Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Troubled Teen Industry => Topic started by: AuntieEm2 on May 19, 2009, 02:55:00 PM
-
A hearing was held today before the US House Education and Labor Committee (Committee Chair is Rep. George Miller, D-CA) on the subject of the abusive use of seclusion and restraint in public and private schools. Several of the cases were at schools for troubled teens.
Auntie Em
Video of the hearing on CSPAN:
http://http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2009/05/19/HP/A/18742/House+Education+and+Labor+Cmte+Hearing+on+Use+of+Restraint+in+Schools.aspx
The Government Accountability Office presented its report on the topic, and there was testimony from parents.
GAO Report PDF here: http://http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09719t.pdf
GAO Report Summary
GAO found no federal laws restricting the use of seclusion and restraints in public and private schools and widely divergent laws at the state level. Although GAO could not determine whether allegations were widespread, GAO did find hundreds of cases of alleged abuse and death related to the use of these methods on school children during the past two decades. Examples of these cases include a 7 year old purportedly dying after being held face down for hours by school staff, 5 year olds allegedly being tied to chairs with bungee cords and duct tape by their teacher and suffering broken arms and bloody noses, and a 13 year old reportedly hanging himself in a seclusion room after prolonged confinement. Although GAO continues to receive new allegations from parents and advocacy groups, GAO could not find a single Web site, federal agency, or other entity that collects information on the use of these methods or the extent of their alleged abuse. GAO also examined the details of 10 restraint and seclusion cases in which there was a criminal conviction, a finding of civil or administrative liability, or a large financial settlement. The cases share the following common themes: they involved children with disabilities who were restrained and secluded, often in cases where they were not physically aggressive and their parents did not give consent; restraints that block air to the lungs can be deadly; teachers and staff in the cases were often not trained on the use of seclusions and restraints; and teachers and staff from at least 5 of the 10 cases continue to be employed as educators.
-
Unfreakingbelieveable,
I hate to say it, but this almost validates The Who's comments about residential programs being no more unsafe than school settings. Sadly, young people are safe nowhere. Safer on average at home and in the community, but safe nowhere.
-
CAFETY's next promotional move will be what now?
-
Don't anybody get the wrong idea. I think I was reacting to the magnitude of the issue. Seriously, 20 deaths in public and private schools. 33,000 reported incidents of restraint and seclusion in California alone in day schools The same CYA mentality that pervades the residential treatment system pervades our day school system, with the same deadly results.
No, this doesn't let residential providers off the hook, especially not those who use cult-like tactics or who profit off the suffering of youth. If anything it provides us with the "if it can happen here, just imagine what's happening when kids can't tell their parents they're being abused" argument.
-
Video of the hearing on CSPAN:
http://http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2009/05/19/HP/A/18742/House+Education+and+Labor+Cmte+Hearing+on+Use+of+Restraint+in+Schools.aspx
The Government Accountability Office presented its report on the topic, and there was testimony from parents.
GAO Report PDF here: http://http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09719t.pdf
FYI:
Video on C-Span is 2 hr. Highly recommended.
PDF download is 62 pages. Also highly recommended.
-
Some background material leading up to this investigation and subsequent report:
—•?|•?•0•?•|?•— —•?|•?•0•?•|?•— —•?|•?•0•?•|?•—
Chairman Miller Asks GAO to Investigate Cases of Abuse and Neglect of Schoolchildren (http://http://edlabor.house.gov/newsroom/2009/01/chairman-miller-asks-gao-to-in.shtml)
January 27, 2009 2:21 PM
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Rep. George Miller (D-CA), the chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, today asked the U.S. Government Accountability Office to further investigate recent reports of seclusion and restraint of children in public and private schools across the country. Miller's committee plans to hold a hearing on these practices in the coming months.
Earlier this month, the National Disability Rights Network released a report detailing hundreds of cases where abusive uses of seclusion and restraint by school staff injured or traumatized schoolchildren, many with disabilities. The report revealed cases where students were abusively pinned to the floor, handcuffed, locked in closets, and subjected to other acts of violence. In some of the cases, children died.
As Miller noted in his letter to GAO today, a prior GAO investigation conducted at Miller's request uncovered thousands of similar cases of abuse at teen residential treatment facilities across the country. GAO's work laid the groundwork for legislation to address these abuses, the Stop Child Abuse in Residential Programs for Teens Act of 2008 (H.R. 6358), which the House passed in June.
"Unfortunately, vulnerable children and teens are being abused all too often in other contexts," Miller wrote. "To assist in the Committee's ongoing efforts to help protect our children, I specifically request that FSI investigate the use of restraint, seclusion, and harmful aversive handling of children and youth in private and public schools."
For more information on the report documenting these abuses, click here. For more information on H.R. 6358, click here.
The full text of Miller's letter to GAO is below.
***
January 27, 2009
Gene L. Dodaro
Acting Comptroller General
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20548
Dear Mr. Dodaro:
I write to request that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) Forensic Audits and Special Investigations Unit (FSI) further investigate recent reports of neglect and abuse of children in our nation’s schools.
Over the last several years, GAO ably fulfilled my requests that it review and investigate the alarming number of deaths and incidences of abuse of youth enrolled in private residential treatment programs geared toward treating troubled teens. Among other things, the investigative work highlighted cases where staff at some programs employed unsafe restraint techniques that lead to death in some of those cases. In part because of these revelations, the House passed the Stop Child Abuse in Residential Programs for Teens Act of 2008, H.R. 6358 (110th Congr.) on June 25, 2008.
Unfortunately, vulnerable children and teens are being abused all too often in other contexts. Just this month, the National Disability Rights Network released a troubling report entitled School is Not Supposed to Hurt in which the authors described instances of death and abuse of children and youth in public and private schools across the United States. The report focused on seclusion and restraint techniques and detailed dozens of occurrences of students being abusively pinned to the floor, handcuffed, locked in closets, and subjected to other traumatizing acts of violence. In some of the cases, the abuse resulted in death.
To assist in the Committee's ongoing efforts to help protect our children, I specifically request that FSI investigate the use of restraint, seclusion, and harmful aversive handling of children and youth in private and public schools.
Sincerely,
George Miller
Chairman
cc: Senior Republican Member Howard "Buck" McKeon
# # #
-
Is there any way program survivors can be heard without going through CAFETY? The only view reaching DC is CAFETY's, and their view is colored by their professional ambitions in mental health care. Wouldn't it be better to hear from survivors who don't have a vested interest in keeping the "good" programs their friends work at open? Survivors with no desire to self promote their careers by exploiting the issue while effectively suppressing the majority of program survivors.
In other words, how do we bypass the mental health industry reps who are censoring survivors? No one from here or any other group gets a voice in DC. Another experiment in unity with other groups asking for a fair share of representation for those without connections to the TTI is worth an effort. You don't have to agree with all of them 100%, but maybe we could agree 100% on the need for representation of survivors who aren't getting it from CAFETY.
-
The previously posed question is one I would like an informed answer to as well. Then perhaps someone could expand upon this subject.
Some of the following have been referenced in this forum: JCAHO, NATSAP, CAFETY…ISAC. Could someone please outline the purposes/differences between these organizations, for those (like me) who are not in the know?
-
Is there any way program survivors can be heard without going through CAFETY? The only view reaching DC is CAFETY's, and their view is colored by their professional ambitions in mental health care. Wouldn't it be better to hear from survivors who don't have a vested interest in keeping the "good" programs their friends work at open? Survivors with no desire to self promote their careers by exploiting the issue while effectively suppressing the majority of program survivors.
In other words, how do we bypass the mental health industry reps who are censoring survivors? No one from here or any other group gets a voice in DC. Another experiment in unity with other groups asking for a fair share of representation for those without connections to the TTI is worth an effort. You don't have to agree with all of them 100%, but maybe we could agree 100% on the need for representation of survivors who aren't getting it from CAFETY.
1. Of course, program survivors unaffiliated with CAFETY can be heard in multiple ways. Write your congressperson directly, stage a protest, connect with a media person in your local community. CAFETY has no monopoly on the survivor voice. If CAFETY's view is the only view reaching D.C. work harder to make sure that your point of view is getting across. If nobody's listening, find an established organization you can work with to be your mouthpiece. Taking a guess at what this unheard point of view is, you might want to try an organization like PsychRights, or SSDP, or NARPA or any other organization that takes a strictly rights-based approach to all "treatment". There aren't many, and usually these organizations have to join coalitions to have a voice in policy debates.
2. As for the rest of this post you'll have to explain because I don't see where you're getting your info from.
a. Programs our friends work at? - do tell what these programs are
b. Suppressing the majority of program survivors - huh? Could we even suppress or censor people's opinions if we tried?
c. I know of some organized groups of survivors who do have different opinions than that of CAFETY, contact them and see if you can make something happen.
d. Again who is doing the censoring?
I guess my general point in responding is stop complaining and just do it already. Nobody's stopping you. If there's something specific that's ongoing that serves as a barrier to you being able to have a voice, say what it is and maybe something can be done about it.
-
Perhaps someone could expand upon this subject:
Some of the following have been referenced in this forum: JCAHO, NATSAP, CAFETY…ISAC. Could someone please outline the purposes/differences between these organizations, for those (like me) who are not in the know?
-
1. Info on speaking out is below.
2. In my experience, CAFETY has been active and sincere in helping survivors to be heard. Opinions may differ on some points, but we all share the same basic desire to see these programs shuttered forever, and put on a short leash until the day comes when they are out of business.
Speaking Out.
To voice your concerns directly to Congress and the GAO, you can use the contacts below. Please do! These folks work for you, so no need to be shy about making your voice heard. The GAO is still gathering information and comments, especially in the next 7 days or so, but this whole topic is of ongoing concern for Miller and the GAO. Do keep in mind that shorter letters or emails can generally be more effective than long ones. I also recommend you consider contacting your member of Congress, see info online at http://http://www.house.gov. If you call your representative's office, as to speak to the person in charge of education issues.
Government Accountability Office:
For more information, contact Gregory D. Kutz at (202) 512-6722 or kutzg@gao.gov.
House Committee on Education and Labor:
http://http://edlabor.house.gov/
Contact information for Representative George Miller, Chair of the House Committee on Education and Labor, and his staff:
http://http://georgemiller.house.gov/contactus/
-
JCHAO - Joint Commission of Accreditation of Health Organizations - Basically, they come into your medical facility and make sure the bathrooms and bedrooms are clean and they give you a gold sticker for it. Facilities use this to try to convince parents they're on the up and up. JCAHO standards are so low as to practically useless. But JCAHO has a reputation and they make money off of what they do.
NATSAP - National Association of Therapeutic Schools and Programs - Trade organization of privately-run "therapeutic" programs designed for youth and young adults. Programs sell NATSAP membership like they do JCHAO accreditation. If anything, membership in NATSAP is a sign to stay away as confirmedly abusive programs (Peninsula Village, Family Foundation School, Mount Bachelor Academy, and Bechmark just to name a few) are highlighted members.
CAFETY - Community Alliance for the Ethical Treatment of Youth - A non-profit organization made up of survivors of residential treatment programs and allies. Gets flak on this forum for being connected to mental health professionals and "insiders". Participated in the Congressional Hearings last year, and has been featured in a couple of media articles. Been around since 2006.
ISAC - International Survivors Action Committee - One of the original, if not THE original advocacy websites fighting against the Troubled Teen Industry. Most trusted and respected source of information and advocacy work for Forni. Basically a one person show.
I could go into much more detail, but this is the general gist. I'm sure if anyone has any edits to make, they'll make it.
-
Organizations and Acronyms
JCAHO: The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, a.k.a., "The Joint Commission." This is a nongovernmental organization that inspects, monitors and accredits hospitals and other healthcare organizations that pay hefty fees to be inspected, meet standards, and get a "good housekeeping seal of approval" in return. Programs boast about accreditation by JCAHO (pronounced JAY-co) and parents often believe it has something to do with quality of mental health care, when it does not. Usually it means things like the program checks two forms of ID before administering meds, and they keep medical equipment cleaned, etc. Online at http://http://www.jointcommission.org/. Search for information on an organization here: http://http://www.qualitycheck.org/consumer/searchQCR.aspx
NATSAP: The National Association of Therapeutic School and Programs. Um, we hate these guys. As the name suggests, they are total supporters of the troubled teen industry. Online at http://http://www.natsap.org, and it will make you angry. But you can search for program info and look at the propaganda fed to parents. Another situation where families may assume membership in NATSAP means something about the quality of the program when it doesn’t mean squat.
CAFETY: Community Alliance for the Ethical Treatment of Youth (pronounced KAFF-a-tee). CAFETY is a “youth-driven advocacy organization seeking to increase awareness of the inhumane treatment of youth who are placed residential care when experiencing behavioral, emotional, and mental health challenges.” Program survivor Kat Whitehead leads this organization, and many survivors participate as members, volunteers, and advocates. Good people, IMHO. Online at http://http://www.cafety.org.
ISAC: International Survivors Action Committee. They are a nonprofit whose mission is “to expose abuse, civil rights violations, and fraud perpetuated through privately-owned facilities for juveniles.” Founded by a survivor, they have an online Facilities Watch List that is an important resource, though I do not think it has been updated lately. Online at http://http://www.isaccorp.org.
-
Perhaps someone could expand upon this subject:
Some of the following have been referenced in this forum: JCAHO, NATSAP, CAFETY…ISAC. Could someone please outline the purposes/differences between these organizations, for those (like me) who are not in the know?
Post-composition: Golleeee... am I s-l-o-w. I can see that a lot of my material has been stated more eruditely by those ahead of me. Oh well, one more voice to the bucket...
-:•0•:-
Briefly, and stated with the express caveat that my own knowledge and understanding is admittedly woefully incomplete:
JCAHO (http://http://www.jointcommission.org/) is an accrediting organization, generally used for hospitals and other institutions in a health care setting. CARF (http://http://www.carf.org/) is a similar organization, generally thought to have less stringent criteria.
NATSAP (http://http://www.natsap.org/) is a marketing and PR umbrella for programs. Having a NATSAP logo on your website is supposed to convey a certain level of standards to parents and the like who might be interested. However, NATSAP is entirely composed of program operators; there is absolutely no independent oversight, not even a pretension of such.
CAFETY (http://http://www.cafety.org/) is an organization devoted to fighting unsafe and abusive programs. Many of its personnel are drawn from the ranks of those who have suffered due to having once been enrolled in same during their youth. They run into some controversy on fornits from time to time given their alliances with other program-fighting organizations who believe there is such a thing as "safe" or "good" programs out there. You could say there are philosophical differences but, in general, there is a good deal of overlap.
ISAC (http://http://www.isaccorp.org/) is also a program-fighting organization, one that attempts to be somewhat neutral by letting the facts speak for themselves. They are a respected repository of survivor statements and newspaper articles cataloging the trail of misery and damage that abusive programs have left in their wake.[/list]
-
The previously posed question is one I would like an informed answer to as well. Then perhaps someone could expand upon this subject.
Some of the following have been referenced in this forum: JCAHO, NATSAP, CAFETY…ISAC. Could someone please outline the purposes/differences between these organizations, for those (like me) who are not in the know?
Cafety is not a registered non profit. ISAC is a registered non profit. Isac only self promotes to keep their org up and running etc..
From the looks of it cafety has other self promoting interests as well,
NATSAP is a referral org, and i do think they get paid to refer.....I am not sure what JCAHO is.
Do the research and decide for yourself. I would never give any money to cafety though, or natsap. On the other hand if I had any money i would donate to ISAC...they are honest and only about educating the public about abusive teen facilities.
-Clara
-
Perhaps someone could expand upon this subject:
Some of the following have been referenced in this forum: JCAHO, NATSAP, CAFETY…ISAC. Could someone please outline the purposes/differences between these organizations, for those (like me) who are not in the know?
Post-composition: Golleeee... am I s-l-o-w. I can see that a lot of my material has been stated more eruditely by those ahead of me. Oh well, one more voice to the bucket...
-:•0•:-
Briefly, and stated with the express caveat that my own knowledge and understanding is admittedly woefully incomplete:
JCAHO (http://http://www.jointcommission.org/) is an accrediting organization, generally used for hospitals and other institutions in a health care setting. CARF (http://http://www.carf.org/) is a similar organization, generally thought to have less stringent criteria.
NATSAP (http://http://www.natsap.org/) is a marketing and PR umbrella for programs. Having a NATSAP logo on your website is supposed to convey a certain level of standards to parents and the like who might be interested. However, NATSAP is entirely composed of program operators; there is absolutely no independent oversight, not even a pretension of such.
CAFETY (http://http://www.cafety.org/) is an organization devoted to fighting unsafe and abusive programs. Many of its personnel are drawn from the ranks of those who have suffered due to having once been enrolled in same during their youth. They run into some controversy on fornits from time to time given their alliances with other program-fighting organizations who believe there is such a thing as "safe" or "good" programs out there. You could say there are philosophical differences but, in general, there is a good deal of overlap.
ISAC (http://http://www.isaccorp.org/) is also a program-fighting organization, one that attempts to be somewhat neutral by letting the facts speak for themselves. They are a respected repository of survivor statements and newspaper articles cataloging the trail of misery and damage that abusive programs have left in their wake.[/list]
Wow, Ursus
If you think that ISAC look what you just reduced ISACCORP to!
The things that you have listed are not the only things that they do or have done or will do.
Look at the words that you chose to discribe cafety and then take a look at the words that you chose to describe ISACCORP. You really have no clue do you?
Research next time before you open your mouth. Thank buh bye now. Sounds like someone is up Cafety's asshole there URSUS.
-Clara
-
Cafety is not a registered non profit.
Only somewhat accurate if by registered, you mean registered with the federal government as a tax-exempt organization. CAFETY is incoporated as a not-for-profit organization in the State of New York. 501 c(3) papers soon to be pending.
-
Wow, Ursus
If you think that ISAC look what you just reduced ISACCORP to!
The things that you have listed are not the only things that they do or have done or will do.
Look at the words that you chose to discribe cafety and then take a look at the words that you chose to describe ISACCORP. You really have no clue do you?
Research next time before you open your mouth. Thank buh bye now. Sounds like someone is up Cafety's asshole there URSUS.
-Clara
And just to point out before you think it was me, I didn't post this Ursus.
However, to clarify a few key fundamental differences between ISAC and the rest of the herd I'll point a few things out. ISAC isn't into self-promotion which might explain why the core group of Bill and Shelby seem to struggle so much to keep ISAC running. You see that link at the very bottom of my signature everyone? For god's sake please go use it to donate some money to ISAC.
I won't go into extensive detail about Bill and Shelby's personal life but they really do sacrifice a great deal for their own organization. They do so quietly without the intention of drawing fame and the promise of a grant money to buy new office furniture.
Again, if you have 10 dollars to spare.. go spare it.
Here is their official donation page link:
http://www.isaccorp.org/donate.asp (http://www.isaccorp.org/donate.asp)
I'm kicking myself for closing my American bank account. I'd love to donate some money but can't easily manage it. However, I have promised to donate money to fornits this year. I'll do so and make a matching contribution to ISAC. Just not sure how at this point in time.
The other thing to remember about ISAC is what doesn't get talked about by ISAC very much. Let's take Shelby.. She went all the way to Jamaica to get in TB's face. Bill has regularly driven all the way to Ohio to helped Deprogrammed protest KHK.
The guy who runs ISAC's European branch, a decent fellow who I have traded private messages with on the rare occasion, donated a nice chunk of bread to Psy's Benchmark protest fund.
ISAC has that credibility of being an organization that hasn't compromised its values.
I could say a great many things about CAFETY. To be honest my opinion changes about them with the coming and going of the tide. I do know that a person I trust told me that they believe that Blombrowski is sincere in his efforts. Cafety has had some serious growing pains and probably is going to have more as the mature. But, let's be clear, they have grown and will continue to grow.
However, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that they'll find their way in this cold advocate's world without attempting to undercut their efforts even if I don't entirely agree with their aims.
-
Oh yeah.. In no way do I think CAFETY has compromised their ethics either. It does kind of seem to me that their ethics and values are changing with their experiences. Likewise, I do believe CAFETy has done some good work. I'm still curious to know how the hell they got the Oregon government to investigate MBA based on comments made on Facebook and Myspace.
-
Perhaps someone could expand upon this subject:
Some of the following have been referenced in this forum: JCAHO, NATSAP, CAFETY…ISAC. Could someone please outline the purposes/differences between these organizations, for those (like me) who are not in the know?
Post-composition: Golleeee... am I s-l-o-w. I can see that a lot of my material has been stated more eruditely by those ahead of me. Oh well, one more voice to the bucket...
-:•0•:-
Briefly, and stated with the express caveat that my own knowledge and understanding is admittedly woefully incomplete:
JCAHO (http://http://www.jointcommission.org/) is an accrediting organization, generally used for hospitals and other institutions in a health care setting. CARF (http://http://www.carf.org/) is a similar organization, generally thought to have less stringent criteria.
NATSAP (http://http://www.natsap.org/) is a marketing and PR umbrella for programs. Having a NATSAP logo on your website is supposed to convey a certain level of standards to parents and the like who might be interested. However, NATSAP is entirely composed of program operators; there is absolutely no independent oversight, not even a pretension of such.
CAFETY (http://http://www.cafety.org/) is an organization devoted to fighting unsafe and abusive programs. Many of its personnel are drawn from the ranks of those who have suffered due to having once been enrolled in same during their youth. They run into some controversy on fornits from time to time given their alliances with other program-fighting organizations who believe there is such a thing as "safe" or "good" programs out there. You could say there are philosophical differences but, in general, there is a good deal of overlap.
ISAC (http://http://www.isaccorp.org/) is also a program-fighting organization, one that attempts to be somewhat neutral by letting the facts speak for themselves. They are a respected repository of survivor statements and newspaper articles cataloging the trail of misery and damage that abusive programs have left in their wake.[/list]
[/b]
Wow, Ursus
If you think that ISAC look what you just reduced ISACCORP to!
The things that you have listed are not the only things that they do or have done or will do.
Look at the words that you chose to discribe cafety and then take a look at the words that you chose to describe ISACCORP. You really have no clue do you?
Research next time before you open your mouth. Thank buh bye now. Sounds like someone is up Cafety's asshole there URSUS.
-Clara
:roflmao:
Geeezzzz... Kindly reserve the petty augering for targets more appropriate, and more deserving, 'till you know what you are talking about. You really don't know S-Q-U-A-T about where I am coming from.
Considering that I clearly chose to answer the query in as brief and neutral a fashion as possible (a point that is probably quite obvious to everyone else), it certainly leaves an opening for a guest, or someone else even, to set the record straight as they see fit, no?
Why choose to eviscerate the least positive (i.e., most neutral) entry for CAFETY, out of the three that were available? Why choose to eviscerate at all? Sounds kinda like bully tactics to me. Perhaps you have something else on your agenda, that might be better served and addressed in a PM.
-
And just to point out before you think it was me, I didn't post this Ursus.
It would have never crossed my mind! :seg:
Oh yeah.. In no way do I think CAFETY has compromised their ethics either. It does kind of seem to me that their ethics and values are changing with their experiences. Likewise, I do believe CAFETy has done some good work. I'm still curious to know how the hell they got the Oregon government to investigate MBA based on comments made on Facebook and Myspace.
Oregon investigated MBA some years ago as well (mid-late 1990s?). I guess the second time you get called to a battlefield, ya pay a little more attention to the details, and poke a little deeper... Methinks there is some poorly-defined yet critical threshold of complaints, beyond which the magnifying glass comes out.
-
Silly bear.. post a link for this 1990's investigation yo.
-
Silly bear.. post a link for this 1990's investigation yo.
I don't have a link for the actual investigation per se. However, it was mentioned in Maia's recent article "An Oregon School for Troubled Teens Under Scrutiny (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=27353&p=330521#p330498)." See following selection, color emphasis mine:
RESURRECTED ALLEGATIONS
This is not the first time students have accused Mount Bachelor of abuse, nor is Mount Bachelor the only such program to face allegations of mistreatment. Similar allegations of abuse were documented by the Government Accountability Office at numerous programs in 2007 and 2008, when the agency investigated the troubled-teen industry at the behest of California congressman George Miller.
In 1998, Mount Bachelor was investigated by the Oregon DHS based on claims by several former employees that students were "subjected to frequent obscenity-laced screaming sessions by staff members; students were deprived of sleep; a group of girls emerged from one group therapy session with bruising on their arms after they were ordered to clasp their hands in front of them and pound a mattress for an extended period," according to the Bend Bulletin. The Oregon DHS cleared the program following the investigation.
"I am in a state of shock," says Sharon Ferguson, whose complaints about her son's treatment at Mount Bachelor in the 1990s helped spur the earlier investigation. "I can't believe that school is still open and the same things are being said and the same people are running it."
-
The Mount Bachelor Academy investigation was set in motion by an MBA staff member who sounded the alarm with the authorities based on what she was seeing and hearing.
Auntie Em
-
The previous poster beat me to it, but that was certainly the most important thing, that it was a staff member who made the allegations. Then there was a ton of corroborating evidence by three different generations of MBA students who as soon as the investigation was underway who besides posting blogs on facebook and myspace, contacted the authorities directly. And there were mental health professionals who could corroborate to the investigators who had no context for what they were investigating, that what they were seeing was in fact abusive and traumatic, and not a form of legitimate therapy.
It took three kinds of "expert witnesses" to make this work; staff, former and current students, and people with titles at the end of their name for the DHS to take the allegations seriously.
-
123
-
Is there any way program survivors can be heard without going through CAFETY? The only view reaching DC is CAFETY's, and their view is colored by their professional ambitions in mental health care. Wouldn't it be better to hear from survivors who don't have a vested interest in keeping the "good" programs their friends work at open? Survivors with no desire to self promote their careers by exploiting the issue while effectively suppressing the majority of program survivors.
In other words, how do we bypass the mental health industry reps who are censoring survivors? No one from here or any other group gets a voice in DC. Another experiment in unity with other groups asking for a fair share of representation for those without connections to the TTI is worth an effort. You don't have to agree with all of them 100%, but maybe we could agree 100% on the need for representation of survivors who aren't getting it from CAFETY.
How about contacting your representative? Or starting your own network, group. CAFETY is nothing but a bunch of people at the end of the day. Greater number=louder voice=greater chances of being heard.
My idea is anyone not represented by CAFETY start their own organization. The more voices representing survivors the better!