Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > Daytop Village

who's in charge here?

(1/2) > >>

Anonymous:
can someone please tell me when dv started using professional staff members in addition to those 'groomed' in the concept?

i attended Mt Vernon Outreach between 1978-80. there were no non-concept staff at that time--except for the seccretary and the teacher. my peer was the first group of teen soft-core users that dv encountered, so we were treated by former "dope-fiends" in the old-school techniques regardless of our history. it was rough.

i have not kept in touch with the program or any TC info since i graduated and i am somewhat shocked by the rapid update i received by reading these posts this evening.

please inform, as i have definite opinions i'd like to share here.

odie:
Professional staff have been affiliated with DVI since its inception in 1963. Although clinical staff has mostly come from its own ranks, there has been a rise in the mixture of professional staff since the mid eighties.
Ardent advocates of prohibition were obsessed by a zeal that bordered on fanaticism. They supported politicians who voted to outlaw liquor, no matter how much of it they privately consumed, and spurned politicians who voted against prohibition, no matter how sober they were personally.
Sen. Sam Ervin, Preserving The Constitution
--- End quote ---

Anonymous:
thanks odie.

i always felt the use of para-professionals had its benefits and drawbacks...

the benefits were obvious at the onset of the program: most residents had been sent to some sort of psychiatrist or psychologist before DV, without significant results. it was generally thought that we could "get over" on these bookish sorts because they had no background in being drug abusers. being in DV with former addicts as staff and your peer meant that we all had a reference point, the so-called "common ground" of the DV philosophy. we would be caught out in our "manipulations" by those with similar dope-fiend mentalities.

i recall being somewhat impressed with this idea at the beginning. we were compelled to "relate" to our peer and "identify" our problems with those of others--that we were not alone. i remember finding some solace in this process because i had been a rather alienated youth.

the drawbacks to the method, imo, came later in ones stay in the program when this template (cookie cutter?) didn't always apply as well. i feel this process occurred mainly because the staff were merely individuals who could follow their own history and the concept dogma. since there was no specialized therapy or nuanced understanding of each resident, this lead to problems as one progressed in the program.

1. staff had their favorites. they usually focused in on a resident that reminded them of their own struggle OR paid attention to one or more kids out of a blatant attraction to them. i was witness to certain people just coasting thru the program because of this nepotism. it was preferential and unfair.

2. staff was limited in their knowledge of mental health issues beyond being "theiving, lying junkies who felt bad about themselves". while a "low self image" based on prior conduct was common to all, specific issues could not be handled properly by the staff. three examples: true disorders (ADD, bipolar, etc.); true criminality; and homosexuality. i was witness to these short-comings repeatedly while in the program...

the staff were in over their heads with the residents who displayed an otherwise diagnosable mental illness. instead of referring them to a proper facility, they kept them on or shuffled them upstate. this was so wrong, never mind unethical.

the staff was ill-prepared to deal with the more serious sociopathic residents. people that "copped" to felonious activities or fantasies were not treated for these specific symptoms nor reported to the authorities. this was criminal in and of itself!

staff was uninterested in grasping the up-to-date psychiatric assessment of homosexuality (removed from the APA books as a mental disorder in '74). staff dealt with the gay residents based on their own values. they practiced their own distorted reparative therapy. this was biased and harmful.


the up-shot? well, i really feel that it would have been a good idea to have some sort of professional involved in our "therapy"--someone to counteract the incompetence and bias. i did graduate, but it took longer because i was not a "favorite" and i was gay. i've always felt that i completed the program in spite of the concept and its staff (if that makes any sense).

Troll Control:
I think your post is very insightful and well said.

I was one of the professional staff at DVI-ADU and I can certainly identify with your views of how the clients were treated.  I have always believed that those kids made it in spite of DVI, not because of it.

_________________
"Compassion is the basis of morality."

-Arnold Schopenhauer[ This Message was edited by: Dysfunction Junction on 2006-05-31 09:51 ]

Anonymous:
thanks for responding DJ--I like your id.

i've read thru the boards and your posts are good. i can imagine how it was difficult for you upstate being in ADU. i don't think they even had that process for adolescents "back in the day". teens were usually sent to Millbrook, if i remember correctly.

i remember having a major GM after splitting with two residents and getting high. i got a really severe LE: stocking cap, sign (Don't Touch. Poison. with a skull and cross bone image) and a ban with the family. The other 2 kids were favorites and just got put on a ban! The House was closed too.

They wanted to send me upstate. i asked if i could bring my stereo and posters for my room--they had a good laugh about that! so i begged to be given another chance because i knew it would be all downhill from there. i would never have made it out of there to Re-Entry, i just knew it.

my point is this: we were definitely drug abusers of a sort, but when it was all said and done we were really just brats.

i'm not sure what the best therapy is for alienated youth that consistently use drugs. i know that the Closed-Door Policy and the threat of going upstate and being dislodged from mainstream society--never mind the threat of more Haircuts and LEs--was enough to make me shape up eventually.

well, i HAD too. No?

but is that the best reason? i'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page