Fornits

Fornits Home for Wayward Web Fora
An open discussion about the troubled parent industry

I apologize to Joyce and to whomever else here I offended with that comment about being part of a cult.  

Let's get this straight, Kat, myself, Charlie, Andy, and Marvin are very anti-program.  We are zero-tolerance when it comes to programs.  However, we have board members who are not, who have typically had experiences in "good" programs, and terrible programs.  And as far as those compromises that were listed, all of those folks have very little control over except to quit their job or to quit their board position in protest (when they can do far more good by changing policy from the inside).

My point was to ask where does this end?  To the point that Zen-agent is being called as bad as Izzy?  Have we lost our minds here?

I want to shut down this industry as bad as anyone and I will not compromise my beliefs, but that doesn't mean not associating with others who have a less orthodox viewpoint.  So I am insulted for Kat, when people start throwing around things like is she willing to support MMS.  And we do not have a list of middle of the road programs, because we don't believe in programs.  Those who hold a differing opinion we try to convince of why they're opinion is flawed.

Zen, would you have not accepted help from ASTART if you knew that their chairman in his role with a separate entity received sponsorship dollars from a well-known RTC (one of those programs that some, but not most, members of ASTART would probably consider acceptable because of their history).  Does their involvement in ASTART render their whole operation compromised?

Again, I apologize for shooting from the hip so easily, and hurting anyone if I have.

I am only speaking for myself here, as I will have to bring this issue to the aforementioned board of directors directly before we go ahead and make it official.

Fornits has become the church of the anti-program, and those who don't follow the commandments of the church are labeled heretics who are cast out and banished.  It isn't enough to do good works, it is necessary to give full worship to the fact that all programs are bad.  And not only is it sinful to not think that all programs are bad, but associating with those who do is a sin in itself.

Ladies and gentlemen, Fornits is a cult, and we don't do cults.  A cult, even in the name of doing good work, is still a cult.  So you say that our compromises make us as bad as the programs, I say your cult-like exclusionary behavior makes you as bad as the programs.  

Those of you who want to be fundamentalists to the cause, by all means do so.  You do your thing and we'll do ours, and we'll see you all in Washington in September.  Until then, assuming the board approves, the boycott is mutual.

Thank you for your responses.

So this issue doesn't come up again.  How far along the line must the associations be cut off?  

We are a member of the Youth Policy Action Center, which NYRA is a member of, which means we are linked to YPAC which has a link to NYRA.    

Should we cancel our membership in YPAC?

ASTART is based out of the University of South Florida Research and Training Center.  The USF RTC holds an annual conference, where a small portion of the funding is taken from residential programs.  Should ASTART disassociate from the USF RTC (they are separate entities, but the director is the same of both) because of that funding source (Pressley Ridge and Boys and Girls Town).  And there is a board member of the USF RTC (I happen to be one of them) who has been a director of a residential treatment program (he is also one of the fiercest advocates for community based services).  

Charles Huffine, Kat, and I are members of ASTART.  It should be noted that while ASTART may be indirectly receiving support from some residential programs they took NATSAP head on and gave them no quarter.  Should the three of use resign from ASTART due to their connection to an entity that receives funds and support from residential programs.

T.J. Curtis is a board member of the Federation of Families for Children's Mental Health and Youth ACT, I know that while FFCMH is generally against residential treatment, their hands (or at least some of their chapters' hands) aren't clean when it comes to referring parents to some residential programs or accepting money from those programs.

Lorrin Gehring is an employee of that same company.

Mor Keshet works for an adult residential treatment program as an art therapist.  Kat used to work for that same program.

Some of our board members have had what they consider positive experiences in residential treatment.

Our board is comprised of individuals who have the ability through their connections to actually reach the policy makers, the administrators, the service providers, and other advocates to press for changes in the law, or the way the system is administered.  

Because of the money that flows through the residential treatment industry, all of them are connected, but not complicit, in some way to tainted money, bad practices, or both.  However, in their own practice of their job they try to avoid that taint, and usually through their positions try to change the systems that they work within.

So, before I ask Alex to resign from his position I want you all to take a hard look at this list of potential conflicts of interest, and tell me if these board members are acceptable to you.  If they are, I believe that this situation was an isolated incident and will be taken care of swiftly.

Kristin, let me first say that I'm sorry I didn't have the opportunity to see your full presentation, and that I didn't have the chance to express my gratitude for making the time and effort to travel down to D.C. for the, um, conference.  The offer that was made last week to help cover some of your expenses for traveling down to D.C. still stands.

Yes, the turnout was disappointing.  I was given an estimated number of 30 individuals that had planned on attending the conference, and I suppose if you count the number of people who would have come on Sunday, plus all of the presenters, you would have about 30 people.

We viewed this as an opportunity to reach out to politically engaged youth to present an in-depth discussion of the behavioral modification industry.  Sadly, this was perhaps the largest forum to have that discussion.

There are other large conferences where there are many more youth who attend (in particular the FFCMH conference in December), but it is my experience that while these youth are more personally effected by the issues of the behavioral modification industry, they are more politically apathetic.  Still it is our (the board of Youth ACT) intention to present a similar discussion at that conference.

As for the conference itself, Kristin's presentation from what I could observe was excellent.  After she finished I presented for about an hour (no notes, no powerpoint) and took questions from the audience.  The primary point I tried to address was the fallacy of the "good program", and the differential experiences of individuals who may have had good experiences within a program, because of their luck in who their staffers were.  Kristin was there for our first presentation, so you can ask me or her for more info regarding that presentation.

In the afternoon, I was able to address the issue of Isabelle and more broadly the different groups that are involved within the fight against the industry.

I explained the reasons why Youth ACT does not align itself with CAICA.  They are:

The lack of transparency within the organization CAICA (no listing of board members or the "editorial board")
The lack of appropriate citations for material on the webiste
Isabelle's inability to answer or confront difficult questions that were asked of her on the CAFETY website last year when she made an effort to allign herself with CAFETY.
The general sense that Isabelle is an unreliable partner due to her inability to focus on common goals.

More recently evidence has come to light regarding Whitmore Academy, which I don't believe I need to go into here, that casts an appalling light on Isabelle.

Alex from NYRA tried to provide some defense for her actions, citing some of the positive actions she had taken to help get some youth out of programs, even housing them in her home.

I countered that while I'm willing to give Isabelle the benefit of the doubt that she may be "well-meaning", I explained how most operators of residential treatment programs are equally "well-meaning".  I even when so far as to give Isabelle a label of having a Jesus complex, much like many of the operators of programs.

The members of NYRA seemed to get the message regarding how the actions of Isabelle were counter-effective.

However, the group assembled was equally concerned about the witchunt atmosphere present on Fornits and the threats of blacklisting that are regular on this website.  I made the point that Isabelle was frankly not worth the hastle or the defense.

NYRA did not wish to base their decision on the threat of being blacklisted, and so a complete dissociation from CAICA was taken off the table.

They did understand the implicit condonement of referring youth to programs, by linking to CAICA, so a compromise measure was reached where NYRA would place a disclaimer on their CAICA link (similar to the one CAFETY was contemplating for Anti-WWASP at some point) that would condemn Isabelle's practice of referring youth to programs and to referrers, while providing the link to CAICA for informational purposes.  They also agreed to include the links to Fornits, TAUSA, and HEAL, which had been conspicuously absent from their list of resources.

Before I left, I told Alex I would get in touch with him for the next board meeting, which he coyly responded "if I'm still on the board".  

As Alex stated during the second presentation, behavioral modification is about #5 on the list of priorities for their organization.  It is not an issue they have a great deal of expertise in.  What NYRA does have however, is a budget, however small that it is, a sustainable structure, 501c(3) status, an office in Washington D.C, and a sensativity to the issue.  These are all resources.  

I know how this group by in large feels about compromises, and I know how people tend to react when they feel bullied into making decisions.  I have tentatively accepted the decision of NYRA, pending your input on their decision.  I believe that they get it now, and are willing to cut off the pipeline of mis-information.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that this issue was ever simply about HTML code.  I'm assuming that the links will be updated by the end of the week.  I look forward to hearing from all of you regarding our meeting this past weekend.

I asked for the edit to his post, because since he quoted my statement, the same information that others thought might be confidential information (though probably not) is still available.  Just to be on the safe side, it seem like a good idea if he could remove the same info.

As for the other question, I am not a licensed clinical social worker, but I do similar work to others in my office that hold that title, and my supervisor is in fact a licensed clinical social worker.  I hold a bachelor's in psychology and a masters in public policy.

Can the moderator (if there is one) edit the content of Gabba Gabba's reply?

Edited for content.