Ok it's total bullshit. The results just present the version of the truth my clients want to hear. That’s why I'm long on stories and short on data.
Parents are paying for a safe environment and that is what they are getting*. 20,000 kids a year attend these schools and we have hundreds, if not thousands of people who post here who had bad experiences, with the majority of the information dating back 30 years (when the industry was much smaller. In another 30 years, there will be floods of people "snapping out" as often it takes time to realize teh full effects of a traumatic experience, especially when you were told, adn perhaps believed it was necessary to help you)
Not sure which papers you read but many of the schools are proven safe havens by totally non-biased research we fund. All the newspapers are rife with stories about the public schools (2,500 kids sexually abused by their teachers out of millions upon millions nationwide., who are licensed by the way, over the past 5 years). You don’t see numbers like that in the private schools (but you see far worse in programs in all senses). Most of the data isn't required to be recorded anyway so there is no real idea of exactly how many deaths have occurred (which is good for marketing ! and the kind of industry lack-of-regulation we favor!).
*"safe" defined as "stripped of individuality, traumatized by or verbal gang-rape (sometimes literal) but still techincally alive... most of the time."
...
Title: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: red lion on November 05, 2007, 11:44:25 AM
Ah yes, psy - I always need to *translate* too - whenever the tools feel inlcined to open their yaps and babble. It's sometimes hard for the uninitiated to read through the rhetoric and true meaning.
Under the thin veneer and "civil" postings of wanting to "help troubled kids" is a sadistic streak aimed at punishing those who don't agree and those who speak out.
Invariably, they are always exposed for who and what they stand for - financial gain over kids welfare, abuse over help.
It's simple - it's just a pity program tools continue to natter on as if everyone did not already know the truth about these programs.
I guess they are "running scared" ( :rofl: ) because it will have a begative on their bottom line (& in the TheWho's case the "bottom" is metaphorical as well pragmatic - the "bottom" line is always important to NAMBLA members......)
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Title: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: Anonymous on November 05, 2007, 11:56:19 AM
YOU MAKE ME SO PROUD.
IF I HAD TEAR DUCTS, I WOULD USE THEM.
Title: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: Anonymous on November 05, 2007, 05:34:31 PM
how does lon woddberr, aman who wroked at a officially abusive cult for 10(?) years, get away with positioning himself as a child care expert?
SO fucking sick
Title: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: Nihilanthic on November 05, 2007, 05:40:32 PM
Quote from: ""Guest""
the police are corrupt. My freind called 911 to report abuse. They did nothing- they just turned around, and left her there to suffer.
the torturers should go to prison, and the police who let them get away with it
If you have some kind of proof of that, I know people.
Police are required to open investigations, PERIOD, when it comes to kids.
Title: Denise Woodbury Weighs in on Pinto Study
Post by: Anonymous on November 05, 2007, 06:53:01 PM