Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Troubled Teen Industry => Topic started by: Deborah on March 01, 2005, 05:43:00 PM
-
Emancipation Project was mentioned in another thread.
http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.ph ... &forum=9&1 (http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=8461&forum=9&1)
I googled the founders name (Thomas F. Coleman) and found some info worth of sharing:
http://preventchildabuseny.org/2005workshops.shtml (http://preventchildabuseny.org/2005workshops.shtml)
2005 Child Abuse Prevention Conference
A1
Abduction and Reprogramming of American Teens: The Need to Regulate Businesses That Abuse, Torture, and Kill
Thomas F. Coleman, J.D., Executive Director, Emancipation Project; Nora J. Baladerian, Ph.D., Psychologist, Disability-Abuse and Personal Rights Project and the Emancipation Project
In an effort to prevent child abuse, it is essential that information about so-called treatment centers for ?troubled teens? becomes public and becomes common knowledge when these centers are, in fact, maltreating children. Presenters will describe the growing national problem of business profiting from the abduction, confinement, and reprogramming of so-called ?troubled juveniles,? including their own story of saving a young girl from one of these ?reprogramming centers.? Parents are deceived by marketing, and children are traumatized by abductors and abused at reprogramming facilities. If feasible, one or two young people who have survived these camps will talk about their experiences. Presenters will offer solutions which require cooperation of parents, child welfare agencies, law enforcement officials, advocacy groups, and legislators. Questions and answers will follow the presentation.
*************
His latest human rights venture -- the Emancipation Project -- was stimulated in the summer of 2004 when he spearheaded an effort to rescue a Michigan girl who had been abducted and transported to a reprogramming facility in Montana. Mr. Coleman is a founding director of Spectrum Institute.
http://www.unmarriedamerica.org/emancip ... ipants.htm (http://www.unmarriedamerica.org/emancipation/about-us/participants.htm)
Emancipation Project Site:
http://www.unmarriedamerica.org/emancipation/entry.htm (http://www.unmarriedamerica.org/emancipation/entry.htm)
:nworthy:
And don't miss this essay:
http://www.unmarriedamerica.org/emancip ... ummary.htm (http://www.unmarriedamerica.org/emancipation/networking/survivors/isac-forum-summary.htm)
-
http://www.unmarriedamerica.org/emancip ... lation.htm (http://www.unmarriedamerica.org/emancipation/law/legal_rationale_for_regulation.htm)
Juvenile Justice
The Need for Greater Government Regulation of Privately Owned Residential Facilities for Juveniles
The government has a strong interest in regulating and monitoring the operations of private residential facilities for juveniles.
The health, safety, and general welfare of minors are of matters of sufficient public importance to warrant government regulation and oversight of private corporations into whose custody minors are placed for transportation, confinement, education, or treatment.
A massive teen reprogramming industry has developed in the United States. It is estimated that this industry consists of more than 400 so-called "behavior modification" facilities, "boarding schools," and "treatment" centers which confine thousands of minors.
The vast majority of these "troubled teenagers" are institutionalized with the authorization of one or both parents. There has been no judicial determination of wrongdoing by the juveniles. They are simply locked up for months or years by frustrated parents who have fallen for the slick advertising of sophisticated profiteers who promise to reprogram the minors into obedient conformists.
These facilities are generally not licensed or monitored by any governmental agency. Because most parents live hundreds, if not thousands of miles away from these institutions, the parents themselves are not able to supervise how their children are being treated. In reality, the children are no longer in the "custody and control" of their parents but rather have corporate custodians who control their daily lives.
Some of the corporations which run these facilities claim that the government lacks authority to regulate them because the constitution protects the parents right to "custody and control" of their children. This argument lacks merit for several reasons.
First, the United States Supreme Court has never ruled that parental rights of "custody and control" are absolute. In Prince v. Commonwealth, 321 U.S. 158 (1944) the Supreme Court observed:
"It is the interest of youth itself, and of the whole community, that children be both safeguarded from abuses and given opportunities for growth into free and independent well-developed men and citizens. Acting to guard the general interest in youth's well being, the state as parens patriae may restrict the parent's control by requiring school attendance, regulating or prohibiting the child's labor, and in many other ways. . . [T]he state has a wide range of power for limiting parental freedom and authority in things affecting the child's welfare; and that this includes, to some extent, matters of conscience and religious conviction."
Therefore, even when children are living at home and under the direct supervision of their parents, the state does have constitutional power to limit parental authority. The state, however, may not unreasonably interfere with "the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control." Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 511-512 (1925).
The need for the government to protect children from potential abuse, and to insure that they are properly educated and cared for, increases as the actual custody and control of the parents over their children decreases. While it may be assumed that parents will look out for the best interests of children in their custody, there can be no such presumption associated with a corporation which is housing dozens or even hundreds of children for a profit.
Parents may not assign their constitutional rights, which are personal in nature, to a corporate entity. Corporations, which are themselves created by statute, can be regulated by statute.
Therefore, once a parent relinquishes custody of a child to a "transportation service" which then takes a child to a private facility and turns custody of the child over to a corporate entity, the role of the state, as parens patriae increases significantly.
Parens patriae is a Latin term which literally means "father of the country." The legal doctrine of parens patriae involves the government acting as a guardian for children within its jurisdiction. The need for the state to act in this capacity is amplified when parents neglect or abuse their child, or when the parents abandon the child or otherwise surrender their personal supervision of the child.
Many of these juvenile residential facilities portray themselves as "boarding schools" or "academies" and all of them appear to have some educational component to their programs. It is unquestionable that the government has the authority to regulate all schools, including private schools.
In Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), the United States Supreme Court observed that ?No question is raised concerning the power of the state reasonably to regulate all schools, to inspect, supervise and examine them, their teachers and pupils; to require that all children of proper age attend some school, that teachers shall be of good moral character and patriotic disposition, that certain studies plainly essential to good citizenship must be taught, and that nothing be taught which is manifestly inimical to the public welfare.?
Therefore, state and local governments surely have the authority to regulate these juvenile facilities in their capacity as schools. But government authority is much broader than this.
The police power of the state includes the authority to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of children within its jurisdiction. Furthermore, the authority of the government to regulate business entities and corporations is without question. As a result, state and local governments have the power to require juvenile residential facilities to be licensed, to comply with reasonable regulations, and to submit to inspections.
State and local governments have the power to require corporate compliance with laws regulating child labor, prohibiting child neglect, abuse, or endangerment, and statutes protecting human rights.
Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce. Most parents send their "troubled teenagers" to juvenile residential facilities in other states which may be located hundreds or even thousands of miles away from the family home. As a result, the federal government has the power to regulate the "transportation companies" which move the children out of state as well as the juvenile facilities which generate most of their revenues from out of state placements.
The question, therefore, is not whether federal, state, and local governments have the authority to regulate and monitor privately owned residential facilities for juveniles. However, there are three issues to be examined:
(1) Are statutes and regulations already on the books which protect the health, safety, welfare and human rights of children confined in privately operated residential facilities;
(2) If so, are they being adequately enforced by appropriate agencies; and
(3) If the answer to questions (1) or (2) is negative, then what can be done to improve the situation.
One of the primary purposes of the Emancipation Project is to explore the answers to these questions after consulting with elected officials, administrative agencies, and nonprofit advocacy organizations.
The welfare of these "forgotten children" should not be left to chance. That would be unacceptable for a society which professes that children are our most valuable resource and promises that "no child will be left behind."
-
400 programs? There are about 1000 in Utah alone. There are many more than 400 teen residential progams in the country. Does anyone know how many there are actually? I know they are springing up everyday because they are so profitable. For instance in Utah - someone can but a house with 5 or 6 bedrooms and convert it into a residential facility for 12 youth. At $5000 to $7000 per child that's a lot of money to be made. Property is dirt cheap in Utah and this industry is extremely lucrative. Many people have become mega-millionaires from abusing kids and calling it treatment - all with the parents consent.
The problem is much greater than 400 facilities -
How many are there actually? The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled.
-- Plutarch
-
Who knows. The correct answer is "Too Many"!
I stopped trying to keep track some time ago, as they closed and/or change names so frequently it was more work than I cared to do, unpaid.
-
Deb - :nworthy: :nworthy: if you don't know then no one knows.....
The Internet is now safe for free speech.
-- Christopher A. Hansen on the overturning of the Communications Decency Act
-
That's troubling. I mean, we should at least have a decent estimate, shouldn't we?
Freedom has a thousand charms to show, That slaves, howe'er contented, never know.
William Cowper, a British Christian poet & hymn writer (18th century)
-
I honestly haven't a clue. Too many to track in my spare time.
I've heard different numbers quoted, but who really knows? What organization or agency is interested in this information?
Then there is the tedious task of sorting them and determining which catagory they fall into. Are they a TBS or EGS or RTC or Religious reform home or Drug rehab, not to mention wilderness, ranch, boot camp, military academies (all of which employ BM tactics). Which are actually psychiatric facilities and which are part of the THI?
You can start at any given state DHS site, then search and add to that list all the unlicensed programs you stumled across.
It will leave one's head spinning. Try it sometime.
Do we have enough volunteers to cover all states and report back with a list of programs of all persuasions? And then how and to whom will that data be useful?
-
Back to the topic of this thread, what did anyone think about the questions posed in the essay above:
However, there are three issues to be examined:
(1) Are statutes and regulations already on the books which protect the health, safety, welfare and human rights of children confined in privately operated residential facilities;
(2) If so, are they being adequately enforced by appropriate agencies; and
(3) If the answer to questions (1) or (2) is negative, then what can be done to improve the situation.
***
I so appreciated him making issue with these facilities being private corporations (Corp Reprogramming Facilities), which makes it difficult to impossible to investigate allegations of abuse/neglect. I don't have a lot of faith in state agencies, which is no secret, but every facility that houses kids 24/7 should have the minimum of a license.
-
A report by the Office of Inspector General, requested by Administration for Children and Families (ACF); answers those questions. There is cause for concern. Read highlights of that report here:
http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.ph ... &forum=9&0 (http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=8487&forum=9&0)
-
On 2005-03-01 20:55:00, Deborah wrote:
"
Back to the topic of this thread, what did anyone think about the questions posed in the essay above:
I think there are adequate laws and statutes. Not only that, there's more than ample guidelines provided by standards of common decency. I think the trouble is twofold 1) some sectors of society have radically different ideas than the rest of us about the proper way to treat kids and 2) we're working against this hugely pervasive myth about a whole generation of dangerously deranged teenagers.
Most people have some preconceived notions about private boarding schools and the types of kids who wind up in them. They either think these kids must be horrible for their parents to have sent them off or that they're just spoiled brats who will throw a tantrum if they don't get whipped cream on their ice cream. Either way, it's hard for most people to imagine that anybody would do even to "bad" kids what some of these groups do.
So, while I don't hold out much hope for new regulation and licensing to do a whole lot of good, I'm extremely thankful and very much encouraged by the growing involvement of these types of organizations. They're trying to pressure the lawmakers and regulators into doing "their job". Well, it is their job to protect these kids and to inform parents when there are credible abuse and neglect alegations, etc. But I just don't think it's possible for them to accomplish that any better than FDA is able to protect us from wreckless medical practices. We have to look out for ourselves, ya' know?
But in the course of trying to get the public sector to do this task, they're employing the Vth Estate to great effect. I think that's key. For many years, people believed it was only good and sensible to eat morphine, Coca and/or Kola whenever you felt ill. A lot of people were made misserable and even permanently harmed by these practice till it became common knowledge that that's just not a very good idea. Then came FDA w/ a bunch of nice sounding guidelines and rules that only reflected what the people had already adopted as common sense.
Aside from the fact that this hoped for new layer of regulation is probably going to be ineffective and to cost us dearly for generations, I don't see a big problem with it if, in the course of bringing it about, the people pushing it actually accomplish the goal of raising awareness and understanding of this newage form of quack medicine.
You should be allowed to do whatever you want with your own person and property, as long as you don't physically harm the person or property of a nonconsenting other.
Peter McWilliams - Ain't Nobody's Business If I Do
-
***I think there are adequate laws and statutes.
Have you had time to read the highlights of the OIG Report I posted? You may not think so after reading it. It makes it pretty clear that states are doing a pretty lame job of protecting kids. As we know, some states don't even have protective regulations. There is much, much more that could be done in terms of regulating and monitoring RTCs.
As one licensing specialist quoted in the report put it, ?the legislation defined our role as health and safety, when it comes to program quality it is a buyer beware situation.?
Not news to some of us, but interesting considering who's saying it.
Certainly, educating the public should continue full speed ahead. As I don't believe that any state will ever be able to prevent abuse in out of home placements. But, any positive change could only help.
-
On 2005-03-02 16:14:00, Deborah wrote:
Have you had time to read the highlights of the OIG Report I posted? You may not think so after reading it. It makes it pretty clear that states are doing a pretty lame job of protecting kids.
Yes, but that's true, maybe moreso, in states that have excess regulation and CPS spending. Check out Florida, for example. More kids are abused and neglected in the Florida welfare system than out of it. And that includes all the undocumented immigrants. They're real damned good at snatching kids on flimsey evidence or sometimes as little as an anonymous tip. But they're none too good at improving the kids' situations. More is not always better.
As one licensing specialist quoted in the report put it, ?the legislation defined our role as health and safety, when it comes to program quality it is a buyer beware situation.?
Not news to some of us, but interesting considering who's saying it.
Right. And if you ask the courts or an honest cop, they'll tell you the same. It is not their job to protect you from violence or other crime. They can't do it because it can't be done. Their job is to aprehend suspects and bring them to justice (those who won't go willingly). But they can't be held liable for failure to prevent a crime.
Same standard applies here. You asked if there were already enough laws and regulations and if they're being properly enforced. There are already laws against doing anything to anybody against their will EXCEPT under the extraordinary condition that they have been legally disenfranchised in some way.
Parental authority only extends to making rules. You can't physically force a kid to obey, therefore you can't hire someone to do it for you.
Laws are being broken already and enforcement is slack. Remember that many of these places take kids who have been ordered by juvenile justice as an alternative to public juvenile detention. Once you make a law, enforcement of it is done w/ pretty broad discretion by the enforcers. If Florida can force a kid into the county boot camp after three runaway complaints, I can easily imagine Utah taking custody of kids for whatever reasons and placing them into these programs.
How many of these parents simply blow off all the alarming complains as bullshit because their gulag of choice has gotten a wink and a nod and an authentic state and local license from a corrupt child welfare system?
Shit, Straight, Inc. was always licensed and heartily endorsed by cops and juvenile judges. It was their authority in areas of drug use and child rearing that helped make that place such a horror. Nowhere to run to, nowhere to hide, if you manage to escape, the cops are not on your side.
Don't you think people would be more careful about who they trust with their kids if there were not this empty pretense of protection?
Forgive, O Lord, my little joke on Thee and I'll forgive Thy great big one on me.
--Robert Frost, American poet
-
In a perfect world, yes. But, where we are now, I?m not sure ?people would be more careful about who they trust with their kids if there were not this empty pretense of protection?? It hasn?t helped in those states that have NO or lax regs. Programs flock to them.
Yeh, Florida?s right up there with Texas as two of the worst. A recent study here revealed that a child was 5 times more likely to be injured or killed in out-of-home placements. I, nor the report cited, are advocating giving CPS more power to snatch kids on flimsy evidence. This report is concerned with the lack of oversight by states in RTCs specifically.
While I basically concur with your argument, I?m for anything that will keep the kids incarcerated in these warehouses safer. Call me optimistic, but after reading that report, I think some pressure from the feds, demanding the creation of strong regulations couldn?t help but make some difference. How much, I don?t know.
Do the laws already in force, that you refer to. apply to minors? Unfortunately, parents CAN hire someone to force a kid to obey. I don?t think that?s going to change any time soon, if ever. And as long as these warehouses exist, they should have to follow some stiff regs that could decrease the chance of abuse, if designed and implemented appropriately. Then it?s up to citizens to pressure the state to do their job. It?s much easier to do when there are laws that spell out their responsibility.
Perhaps I haven?t heard or don?t understand your argument against regulations. Coming under the watch of the state certainly caused some major improvements at the wilderness program my son did his time in. The parent TBS is still operating without a license but endured some change as well. Is it now perfect? Not by a long shot. It could be better if they had been properly classified for what they are. Many of their ?therapeutic? methods would go by the wayside, or they would face sanctions. And yes, only if the state did their job. But, I can?t see how things would be better without any regs. That sounds like ?open season? for the sadistic, to me.
As a point of clarity, are you advocating that all DHS agencies should be eliminated? If so, is that realistic for this time in space? I support that as a long-term, somewhat idealistic goal, but don't see it happening. But then again, Bush might be the man to make it happen.
-
On 2005-03-02 19:11:00, Deborah wrote:
"In a perfect world, yes. But, where we are now, I?m not sure ?people would be more careful about who they trust with their kids if there were not this empty pretense of protection?? It hasn?t helped in those states that have NO or lax regs. Programs flock to them.
Yes, but how often do you hear of a kid from Utah being sent to a Utah program? I'm sure it happens, but not as often as people from the East and West coasts do. In those places, the presumption is very strong that Big Brother's got a firm grip on everything. And, in fact, you can't scratch a friend's ass w/o getting sued.
I, nor the report cited, are advocating giving CPS more power to snatch kids on flimsy evidence. This report is concerned with the lack of oversight by states in RTCs specifically.
What's the difference between increased oversight by the state and increased power to CPS? What do you think the state is going to do w/ kids commited by their own out of state parents to facilities they find abusive? If politics are involved (and they always are) then my guess would be that they'll snatch the kids and transfer them to the billing rolls of their cronies' programs.
As a point of clarity, are you advocating that all DHS agencies should be eliminated? If so, is that realistic for this time in space? I support that as a long-term, somewhat idealistic goal, but don't see it happening. But then again, Bush might be the man to make it happen."
Basically, yeah. Look, when the investigation started w/ Straight, the headlines described clearly criminal complaints. You'd think that criminal prosecutions would follow, but you'd be wrong. Instead, HRS stepped in and took over. The end result was a short list of trivial code and zoning type corrections they had to pretend to make till the heat was off, then business as usual.
If it had not been for those sanctimonious altruists at HRS, maybe Virgil would have gone to prison for doing things like breaking a kid's leg right in front of a couple of hundred other kids. Maybe some of the other adult staff would have had to testify or face prison time of their own. Now THAT may have had a profound impact. When Chuck Dederich went to prison for atempted murder, Synanon pretty much shut down. When HRS was done w/ Straight, they opened another dozen or so locations and continued in business under that same name for another 10 years or so.
See the difference?I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure.
--Clarence Darrow
-
How was it that HRS took over? The local authorities could?ve taken independent action had they chosen to. Or am I missing something? What would/or did prevent civil actions by the victims in those cases? Short of being incarcerated and having no contact with the outside world, which regs could prevent, if enforced.
In the long run, stronger regulations may prove to be no better. The difference I?m talking about is not increasing the general powers of CPS as it pertains to removing children from their homes. It has to do with creating stronger regs for RTCs and a stronger requirement of states to enforce them.
I agree with your argument in theory. I can?t fathom how ridding the country of DHS/CPS might be accomplished. Suggestions? It feels like a pipe dream to me. In the meantime? working for stronger regs and enforcement doesn?t seem like a waste of time or contradictory, as an interim strategy, for the little protection it can provide. Since the system isn't going away, it should be the best it can be, given the level of corruption, which will ALWAYS be a factor when money is involved, with or without DHS.
Bottomline, when I envision a country with no DHS and no regulations, for the little they are worth currently, it doesn't look pretty. I envision hundreds of TLCs (not to single them out) and no one aware of what's going on, because there is no entity with the authority to go in and investigate the self-regulating private corporations, therefore no media attention, therefore no public awareness. Further, the kids may not be allowed ANY contact with their parents. How would any abuse be reported under those conditions? If you have a different, more positive image, please share.
-
http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_2589739 (http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_2589739)
::hehehmm::
Someone needs to do their homework before publishing such erroneous information...
::hehehmm::
No matter how valiant and/or valuable a lawyers efforts are, his/her credibility is priceless
Selfishness and impatience won't fly too far...
::cheers::
-
Which information specifically are you referring to?
-
On 2005-03-02 21:24:00, Deborah wrote:
"How was it that HRS took over? The local authorities could?ve taken independent action had they chosen to. Or am I missing something? What would/or did prevent civil actions by the victims in those cases? Short of being incarcerated and having no contact with the outside world, which regs could prevent, if enforced.
No, you're not missing anything.
Here's an article that tells most of the story.
"The charges we received ? of assaults, batteries, false imprisonment ? are serious abuses," said Gardner. "I decided not to prosecute the staff of Straight, but to turn over the investigation to HRS for corrective action."
http://fornits.com/anonanon/articles/20 ... 11-239.htm (http://fornits.com/anonanon/articles/200009/20000911-239.htm)
As to why he turned it over to HRS and why and how HRS was cowed into backing off, that's a complex political story, just like every other complex political story. In the simplest of terms, it was a whitewash that continues to this day. When Straight headquarters in St. Pete finally shut down in `93, they left programs operating under various names in several states. At the end of the day, nothing significant has changed. A few people got nice civil settlements, good for them (I mean that) but the beating goes on.
In the long run, stronger regulations may prove to be no better. The difference I?m talking about is not increasing the general powers of CPS as it pertains to removing children from their homes. It has to do with creating stronger regs for RTCs and a stronger requirement of states to enforce them.
That's how it always starts. But remember that any state regulation is written, debated, edited, and eventually negotiated into law by politicians. And it gets even more convoluted when it comes to implimentatin.
I agree with your argument in theory. I can?t fathom how ridding the country of DHS/CPS might be accomplished. Suggestions? It feels like a pipe dream to me.
I want the Old Deal back, damn it! LOL I know, it really is a pipe dream at this point. But then, so was the American Revolution up until the battle at King's Mountain, 7 Oct 1780.
In the meantime? working for stronger regs and enforcement doesn?t seem like a waste of time or contradictory, as an interim strategy, for the little protection it can provide. Since the system isn't going away, it should be the best it can be, given the level of corruption, which will ALWAYS be a factor when money is involved, with or without DHS.
I'm w/ P.J. O'Rourke on this one; "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." I think more and stronger regs and enforcement can, and usually do, do more harm than good. But I also recognize that taking that position puts me in the distinct minority, waving affectionately accross the void to a whole lot of people who I respect and admire.
So even though I disagree w/ their stated goal of more and better regulation, I entheusiastically cheer and endorse their employment of the Vth Estate of government to bring about their goal. Not only do I think that will do a world of good for the situation, but it also shows faith in their convictions. Upton Sinclair failed misserably at his stated goal when he wrote The Jugle. "I aimed at the public's heart, and by accident I hit it in the stomach," he said. The result, which he never seemed to fully appreciate, was one of the Federal regulations that I actually agree with; the Pure Food and Drug Labeling Act. The original intent was to take up the slack left by the dissolusion of small, rural communities when people moved into big cities in droves to take industrial jobs.
The basic idea was to require anyone selling any food or drug to label it for what it was, including all ingredients and limiting the amount of foreign matter in any product. That, all by itself, effectively shut down the trade in morphene and cocaine based patent medicines. As soon as Aunt Polly realized that the "health tincture" she'd been spoon feeding Tom was 30% pure liquid cocaine, she quit doing it.
If only we could have stopped there and not proceeded to start telling Aunt Polly that synthetic cocaine by Rx is good for high strung young boys and that cannabis tincture is deadly toxic poison w/ no medical value whatever and then setting up the apparatus to have her thrown in prison for refusing to believe it.
Bottomline, when I envision a country with no DHS and no regulations, for the little they are worth currently, it doesn't look pretty. I envision hundreds of TLCs (not to single them out) and no one aware of what's going on, because there is no entity with the authority to go in and investigate the self-regulating private corporations, therefore no media attention, therefore no public awareness. Further, the kids may not be allowed ANY contact with their parents. How would any abuse be reported under those conditions? If you have a different, more positive image, please share.
Ok, how about this. 20 years from now, when our grandkids are considering how best to deal w/ their rebellious or troubled kids, the media will have so worn this story as to bore most kids to tears if they tried to run it again. The troubled parent industry will have been relegated to the musty, dusty halls of history along w/ things like ECT, amphetamine 'therapy' for overly bright and energetic children and The Malleus Maleficarum. But I'm sure they'll have come up w/ new and more interesting quack theories, so they won't want for things to talk about and those dear future grandkids will probably have no trouble inventing new rites of passage. And, of course, if they do have trouble, they can always count on Grams for a safe, comfy welcome and some old-school advice.
"
Faith, as well intentioned as it may be, must be built on facts, not fiction- faith in fiction is a damnable false hope.
--Thomas Edison, American inventor
_________________
Ginger Warbis ~ Antigen
Seed sibling `71 - `80
Straight South (Sarasota, FL)
10/80 - 10/82
Anonymity Anonymous
Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps.
-
Spelled Dahlongea wrong, but still so many interesting verifable facts.
http://www.heal-online.org/hiddenlake.htm (http://www.heal-online.org/hiddenlake.htm)
-
http://www.emancipationproject.org (http://www.emancipationproject.org) great site.
-
just wanted to add, when i emailed these pple they responded right away. now this seems like a good group.
-
this is a real important link for all pple and all former kids. please tell your stories to pple that can make a differnece.
-
Briefly, back to the subject of how many programs there might be.
http://www.strugglingteens.com/archives ... een02.html (http://www.strugglingteens.com/archives/1999/7/seen02.html)
THE TROUBLED TEEN BUSINESS
(March/April 1999) Douglas Bodin, Certified Educational Planner from Los Altos, California, 650-948- 8651, sent Woodbury Reports two articles written by Sara Selis covering the business side of the at-risk/Emotional Growth industry. ?The Troubled Teen Business? appeared in CALIFORNIA MEDICINE, in December 1998, and a similar article by the same name appeared in ?healthcare business? in March/April 1999. Featuring interviews with Bodin, Aspen Youth Services, Three Springs and others, it pointed out estimates of ?10,000 to 15,000 companies and programs providing at-risk services to youths age 10 to 21,? describing the current tendency toward consolidation of larger established companies whose expansion is fed through the purchase of smaller, successful programs.
-
I've heard that there are over 1000 residential type programs including boot camps. I know there are more out-patient type programs. The out-patient programs should be tried first....
An individual who should survive his physical death is beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls.
--Albert Einstein