what the Phd's reveal

[katfish]

http://www.nospank.net/pinto.htm

EXPLOITATION IN THE NAME OF "SPECIALTY SCHOOLING"
What Counts as Sufficient Data? What are Psychologists to Do?
By Allison Pinto, Ph.D., Robert M. Friedman, Ph.D. and Monica Epstein, Ph.D.
Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, University of South Florida, 2005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to:


Allison Pinto
Department of Child and Family Studies
Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, MHC 2222
University of South Florida
13301 N. Bruce B. Downs Boulevard
Tampa, Florida 33612
or


http://observer.guardian.co.uk
American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Retrieved May 20, 2005 from http://www.apa.org
Associated Press. (2004, September 20). Investigation shows troubled school may be buying interest with lawmakers. The Daily Herald. Retrieved April 15, 2005 from http://harktheherald.com
Bryson, A. J. (2005, April 21). Utah-based group under fire--legislation targets association of schools for troubled youths. Deseret Morning News. Retrieved April 21, 2005 from http://deseretnews.com
Bryson, A. J. (2005, February :cool:. Tighter control of youth programs sought in Utah. Deseret Morning News. Retrieved April 15, 2005 from http://deseretnews.com
Bryson, A. J. (2004, April 17). Problems plaguing program for youths. Deseret Morning News. Retrieved April 15, 2005 from http://deseretnews.com
Bryson, A. J. (2004, April 9). Youth programs in Utah targeted. Deseret Morning News. Retrieved April 15, 2005 from http://deseretnews.com
Capitol Advantage LLC (n.d.) Legislation Details 'To assure the safety of American children in foreign-based and domestic institutions, and for other purposes.' Retrieved May 20, 2005 from http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bil ... m=H.R.1738 &congress=109
Cole, W. (2004, November 22). How to save a troubled kid? Time Magazine. Retrieved April 15, 2005 from http://www.time.com
Dibble, S. (2005, January 10). Scrutiny increased on centers for teens. The San Diego Union Tribune. Retrieved April 15, 2005 from http://signonsandiego.com
Dukes, L. (2005, March 26). Financial troubles shut down CEDU schools. Bonner County Daily Bee. Retrieved April 15, 2005 from http://bonnercountydailybee.com
Garifo, C. (2005, February 16). State agencies probe Ivy Ridge. Watertown Daily Times. Retrieved February 16, 2005 from http://www.wdtimes.com
Gehrke, R. (2005, February 11). New push for camp regulation. The Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved April 15, 2005 from http://www.sltrib.com
Harrie, D. & Gehrke, R. (2004, September 21). Teen-help operators have clout-Family behind schools with checkered record calls in political favors, critics say. The Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved February 17, 2005 from http://www.sltrib.com
Hayes, T. (2003, June 18). Boarding schools go unchecked in Utah. Deseret Morning News
. Retrieved April 18, 2005 from http://deseretnews.com
Hechinger, J. & Chaker, A. M. (2005, March 31). Boarding-school options shift for troubled teens-shutdown of Brown schools shows challenge of selecting a 'therapeutic' program. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved April 7, 2005 from http://online.wsj.com
Huang, L., Stroul, B., Friedman, R., Mrazek, P., Friesen, B., Pires, S., & Mayberg, S. (in press). Transforming mental healthcare for children and their families. American Psychologist.
Kilzer, L. (1999, July 18). Desperate Measures. Denver Rocky Mountain News. Retrieved December 28, 2004 from http://www.denver-rmn.com
Labi, N. (2004, July/August). Want your kid to disappear? Legal Affairs. Retrieved January 19, 2005 from http://www.legalaffairs.org
Licensure and Regulation of Programs and Facilities, S.B. 107, General Session State of Utah, (2005). Retrieved May 20, 2005 from http://bb.utahsenate.org/perl/bb/bb_ find.pl
Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services. (2003). Unregulated youth residential care programs in Montana. Helena, MT: Author.
New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, Achieving the Promise: Transforming Mental Health Care in America. Final Report. DHHS Pub. No. SMA-03-3832. Rockville, MD: 2003.
Rimer, S. (2001, September 10). Desperate Measures. The New York Times. Retrieved January 4, 2005 from http://www.nytimes.com
Rock, S. (2005, March 21). Boonville looks to sell old academy. The Kansas City Star. Retrieved April 15, 2005 from http://www.kansascity.com
Rock, S. (2005, January 23). Referral agency's connection to boot camp angers parents. The Kansas City Star. Retrieved April 15, 2005 from http://kansascity.com
Rock, S. (2004, December 19). Teen's death raises concerns. The Kansas City Star. Retrieved May 20, 2005 from http://kansascity.com
Romboy, D. (2005, March 6). Utah boarding school under fire. Deseret Morning News. Retrieved April 15, 2005 from http://deseretnews.com
Rowe, R. (2004, December 7). Tranquility Bay: The last resort. BBC News-World Edition. Retrieved January 4, 2005 from http://news.bbc.co.uk
Rubin, B. M. (2004, January 14). The last resort; Therapeutic education industry booms as parents seek programs for their troubled children. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved April 15, 2005 from http://www.chicagotribune.com
Stewart, K. (2005, March 1). State's oversight of school lambasted. The Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved April 15, 2005 from http://www.sltrib.com
Stewart, K. (2005, Febrary 5). Licensing for "therapeutic schools"? The Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved April 15, 2005 from http://www.sltrib.com
The National Association of Therapeutic Schools and Programs, Inc. (2005). NATSAP 2005 Directory. Tampa, Florida: Author.
Weiner, T. (2003, September 6). Program to help youths has troubles of its own. The New York Times. Retrieved January 27, 2005 from http://www.nytimes.com
Weiner, T. (2003, June 17). Parents divided over Jamaica disciplinary academy. The New York Times. Retrieved January 19, 2005 from http://nytimes.com
Weiner, T. (2003, May 24). Owner of private discipline academy in Costa Rica is arrested. The New York Times. Retrieved January 19, 2005 from http://www.nytimes.com
Weiner, T. (2003, May 9). Parents, shopping for discipline, turn to harsh programs abroad. The New York Times. Retrieved May 9, 2003 from http://www.nytimes.com

[katfish]

http://www.nospank.net/beware.htm
PARENTS BEWARE
Schools, camps, "youth training" or "behavior modification" programs with any of the following characteristics absolutely should be avoided. They are dangerous to your child's health.
Compiled by Jordan Riak , June 2001

Parents are required to sign a "contract" that transfers to the school extraordinary rights over the child. The primary purpose of this requirement is to create the illusion that the school's authority over the child is absolute. There is a secondary motive: it plays to some parents' fervent desire to be relieved of parental responsibility.

The school provides an "escort service" to transport the child to the facility -- by force if necessary.

Parents are not allowed to drop in at the school for an unannounced visit.

Children do not have free access to a telephone. Periodic telephone conversations between parent and child are rigidly scheduled and are monitored by school staff. Mail to and from the child is screened.

Personal music is forbidden. Reading matter that is not part of the school's program is forbidden.

The school is a prison-like locked facility with electronic motion sensors and "panic bars" on outside doors.

The school may employ people who have direct responsibility for children but have no formal training or qualifications. It is not unusual for certain students who have adapted well to remain as staff and eventually to join the network of 'professionals' who circulate to other, similar insitutions.

The school uses physical punishment including: spanking or paddling, punitive restriction of movement, mechanical restraints, isolation, forced labor, forced exercise, restriction of normal bodily functions such as eating, rest and waste elimination.

The school induces dangerous levels of stress and disorientation by such means as forced marches, forced calisthenics, forced hiking combined with sleep deprivation and dangerously restricted diets.

The school subjects students to insulting, invasive and humiliating harangues which it terms, among other things: "counseling," "guidance," "therapy," "behavior modification," "training," "the healing process."

The school encourages students to follow caretakers' cues in scapegoating selected targets, i.e., approved bullying. The behavior is rewarded.

The school actively discourages the development of lasting friendships between students. There are no formal class reunions or alumni associations apart from "survivors" groups.

Student activity, including relaxation and sleep, is monitored 24 hours per day.

The usual holiday visits home, e.g., Christmas and Thanksgiving, are not permitted.
See Teen Busting.
See "Letter to a supporter of boot camps and wilderness programs," by Jordan Riak, August 20, 2001



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Teen Busting" and "Parents Beware" are now combined and offered in booklet form and can be obtained by sending your mailing address to http://www.nospank.net

[katfish]

Teen Busting
By Armelle Vincent Arriola
June 2001


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Slavish discipline makes a slavish temper... If severity carry'd to the highest pitch does prevail, and works a cure upon the present unruly distemper, it often brings in the room of it a worse and more dangerous disease, by breaking the mind; and then, in the place of a disorderly young fellow, you have a low spirited moap'd creature, who, however with his unnatural sobriety he may please silly people, who commend tame unactive children, because they make no noise, nor give them any trouble; yet at last, will probably prove as uncomfortable a thing to his friends, as he will be all his life an useless thing to himself and others... Beating them, and all other sorts of slavish and corporal punishments, are not the discipline fit to be used in the education of those we would have wise, good, and ingenuous men...
John Locke, 1692
One night in 1997, Katherine McNamara, the rebellious, depressive and runaway 16-year-old daughter of a wealthy Silicon Valley couple, opened her eyes to two perfect strangers, who, in her semi-conscious state, appeared to her as if they had been shaped in granite. ?Get up,? she heard one of them say with a commanding tone while he was grabbing some of her clothes and shoving them into a bag. ?You are coming with us. And don?t try to resist or we will handcuff you.? The chances of Kathy rebelling were very slim because before going to bed, her mother had given her a red pill to swallow and Kathy was in a stupefied state. ?Where are you taking me?? she still found the strength to ask . ?To Mexico,? answered one of the strangers, a professional kidnapper hired a few days earlier by the McNamaras to ?escort? their daughter to Harmony Harbor, a boarding school of a very special sort.
According to Alexia Parks, a fiery advocate of adolescents? freedoms and author of An American Gulag, an American teenager is kidnapped every 5 minutes to be ?disappeared? by his parents to one of the 2000 ?specialty schools? scattered in the depths of the least populated states of this country and abroad. Sometimes handcuffed or drugged, these teenagers haven?t committed any crimes, sometimes barely a misdemeanor. But because they have smoked marijuana, drunk alcohol, failed classes or been truant or defiant, their parents panic, believing the children have begun a deadly downward spiral.

It is usually by word of mouth or in a counselor?s office that parents first hear of the camps. Two choices are then presented to them: for an amount varying between $1,500 and $5,000 per month, they can commit their children to a so-called behavior modification school; or if a short term solution suits them better, they can send them to a 63 days-wilderness camp for about $14,000. There, the young rebels will have to face Mother Nature, eat what she has to offer, hike 12 miles a day, and deserve their salvation by proving their ability to survive in an inhospitable environment, impossible to manipulate. Some teenagers insist they have profited from the experience. Many others, like Michelle Sutton and Aaron Bacon, don?t survive it.

According to testimony gathered from former students of specialty boarding schools in Oregon, Missouri, Italy and Mexico, psychological rapes, physical abuses, sleep and food deprivation are some of the techniques used by specialty schools to coerce pupils? complete submission. Yet, by reading their colorful brochures, or watching their promotional videos, one would not imagine what treatment awaits the troubled teenagers. The advertisements show youths dutifully absorbed in their books, typing on state-of-the-art computers, or happily practicing water sports, or backpacking. They show grateful parents smiling at their clean-cut teenagers whose lives have been saved by the schools? programs.

Psychologist Larry Brendtro, President of Reclaiming Youth International, a non-profit research, training, and advocacy group in the field of troubled children, says some parents are so desperate that when someone comes along offering to turn their child into a model citizen, they'll sign on the dotted line. They are easy targets for skilled promoters who know precisely how to play on parents' fears and hopes.

Some boarding schools are more religion oriented while others focus on group therapy. Their methods don?t differ much. Upon arrival, teenagers are assigned a ?buddy? from whom they can?t, under any circumstances, even the most intimate, move away more than arm?s length. Says Kathy McNamara: ?At Harmony Harbor, girls learned that they had to drop immediately to the ground with their hands blocking their side vision if any boys walked past them?. The ?impact? period is the most brutal. New students are deprived of basic freedoms like talking or making eye contact. Communications with the outside world are severed. Teens have to wait months before being allowed to call their parents. When they finally earn that privilege, its taste is bitter: conversations cannot exceed 15 minutes a month and they are monitored. Incoming and outgoing letters are censored. Negative comments are erased, complaints are punished. Parents are kept in the dark. They have been convinced that their intervening would compromise the chances of success for their teens. When, after three or four months, they are finally allowed a first visit, their children have often already sold their soul to the school's program --some out of fear, others as the price to be paid for release. Based on a "level system," the programs typically reward the vilest instincts while punishing the most admirable. Students are expected to denounce those of their peers who remain defiant. A denunciation earns two points which leads to a superior level, bringing with it certain privileges of which the most coveted is the ?junior staff? status: warden, in other words. But even wardens can be demoted at any given time.

Only sixty miles separate Harmony Harbor from the California border. The distance is nevertheless long enough to destabilize students who become ?easier to control when they are uprooted from their environment,? acknowledges G. D., Harmony Harbor?s director. Nestled between a toll road and a carved cliff, Harmony Harbor?s buildings remain invisible behind high walls. There is no sign indicating the nature of the fortress-like institution where 400 teenagers of all nationalities are locked up, most of them against their will. If it wasn?t for the surf crashing on the cliff, or the cars racing by, oblivious of what is taking place behind these imposing gray walls, not a sound would be heard. No music, no voices. Harmony Harbor is shrouded in silence. Intruders are kept at bay by a Mexican guard who started to mentally register my plate number as I inquired, as innocently as I could, about the school. Harmony Harbor refuses visitors because ?they would disrupt activities,? G.D. will explain later.

A meeting is thus arranged in a downtown restaurant. About 38 years old, elegant and charming, the director doesn?t look like a soul torturer. But he presides over others who are, according to Kathy McNamara. He arrives with six junior staff of both sexes and, obviously confident that they will only say wonderful things about the school, he fades into the background to let them do the talking. He is supremely confident of his spokespeople. Generous smiles seem to hang on all the junior staff's beatific faces. Soon, the same words come out of all mouths. It?s a whirlwind of: ?the Program saved my life?, ?before the Program, I was lost,? ?I have finally internalized the Program,? ?I found Jesus.? One is struck by their flawless consistency. That is, until Nick, 17, commits a blunder: ?When my parents had me kidnapped?uh, escorted...? And he glances towards the director who stares back at him without so much as the blink of an eye.

?We were coerced into using the program terminology,? remembers Kathy, who after 4 months, managed to convince her parents to free her. ?Some teens used words without even knowing what they meant. But it was the rule. The consequences for breaking the rules were called 'Worksheets.' You had to sit in a cubicle on a chair, with your behind scooted to the very edge and you could not lean on the back of the chair; instead, your back had to be arched forward in an attentive position and you had to stare at the wall and listen to hour-long tapes. The very least amount of time you had to spend in one worksheet session was five hours. Some girls were in there for weeks and received more consequences because they could not leave to do any tests for school; so they would fall behind in academics, thus receiving more time in worksheet. The only worse thing was R+R -- rest & relaxation!. Basically, it was isolation: you would have to lie on your stomach on the ground in a hogtied position, but without the rope, with your chin up. Girls would be there for days and weeks. It was pure torture and loneliness. They would be watched by junior staff person assigned to the task and have to sleep in the hall with bright lights on.?

Once a month, students attend 3-day seminars. It is during these group therapies that they are first weakened, then psychologically broken by being subjected to loud public confession sessions during which they must reveal their innermost secrets.

?Kids would have to stand on top of a chair in front of 80 people and be interrogated by a facilitator who would perform a psychological rape,? remembers Kathy. ?He would coerce the students into revealing their darkest, deepest secrets and fears to the crowd. The audience would then give feedback. ?I think everything you are saying is a lie and you are just faking it,? would be a typical response to someone who had just confessed a terribly traumatic event, like a rape. The facilitator would then probe deeper until the teen on the chair would collapse in hysterical crying fits.?

Exhausted by 18-hour sessions after which they?d be required to write 10-page reports while being denied food, the students are soon in a state of mind which is difficult to describe. ?To say that they are ?emotionally vulnerable? is an understatement,? explains Kathy.

Kathy?s account of life at Harmony Harbor deeply disturbs doctor Brendtro: ?The methods which she describes are substantially the same used to brainwash prisoners of war: Isolate individuals from anything familiar, strip them of their personal identity, push them psychologically and physically to the point of exhaustion, make them submit to all-powerful adult authorities, and use pure ridicule and punishment to enforce authority." The 'therapy' described is a version of the 1960's marathon confrontation groups, which are designed to batter down defenses so that persons scream their problems out. Adults seem to have lost sight of their role of nurturing, teaching, and protecting children in the belief that this harsh treatment has therapeutic value. Such programs are highly destructive with certain individuals. Their proprietors have theories that these are undisciplined children (sometimes true, sometimes not) who will only respond to harsh, coercive, intimidating, and invasive ?therapy?. In fact, such treatments, if applied by the parents themselves, would more than likely land them in jail for child abuse. All legitimate research validates programs that take the opposite track: children are treated with respect. But boarding schools are private and therefore not accountable to regulatory agencies. And by signing the enrollment contracts, parents transfer the legal custody of their children to the schools.

Except for a few resilient activists who tirelessly voice their rejection of what Alexia Parks calls the ?private incarceration of children,? the public is mostly unaware of this growing trend and of the countless victims whose spirits have been crushed.

California Family Code Section 7900; Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children recognizes minors' right to not be transferred against their will to another state. But nobody seems to apply it. And authorities balk at interfering in family affairs and contesting parental prerogatives, especially when there is the prospect that defiant teens can be converted into tame sheep.

With some regularity, however, a tragedy forces the public to open its eyes, at least briefly. In April 1996, a student was found dead behind a building at Bear Mountain Academy, a Baptist fundamentalist boarding school in Missouri. He had been beaten to death by two fellow students who wanted to attract media and official attention to their living conditions. A few months before, a girl had thrown herself into the icy pool begging to be left there to die; another had slashed her wrist with a pencil sharpener?s blades. Prison or death seemed preferable to fanatics' sermons and tortures.

At Bear Mountain Academy, discipline was particularly ferocious and absurd when Teana Zeller, a Las Vegas native, was one of its students. Parting one?s hair in the middle was discouraged. Curly hair, dubbed ?too hippie? had to be straightened every morning. Pants were not allowed. Large wooden paddles were used to ?spank? defiant students. In the dormitories, microphones recorded all conversations, laser beams detected all forbidden movements. ?Girls would sometimes urinate in their beds because they were not allowed to use the rest rooms at night,? remembers Teana. Illnesses were rarely attended to because in the ultra religious mindset of Bear Mountain Academy?s owners, pain purified the soul.

?When you will love the school,
then it will be time to leave.?  

By telling her story, Teana fears for her life. Tears run down her cheeks as she remembers how her parents drove her to Missouri one day after she had run away to a friend?s house to escape their constant arguments. She was to spend the next three years at the boarding school, her heart filling with paranoia, her eyes with fear, her gestures becoming jerky and unpredictable like those of a hunted animal.

Sitting in a Las Vegas restaurant, Teana seems to be constantly watching over her shoulder as she tells her story. At 23, and against all odds, she is beginning to cope. Her biggest fear is to be locked up again. Five years after her release, she still refuses to enter a car if she is not driving it. She doesn?t trust anybody: ?When your own mother commits you to a place like Bear Mountain Academy for her own convenience, and not only refuses to believe you when you tell her what?s happening in there but denounces you to your tormentors for doing it, who can you trust??

Teana works in marketing now. Of all her fellow students at Bear Mountain, she, as far as she knows, is the only one capable of holding a job. Most have plunged into alcohol, drug abuse, or severe depression. Some, now unable to cope with life outside the school?s boundaries, have decided to stay there as staff members. ?When you will love the school, then it will be time to leave,? they were told repeatedly. ?But when the time to leave comes," explains Teana, "you have become so frightened by the outside world, you have been so used to being controlled, you are incapable of making the most simple decision. If you would have talked to me a year ago, I would have told you that Bear Mountain was a great school. I was completely brainwashed.?

[Anonymous]

http://www.nspcc.org.uk/inform/Info_Bri ... p#staffing

Safeguarding children in residential care

Foremost is the need to create a protective, trusting and open environment, based on a commitment to listen to children and young people and take their complaints and views seriously (Kahan 1994, Barter 1997). A range of strategies have been suggested, that taken together, can contribute to establishing such an ethos or culture:


? Children?s rights and participation: involving and consulting with children on decisions alongside strategies for increasing workers participation in the decision making process
? Contact: regular contact between children and families (where appropriate), independent visitors, advocacy services and the local community

? Better recruitment procedures: including vetting of staff and participation of young people in the selection procedure


? Training: a nationally accredited qualification that is specific to the demands of residential child care work

? Supervision: regular, open, supportive supervision by properly trained supervisors, which is systematically recorded and reviewed

? Monitoring: regular monitoring and assessments of staff and managers working practices, spot checks by social services and statutory bodies (although see Cawson [1997] on why inspections have failed to safeguard children in the past)

? Safeguards: protection for whistleblowers

? Staffing patterns: ensure senior staff are present at the most vulnerable shift times ? early mornings and late at night ? adequate staff/child ratios

? Leadership Style: head of home?s leadership style should be based on consultation and respect, where a clear vision of the establishments? aims is shared by managers and staff

? Complaints: Complaints procedures should be independent, child friendly and well publicised

? Organisational Factors: including

? the establishment of interdisciplinary working practices
? the development of open, effective and participatory line management, including regular contact with young people
? external professional input
? placement policies should ensure that all children?s needs can be fully met and that a ?good? residential mix can be achieved.

? Cultural: the irradiation of ?macho? and hierarchical peer cultures based on inequality.

[katfish]

I have to say that I sure wish those safegaurds were in place before my parents sent me to MMS...I sure wish they were now.  Would be a much nicer program!

Doesn't it seem that these strategies would have much better results than the ones being implemented now??

Also, let it be known that MMS lobbied heavily against regulation of their school---so, I suppose change/improvement through outside checks and the types of safegaurds mentioned above is maybe not their priority.  [ This Message was edited by: katfish on 2005-08-09 21:41 ]

[katfish]

http://www.bazelon.org/issues/children/ ... s/rtcs.htm
Fact Sheet: Children in Residential Treatment Centers
I. Tens of thousands of children with mental health needs are being placed in expensive, inappropriate and often dangerous institutions.
The number of children placed in residential treatment centers (or RTCs)[1] is growing exponentially.[2] These modern-day orphanages now house more than 50,000 children nationwide.[3]  Children are packed off to RTCs, often sent by officials they have never met, who have probably never spoken to their parents, teachers or social workers.[4] Once placed, these kids may have no meaningful contact with their families or friends for up to two years.[5] And, despite many documented cases of neglect and physical and sexual abuse, monitoring is inadequate to ensure that children are safe, healthy and receiving proper services in RTCs.[6] By funneling children with mental illnesses into the RTC system, states fail?at enormous cost?to provide more effective community-based mental health services.[7]

A. RTC placements are often inappropriate.
RTCs are among the most restrictive mental health services and, as such, should be reserved for children with the most extreme mental health needs.[8] Too often, however, child-serving bureaucracies hastily place children in RTCs because they have not made more appropriate community-based services available.[9] Parents who are desperate to meet their kids? needs often turn to RTCs because they lack viable alternatives.[10]


To make placement decisions, families in crisis and overburdened social workers rely on the institutions? glossy flyers and professional websites with testimonials of saved children.[11] But all RTCs are not alike.[12] Local, state and national exposés and litigation ?regarding the quality of care in residential treatment centers have shown that some programs promise high-quality treatment but deliver low-quality custodial care.?[13] As a result, parents and state officials play a dangerous game of Russian roulette as they decide where to place children, because little public information is available about the RTCs, which are under-regulated and under-supervised.  


To make it worse, far too many children are placed at great distance from their homes. For example, most District of Columbia children in RTCs are placed outside the District?many as far away as Utah and Minnesota.[14] Many families, especially those with limited means, find it impossible to have any meaningful visitation with their children.  


B. Evidence is limited on the effectiveness of RTCs.
Children frequently arrive at RTCs traumatized by the process that delivered them there. They are often forcibly removed from their homes in the middle of the night by ?escort companies.?[15]  Other times, children are placed in RTCs not by their parents or doctors, but by overburdened child-serving state agencies, who know little about the children?s individual needs.[16]


Even more appalling, many children?s conditions do not improve at all while at the RTC.[17] In fact, there is little evidence that placing children in RTCs has any positive impact at all on their mental health state[18] and any gains made during a stay in an RTC quickly disappear upon discharge, creating a cycle where children return again and again to RTCs.[19]  


There are many reasons why RTCs fail to deliver the results they promise, but most center on the type of services provided, the environment they are provided in and the lack of family involvement.


First, the reality of what occurs within an RTC is often quite different from the highly individualized, highly structured programs that are advertised. The RTCs often provide less intense services and the staff are often under-trained.[20] Children spend much of their day with staff who  are not much more qualified than the average parent and they spend less time face-to-face with psychiatrists than they would if they were being served in appropriate community settings.[21]


The environment is also problematic because children in RTCs enter a situation where their only peers are other troubled children?a major risk factor for later behavioral problems.[22] Research has demonstrated that some children learn antisocial or bizarre behavior from intensive exposure to other disturbed children.[23]


Children are usually far from home in RTCs, often out-of-state.[24] Removed from their families and natural support systems, they are unable to draw upon the strengths of their communities and their communities are unable to contribute to their treatment. Few children thrive when they are hundreds or thousands of miles from their parents, friends, grandparents and teachers. Few can flourish without the guidance of consistent parenting. Yet, we expect that our most vulnerable and troubled youth will miraculously turn around in just such a situation. Instead, this isolation further reduces the efficacy of treatment and increases its cost.[25]  


The fact that children and their families are far from one another creates a host of problems. For one, it makes family therapy difficult or impossible. As a result, when children leave the RTC, they return to an environment that has not changed. Also, because the RTC environment is inherently artificial?children are not asked to negotiate the obstacles that occur within their family setting or deal with the difficulties that trigger their behaviors in their neighborhoods or schools?the child does not gain new skills to better negotiate life outside of an institution. As a result, neither the children nor their parents learn better ways to overcome the obstacles that led to the RTC placement. Without family involvement, successes are limited.[26]


Among the rare children who are able to overcome these obstacles, few can sustain the gains they have made. In one study, nearly 50% of children were readmitted to an RTC, and 75% were either renstitutionalized or arrested.[27]  
C. Children suffer because there is no watchdog.
The RTC industry is largely unregulated.[28] RTCs need only report major unusual incidents (or MUIs), but the interpretation of what constitutes an MUI and the reporting requirements vary widely.[29] Some RTCs fail to report MUIs at all?with little consequence.[30] Vulnerable kids are placed far from home where parents, social workers, or the state can offer little oversight or protection.  Worse, many of the facilities limit children?s ability to have contact with their parents for extended periods, further restricting the parents? ability to monitor the facilities.[31]  

D. Children are abused in RTCs.
Children placed in RTCs have been sexually and physically abused, restrained for hours, over-medicated and subject to militaristic punishments; some have died.[32] The following are just a few documented examples of tragic occurrences at RTCs:

Medication is often used (and overused) to control behavior.[33] Children have been permanently disfigured because of over-medication.[34]

In some programs, the children?s shoes are confiscated to keep them from running away.[35]

There have been reports of behavioral ?therapies? being misused. As one author noted, ?Such therapies do little more than systematically punish children, all under the guise of treatment . . . .?[36]

E. Tragic outcomes at great public expense.
RTCs have grown to a billion-dollar, largely private industry.[43] Residential treatment care is exorbitantly expensive?costing up to $700 per child per day.[44] Annual costs can exceed $120,000.[45] Most of the time, the public foots the bill for these services.[46] In fact, nearly one fourth of the national outlay on child mental health is spent on care in these settings.[47]  

II. Other Interventions Work Better for Less
Home- and community-based services are much more therapeutically effective than institutional services, and are also markedly more cost-efficient. As the Surgeon General reported, ?the most convincing evidence of effectiveness is for home-based services and therapeutic foster care? and not for RTCs.[48] A comprehensive system of care would dramatically reduce the number of children in RTCs.[49]  

Community-based alternatives produce better short- and long-term results and are less disruptive to children and families. These alternatives provide intensive mental health treatment, mobilize community resources and help children and their families develop effective coping mechanisms. Some models endeavor to ?wrap services around? the child, while others emphasize multi-systemic therapy and crisis intervention. Randomized clinical trials found greater declines in delinquency and behavioral problems, greater increases in functioning, greater stability in housing placements and greater likelihood of permanent placement.[50] In Milwaukee, a wraparound project that has served over 700 youth involved in juvenile justice has shown similar promise; use of residential treatment has declined 60%, use of psychiatric hospitalization has declined 80%, and average overall care costs for target youth have dropped by one third.[51]

[katfish]

The Child Welfare League of America (CWLA) shares your concerns about about the growing number of unlicensed residential programs and camps for troubled children and youth, often referred to as therapeutic boarding schools or
boot camps.   CWLA strongly supports mandatory licensing and monitoring of
all residential programs that provide services to children, youth, and their families.  We have written a letter to Members of Congress urging them to take appropriate action to ensure the safety and well-being of our nation's children and we will closely follow and support legislative efforts to that end.

Joseph T. Healy
Child Welfare League of America

[Troll Control]

Hey Kat,

You've done a great job posting valid and authoritative research regarding the RTC modality.  I think one would be hard-pressed to argue rationally against what you have provided.

That being said, I can see that no "Struggling Parents" have posted any replies on this thread.  It simply amazes me the length that these folks will go to avoid a paradigm shift from their rigid, almost regimental dogma.

I can picture someone like Full-of-Shit Dad (poster from another thread) plugging his ears, closing his eyes and repeating "Wilderness treatment works!  Wilderness treatment works!  Wilderness treatment works!  Wilderness treatment works!  Wilderness treatment works!..."

[katfish]

lol- hey DJ, where ya been boy?  Where in NY are you, anyway?  I've got some news for you!  You will be very excited- lets talk soon.  Things are hectic- interested in chatting via el telefono?

[Troll Control]

I've been around.  I haven't been posting much lately.  I don't really get into the daily chats too much.  

My forte is arguing with trolls and programmies.

Ususally, when I'm done with them, they don't come back.  Not sure why...?   :roll:

Good news?  Excitement?  Does this have anything to do with nude photos?

Drop me a pm.

_________________
"Compassion is the basis of morality"

-Arnold Schopenhauer[ This Message was edited by: Dysfunction Junction on 2005-08-11 11:03 ]

[katfish]

APA Ethical Principles
http://www.apa.org/ethics/code1992.html#Principle%20D


GENERAL PRINCIPLES

PRINCIPLE A: COMPETENCE

Psychologists strive to maintain high standards of competence in their work. They recognize the boundaries of their particular competencies and the limitations of their expertise. They provide only those services and use only those techniques for which they are qualified by education, training, or experience. Psychologists are cognizant of the fact that the competencies required in serving, teaching, and/or studying groups of people vary with the distinctive characteristics of those groups. In those areas in which recognized professional standards do not yet exist, psychologists exercise careful judgment and take appropriate precautions to protect the welfare of those with whom they work. They maintain knowledge of relevant scientific and professional information related to the services they render, and they recognize the need for ongoing education. Psychologists make appropriate use of scientific, professional, technical, and administrative resources.

PRINCIPLE B: INTEGRITY

Psychologists seek to promote integrity in the science, teaching, and practice of psychology. In these activities psychologists are honest, fair, and respectful of others. In describing or reporting their qualifications, services, products, fees, research, or teaching, they do not make statements that are false, misleading, or deceptive. Psychologists strive to be aware of their own belief systems, values, needs, and limitations and the effect of these on their work. To the extent feasible, they attempt to clarify for relevant parties the roles they are performing and to function appropriately in accordance with those roles. Psychologists avoid improper and potentially harmful dual relationships.

PRINCIPLE C: PROFESSIONAL AND SCIENTIFIC RESPONSIBILITY

Psychologists uphold professional standards of conduct, clarify their professional roles and obligations, accept appropriate responsibility for their behavior, and adapt their methods to the needs of different populations. Psychologists consult with, refer to, or cooperate with other professionals and institutions to the extent needed to serve the best interests of their patients, clients, or other recipients of their services. Psychologists' moral standards and conduct are personal matters to the same degree as is true for any other person, except as psychologists' conduct may compromise their professional responsibilities or reduce the public's trust in psychology and psychologists. Psychologists are concerned about the ethical compliance of their colleagues' scientific and professional conduct. When appropriate, they consult with colleagues in order to prevent or avoid unethical conduct.

PRINCIPLE D: RESPECT FOR PEOPLE'S RIGHTS AND DIGNITY

Psychologists accord appropriate respect to the fundamental rights, dignity, and worth of all people. They respect the rights of individuals to privacy, confidentiality, self-determination, and autonomy, mindful that legal and other obligations may lead to inconsistency and conflict with the exercise of these rights. Psychologists are aware of cultural, individual, and role differences, including those due to age, gender, race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, language, and socioeconomic status. Psychologists try to eliminate the effect on their work of biases based on those factors, and they do not knowingly participate in or condone unfair discriminatory practices.

PRINCIPLE E: CONCERN FOR OTHERS' WELFARE

Psychologists seek to contribute to the welfare of those with whom they interact professionally. In their professional actions, psychologists weigh the welfare and rights of their patients or clients, students, supervisees, human research participants, and other affected persons, and the welfare of animal subjects of research. When conflicts occur among psychologists' obligations or concerns, they attempt to resolve these conflicts and to perform their roles in a responsible fashion that avoids or minimizes harm. Psychologists are sensitive to real and ascribed differences in power between themselves and others, and they do not exploit or mislead other people during or after professional relationships.

PRINCIPLE F: SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Psychologists are aware of their professional and scientific responsibilities to the community and the society in which they work and live. They apply and make public their knowledge of psychology in order to contribute to human welfare. Psychologists are concerned about and work to mitigate the causes of human suffering. When undertaking research, they strive to advance human welfare and the science of psychology. Psychologists try to avoid misuse of their work. Psychologists comply with the law and encourage the development of law and social policy that serve the interests of their patients and clients and the public. They are encouraged to contribute a portion of their professional time for little or no personal advantage.

[Anonymous]

Maybe you should forward a copy of this to John Mercer, although I'm sure he already knows how unethical and unqualified he is. Nothing will change until the $$$ stops rolling in.

[katfish]

bumpty bump

[katfish]

JUST WANTED TO COMPRARE THE APA PRINCIPLES OF EHTICS WITHT THE WATERED DOWN VERSION PROVDIDED BY NATSAP- OF WHICH mms IS PART OF...EVEN THEN, NO ACCOUTABILITY.

Be conscious of, and responsive to, the dignity, welfare, and worth of our program participants.
Honestly and accurately represent ownership, competence, experience, and scope of activities, and to not exploit potential clients? fears and vulnerabilities.
Respect the privacy, confidentiality, and autonomy of program participants within the context of our facilities and programs.
Be aware and respectful of cultural, familial, and societal backgrounds of our program participants.
Avoid dual or multiple relationships that may impair professional judgment, increase the risk of harm to program participants, or lead to exploitation.
Take reasonable steps to ensure a safe environment that addresses the emotional, spiritual, educational, and physical needs of our program participants.
Strive to maintain high standards of competence in our areas of expertise and to be mindful of our limitations.
Value continuous professional development, research, and scholarship.
Place primary emphasis on the welfare of our program participants in the development and implementation of our business practices.
Manage our finances to ensure that there are adequate resources to accomplish our mission.
Fully disclose to prospective candidates the nature of services, benefits, risks, and costs.
Provide an appropriate professional referral if we are unable to continue service.

[Anonymous]

Who refers all these girls to MMS anyway? Word-of-mouth, or do Ed Cons actually refer kids to this place?