INDUSTRY SELF-REGULATION

[Deborah]

I finally got back to what's happening in Montana. This has to be the most pressing issue in the industry. I hope this inspires some deep discussion and brainstorming. This is a horrible precedent to be set.
If there is anyone who opposed this reading, what, if anything, can we do to help stop this insanity?

Thread on SCL/Self-Regulation
http://wwf.fornits.com/viewtopic.php?p= ... ker#144053

Interview with Clark- how PAARP came to be- proactive to avoid DPHHS?s SB101 which would ask for regulation of programs
Clark- House of Reps, District 13, ?Galena Ridge Wilderness? and 20 Peaks
Collaborating with Sen Jim Elliot, Clark presented HB628 which would allow programs to self-regulate.
http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/p ... 5304.shtml

PAARP Board Members
Paul Clark (Trout Creek) small- Galena Ridge Wilderness and 20 Peaks
Michele Manning- large- Spring Creek Lodge
Mary Alexine- medium- Chrysalis, Inc
Carol Brooker- Sanders Co Commissioner
Dr Maureen Neichart- Licensed Clinical Child Psychologist- operated a Therapeutic Foster Home

SCL, a program that is alleged to be one the most abusive in the industry, has a member on the board? Would this have anything to do with the fact that they are the largest employer in the area and shelled out $30 something grand lobbying for this Bill?

Let?s have a look at Paul Clark.
Paul Clark, the therapist for both Galena Ridge Wilderness program and 20 Twenty Peaks Ranch
http://www.strugglingteens.com/archives ... sit01.html
?with Paul Clark providing individual and group counseling for the boys while they are at 20 Peaks.
http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/p ... 5176.shtml
State Rep Clark has a bachelor?s degree from Rutgers University.  
http://www.whitefishfreepress.com/pdf/W ... -08-24.pdf
Not listed as a Psychologist
Not listed as a Professional Counselor
Not listed as an Addictions Counselor
Not listed as a Social Worker
http://app.mt.gov/lookup/

Unless his license is under a different name, it appears Clark is not licensed to provide ?counseling?. So, someone who has violated the law for over a decade claims that programs can regulate themselves better than the state. Would he be allowed to advertise himself as a counselor and provide individual and group counseling without a license under DPHHS?

Look at another glowing example: HLA, a NATSAP program that has been self-regulating in violation of the law for 11 years. Avoided licensure by claiming to be a private boarding school, yet advertising as a TBS. Claims to have certified teachers and master?s level counselors, neither true, and complaints in a Federal Class Action filed last week, amongst others.
http://wwf.fornits.com/viewtopic.php?t=17779

These are just two of many examples of why no program in this industry should be allowed to self-regulate. We could go right down the list of NATSAP programs and find the same kind of situations with many, if not all, programs.

PAARP Website
http://mt.gov/dli/bsd/license/bsd_board ... d_page.asp

General Provisions- Purpose
http://www.strugglingteens.com/news/mon ... r%2048.pdf

NEW RULE III FEE SCHEDULE (1) The registration fee covers a two year period.
(2) Registration fees are calculated according to the program's average daily census:
(a) 0-10 participants $ 750
(b) 11-50 participants 1,750
(c) 51-100 participants 2,000
(d) 101 and more participants 3,000
(3) All existing programs must be registered within 30 days of the adoption of these rules.
(4) All fees provided for in this rule are nonrefundable and are not prorated for portions of the registration period.
http://www.strugglingteens.com/news/mon ... notice.pdf

For all intents and purposes, Montana programs will pay a fee to this board to operate regulation free. This board will very likely be no different that NATSAP, a membership club for program owners, providing the illusion that their members are operating ethically.

The Board found:
*No systemic problems- lack of transparency or excessive disciplinary measures.
*Most programs participate in one or more professional organizations and accrediting bodies.
*Found programs to be generally cooperative and open to ?collaborative governance?.

Does that surprise anyone?

Notice at NATSAP
HB 628 proposes a new prototype of regulation and launches Montana into a process not seen by any other state in the nation. The fundamental shift in this law versus other regulatory bodies nationwide is the establishment of a state board (Board of Private Alternative Adolescent Residential or Outdoor Programs) which will implement a registration process for programs and will further study current regulations, industry standards, and the quality of alternative adolescent residential and outdoor care in the state. The state board will then report to the legislature in 2007 regarding potential licensure requirements.
http://www.natsap.org/newsandmedia_news ... seBill.asp

From  NATSAP:
This board will fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor and Industry ? another break from the customary oversight seen in other states. Outside parties, including the state Department of Public Health and Human Services, stood in opposition to the bill favored by programs and stated a position that those who work in programs might not be able to provide the objectivity needed to insure quality of care. Montana is, in many ways, a perfect place for such ground-breaking legislation. It is a Montana tradition to support licensing and regulations which are monitored by those engaged in the field.
http://www.natsap.org/Newsletters/NATSA ... montana%22

Clark must have some powerful connections to pull this off. And what of the programs that aren?t voluntarily registering? Who will monitor them and might they be concerned about being scrutinized by their competitors who were appointed to the board?

This alternative bill would allow for self-regulation through a newly-formed board operating under the auspices of the Department of Labor and Industry. The providers proposed forming a board that would draft regulations and rules of self-regulation similar to those of physicians, nurses, social workers and professional counselors. [BIG DIFFERENCE- these professionals are licensed and can loose their license for unprofessional conduct.]
During both hearings, the provider groups cited a significant distrust of a large unwieldy organization that would squash their individuality [Experimentaion] and enforce a medical model upon them. They cited NATSAP as a model with guidelines and principles that would guide the provider group's efforts to provide oversight of its members.   :rofl:
http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/p ... 5137.shtml

Clark defends that they shouldn?t be regulated by DPHHS?s ?medical model?. What does the Dept of Labor have to do with childcare? Nada. Many kids in programs are on some kind of psych drug, receive regular counseling (if it can be called that), ?treated? for disorders and substance abuse, and are warehoused 24/7/365, which would definitely put them in the ?medical model? category.

Keeping An Eye on the Kids
In the ongoing battle over who should provide governmental oversight of Montana?s teen behavior modification programs, the latest answer seems to be: the people who already run them.
?I?m still of the belief that oversight has to be done through the Department of Public Heath and Human Services,? says Great Falls Sen. Trudi Schmidt, who offered her own version of an oversight bill in the state Senate that was rejected. ?This is the first time that the Department of Labor is regulating a youth services program.?
Shelby Earnshaw, director of the International Survivors Action Committee, a teen program watchdog group based in Virginia, says having program representatives in the majority on the board could endanger the children in the care of the facilities, many of which are in remote locations in the western part of the state.
?I don?t think that running an unlicensed, unregulated program makes anyone an expert on how to do it. They?ve been running programs in Montana for years precisely because there is no regulation,? says Earnshaw. ?This looks to be a really half-hearted attempt by the state of Montana to look like they are doing something to regulate. If the folks that are running the schools are the ones making the rules, Montana won?t have any regulation with teeth.?
http://www.isaccorp.org/springcreek/spr ... 08.05.html

The Montana Business Example: Business Over Protection of Youth
http://cafety.org/index2.php?option=com ... montana%22

Spring Creek?s Short Leash
http://www.missoulanews.com/News/News.asp?no=4970

Panel to Begin Work on Regulating Youth Homes (Homes?)
The board was established by the 2005 Legislature as an alternative to a state Department of Health and Human Services measure that would have regulated the programs as health-care providers, as are similar facilities for youths confined by court order.
The push for regulation came about because of much-publicized concerns about the mistreatment or neglect of youths whose parents have enrolled them in behavior-modification programs in Montana, Utah, Arizona, the Caribbean, Mexico and even Central Europe.
Many of the programs operate without government registration or regulation, and abuses have occurred. In well-publicized cases from some ?wilderness experience? programs, youths attending by parental order have even died.
Government and private therapeutic treatment programs for youths committed because of delinquency or crimes are intensively regulated in Montana. Many states also regulate the nonjudicial alternative programs, where the youths in custody are turned over by their parents. But in Montana, these private-pay, private-enroll programs are called ?substitute-care providers? and are specifically exempted from state regulation.
In 2003, Montana's Department of Health and Human Services published a report, ?Unregulated Youth Residential Care Programs in Montana,? to provide background information on the need for regulations.
In 2005, the sought-for legislation - which would have registered and ultimately regulated the programs - was proposed by DPHHS and would have been administered by the department, said Mary Dalton, director of the DPHHS Quality Assurance Division.
The agency already regulates 380 residential facilities and 629 child day-care providers.
But the industry quickly mustered its forces - one program spent $34,000 on lobbying - and proposed its own bill.
?When it became evident that the state would be moving in this direction (toward regulation), the programs wanted to be willing participants and ahead of the curve rather than being dragged along on a leash,? said Rep. Paul Clark, D-Trout Creek, who sponsored the industry's bill and himself works for two smaller wilderness-based adolescent programs in western Sanders County.
The industry bill differed in a number of crucial ways from the DPHHS proposal.
First, it put the entire registration and regulatory proposal under the auspices of the state Department of Labor and Industry, through a board mainly composed of industry representatives, instead of the health-care professionals in DPHHS.
Second, it exempted any faith-based or religious private behavioral therapy programs; at least seven of the 30 programs in Montana are faith-based.
Third, it would be self-supporting through fees and not cost taxpayers any money, as the DPHHS regulation presumably would have.
The Legislature weighed its options and quickly favored Clark's bill, which passed both houses easily. The DPHHS bill died in committee.
Dalton said the fact that Clark, a respected legislator who works in the industry, sponsored the industry bill and helped secure its passage. Clark said the fact that his proposal cost taxpayers nothing was ?a big issue? to many legislators.
?The programs themselves, not the state, are paying for it. That was a big issue - $40,000 and $50,000 for the two years,? he said.
http://www.isaccorp.org/springcreek/spr ... 24.05.html

"Unregulated Youth Residential Care Programs in Montana" and a statement by Ralph E. Thayer, PhD. that cites lack of oversight.
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:pS3 ... =clnk&cd=7
Ralph E. Thayer, PhD, AICP
Professor of Urban Planning and Public Administration
Coordinator, Urban Studies Program
College of Urban and Public Affairs
Academic Director, BGS Program
University of New Orleans
New Orleans, LA 70148
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:l8 ... tana&hl=en
March 05 Hearing on HB628- More at the link.
REP. KAUFMANN asked why these programs prefer to be licensed under DOL rather than DPHHS.  REP. CLARK said that HB 628 would not have come forward if DPHHS had not initiated a bill to license and control these programs.  Originally, the department had told REP. CLARK and SEN. ELLIOTT that they were not going to introduce a bill to require licensing of these schools.  The schools feel that they do not fit under the model of the State-run programs.  They believe they can hold themselves accountable and can achieve high standards with a board. :rofl:

Wow! Just wow. What the heck would Clark do if he didn't happen to be a State Rep with connections? The arrogance is breath taking.

Testimony: HB628 Approved
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:MjQI ... tana&hl=en
February 05 Hearing on HB628
HEARING ON HB 628
Sponsor:  REPRESENTATIVE PAUL CLARK, HD 13, Trout Creek
Opening Statement by Sponsor:  
REP. CLARK opened the hearing on HB 628, and reported that Northwestern Montana is the home for many alternative adolescent residential schools, programs and outdoor wilderness programs.  He was the founder of his program, Galena Ridge, which is one of the outdoor wilderness programs.  He worked with at-risk kids.  The bill was really a business bill and did not pertain to education.  The bill would create a board, and the board would develop rules for registration of alternative adolescent programs.  The board would look into the possibility of licensure, should the program go in that direction.  He was not in a business that takes any money from the state.  They are in a business where the state taxes them, where they have employees, and they are in a growing business.  

Many of the kids in his program came from out of state.  He did not work with kids that had been referred to him by the State of Montana or payed for by the State.  The estimated annual revenues coming into Montana from the out-of-state programs had increased to about $40 million.  

Hmmm. From the Board's Report:
Annual salaries to employees $17,850,000
Parents traveling to see child spent $1,530,814.45
Programs spent on kids $3,372,408.00    GT  $22,753,322.00
Does this really belong in a discussion about protecting kids?

They have programs serving between 800 and 1,000 students and most of them are from out of state and are voluntarily sent to the programs by their parents because their parents and the family system are in family crisis.  He works with kids that are typically chemically dependent or at least have a long history of substance abuse.  The kids may have had problems with the law or be on the verge of that kind of trouble.  He would like to see a board established so that programs can proceed toward getting a better understanding of how they can work, some self-regulation (not to keep new programs from coming to Montana) and to make sure that the programs in Montana are of high quality.  He would not have been before the committee if the programs were not being pursued for regulation by the Department of Public Health and Human Services(DPHHS).  He felt they were functioning fine being unregulated. :rofl:   He did not feel all the programs in Montana could be bunched together in a basket under the umbrella of DPHHS.  He was before the committee asking for the opportunity to regulate their programs themselves in a responsible and accountable way and a way that would not cost the State money.  He wanted it done in a way that would  maintain the programs' independence, and where the programs pay their own expenses and pay the Department of Labor and Industry for their expenses that are directed toward their process.  He walked the committee through the bill.
EXHIBIT(edh40a06)
Proponents' Testimony:
SEN. JIM ELLIOT rose in support of the bill because the schools were in his district and he had attended the meeting to attest to the character and the integrity of the people who run the programs addressed in the bill.  The most important thing that he had seen as an outsider was the way the kids came to the program and the way they left it.  What he had seen in the programs was, to the largest extent possible, good.  He informed the committee that they were seeing a group of people with a willingness to come together as a profession with many facets and to work together to achieve a framework of regulation that is appropriate for the many facets of the profession and suitable to the profession.
 
John Santa, Co-founder of Montana Academy of Co-educational Therapeutic Boarding School in Lost Prairie, Montana, rose in support of the bill.  They have 80 students and 65 well-trained members on their staff.  The students need environments that are nurturing, structured, and will contain them and allow them to grow up and mature enough to become productive adults. He believed the leaders of the programs could come together and create appropriate standards that are far superior to being dictated to from outside sources.  

Santa just issued a White Paper choke full of deceptive comments and generalities about the industry.
http://www.strugglingteens.com/news/ope ... tation.pdf
 
Christina Johnson rose in support of the bill and presented written testimony.
EXHIBIT(edh40a07)
{Tape: 2; Side: A; Approx. Time Counter: 0 - 25.7}

Matt Ihrig, enrolled in Spring Creek Lodge Academy, testified that the program had helped him earn his high school diploma, gain self confidence, morals, goals, and confidence and self-esteem.

Penny James, Trout Creek, testified that she and her husband own one of the programs being discussed.  When she thought of being regulated by an outside entity, in an industry and profession such as theirs, it was difficult for her.   :cry2: She desired to be part of a board and be able to speak to the things that they already had been researching and working on.  

Brandee Dellasilva was enrolled at Spring Creek for twelve months.  She graduated the program eight months ago and since then she has earned scholarships for college and has traveled around the state talking to students about drugs.  Spring Creek program had changed her life around.  

Randy Lovel, Physician, had been to treatment in 1993.  He introduced his daughter who was a graduate of Spring Creek.

{Tape: 2; Side: A; Approx. Time Counter: 25.7 - 30}
{Tape: 2; Side: B}
Renel Hanson, Monarch School, reported that she represented about 65 students and 40 staff members.  She informed the committee that she and her colleagues were very passionate about what they do.  
That's a good justification for self-regulation!
 
Elizabeth Kleg, Chrysalis resident, testified that before arriving at Chrysalis her life was unmanageable from the time she was twelve years old and coming to Chrysalis was a rebirth for her and her family.  
 
Rachel Berlin-Allaire reported that she had lived at Chrysalis for two years.  Before arriving there, she had been making very poor decisions and her parents decided to send her to Chrysalis.  She had learned to love herself and in doing so had gained values and morals.  

Liz Gochnauer, Carroll College student, testified that she had graduated from the Chrysalis program about six months ago.  At fifteen she had been expelled from high school and her parents sent her away.  Her life is changed and she is earning A's in college.  She never dreamed she could do that.  

Time had run out for the proponents.  They were asked to come to the podium and state their names.
Laurel Jones presented written testimony.
EXHIBIT(edh40a08)
Ramsey Riddell, Emily Lovell, Kenny Pannell, Jay Whitacre, Sara Bowles, Angele Anjaliplainfield , Mickey Manning, Ali Turner, Laurie Worth, Darya Brutoco, Mary Alexine, Rick Reed, James Kraus, Carol Santa, Ron Mendenhall, Jacqueline Rutzke, Jerry Bottorff
Jean Windham presented written testimony from Pinehaven Christian School as they were not able to attend the hearing.
EXHIBIT(edh40a09)
Dana Tash, Mike Chism, Wade Boteler, Charlie Speicher, Amanda Locket, Teran Adams, Alex Banker, Sarah Musante, Heather Pruett, Norman Kahn, Steffani White, Vickie Horton, Elizabeth Ebberhard, Kaitlan Lennen, Hillary Carter-liggett, Rick Wedell
EXHIBIT(edh40a10)
{Tape: 2; Side: B; Approx. Time Counter: 0 - 13.2}
 
Opponents' Testimony:  
Kimberly Gardner, Administrator of Alternative Youth Adventures, Boulder, rose in opposition to the bill.  She presented written testimony and written opposition testimony from Gerald Robert Byrd; M. Angela Johnson, LCPC, NCC, EAPI; John J. Madsen, MSW; and Linda Fowler, MSW, LCSW.
EXHIBIT(edh40a11)
EXHIBIT(edh40a12)
EXHIBIT(edh40a13)
EXHIBIT(edh40a14)
EXHIBIT(edh40a15)
EXHIBIT(edh40a16)
John Clymer testified that he had worked with children for a number of years and his greatest concern was the protection of children.  He recognized that the bill addressed a very difficult issue in the state.  He believed there were 36 programs across the state that would be part of the bill.  He informed the committee that sometimes the children receive the promised help, but others don't receive it and may even receive harsh treatment. He believed it was the responsibility of the State of Montana to regulate the facilities.  The bill recognized that there is a concern but he didn't believe the bill would meet the needs of the programs.  He pointed out the weaknesses in the bill.  He was very worried about how the facilities handle the mental health issues when they are not regulated.  Another weakness he saw was no governmental involvement in the board that was to be created.  
{Tape: 2; Side: B; Approx. Time Counter: 13.2 - 30}
{Tape: 3; Side: A}  
SEN. TRUDY SCHMIDT, SD 11, Great Falls, testified that she had sponsored a bill in the Senate that addressed some of the same kinds of issues as the present house bill.  She was sorry the committee would hear a bill of such magnitude so late in the session.  She believed that the programs discussed in the house bill should be under the direction of DPHHS.  
Mary Dalton, Department of Public Health and Human Services, Division of Quality Assurance, presented written testimony.
EXHIBIT(edh40a17)
 
Informational Testimony:  
Bud Williams, Office of Public Instruction, presented his written testimony at the end of the hearing.  
Lisa Addington, Health Care Chief of Department of Labor, offered information as to how SB 101 would be administered by DPHHS in comparison to the bill the committee was hearing which would be overseen by a board.  

Questions from Committee Members and Responses:  
REP. GALVIN-HALCRO explained to the committee why Education was hearing the bill instead of the Business and Labor Committee.  That committee could not fit it into their schedule and it was felt that the Education Committee could make time to hear it.

REP. SALES informed the committee that he did not like regulation and wondered why the SPONSOR had brought the bill to the session.
[Uh, because he knows you don't like regulation?

REP. CLARK testified that they could see regulations coming and they wanted to be pro-active.  

REP. WINDHAM asked SEN. ELLIOT if the issues in the two bills might be a subject for an interim study.  The Senate bill was offered as an exhibit.  

SEN. ELLIOT was in favor of HB 628 although he knew the Senate bill was at the request of DPHHS.
EXHIBIT(edh40a18)

REP. KOOPMAN requested information from the SPONSOR.  He pondered how the programs could succeed the proposed regulation without state government regulations.  He didn't understand why the bill was proposed when the programs had functioned so well without any government regulations.  He also wondered if there was anything stopping the groups to do what the bill proposed without any legislation.  

REP. CLARK testified that the programs desired to be self-policing and self-regulatory in nature.  They brought the legislation because they knew there were individuals seeking legislation to regulate them under DPHHS.

REP. ANDERSEN asked the SPONSOR about Page 2, Section 3.  She was curious about what the new board would do with all the requested information.  

REP. CLARK reported that the authors of the bill were looking to get a sense of standards to regulate the programs and use the information to present to the legislature.  

REP. ANDERSEN asked him if all of the schools or programs that he was aware of would be included in the gathering of the information requested in the bill.  

REP. CLARK informed her that not all of the programs he knew of would fit in the definition of the programs in the bill.

What? they don't fit the "medical model" of the state and they don't fit his Bill? So, will the state regulate those that don't meet the definition of his Bill? How confusing will that be?

REP. GALVIN-HALCRO informed REP. CLARK that she did not see a definition in the bill for a wilderness program and wondered why it wasn't there.  

REP. CLARK assured her that the definitions in the bill included wilderness programs.  

REP. GALVIN-HALCRO asked the SPONSOR if any of the programs he knew of received Average Number Belonging (ANB) monies from OPI.  REP. CLARK informed her that he did not know of a program that received state money.

REP. GALVIN-HALCRO asked the SPONSOR if he would keep records and report to the next session the information that had been discussed during the hearing.  She asked that the information include any problems or accidents that occurred in the two years.  
REP. CLARK assured her that he could do that.

REP. BUTCHER explained to the SPONSOR that he believed on Page 1, Line 13, where it discussed the board make-up, the programs involved should make up a list of nominees for the board positions just as other groups under the direction of boards make recommendations to the governor for his selection.  REP. CLARK informed him the programs would be comfortable with that procedure.
 
REP. WINDHAM also required information from the SPONSOR.  She felt it was very important that the board discussed in the bill had legitimacy.  She questioned the governor appointing two members from the general public.  REP. CLARK was sure the appointments would be made appropriately.

Because he hand selected them?

Closing by Sponsor:  
REP. CLARK asserted that the criticism from OPI and DPHHS did not apply to the programs he had seen in operation.  He was firm in his belief that the programs could regulate themselves as they had been operating for a number of years.  He took exception to the opposition testimony as he had information about the programs that were in conflict to what had been said.  :rofl:
 
EXECUTIVE ACTION ON HB 628
Motion:  REP. WINDHAM moved that HB 628 DO PASS.  
Motion/Vote:  REP. WINDHAM moved that HB 628 BE AMENDED. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote.  REPS. LAKE and SONJU voted by proxy.
EXHIBIT(edh40a19)
Motion/Vote:  REP. WINDHAM moved a CONCEPTUAL AMENDMENT FOR AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE ON THE BILL.  Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. REPS. LAKE and SONJU voted by proxy.
Motion:  REP. WINDHAM moved that HB 628 DO PASS AS AMENDED.  

Discussion:  
REP. BUTCHER spoke in favor of the bill as he felt the programs should be left alone but he realized they felt bureaucracy ascending down on them to engulf them into their nets of regulation. He was familiar with several programs that had not attended the hearing and had observed very closely their operations and he was very intrigued with them.  He wished to allow the programs to remain independent and create their programs to meet the needs of troubled children.

Damn, and they're not even "faith-based".
   
REP. SALES reported that he hoped the Senate bill would be defeated and HB 628 would pass out of both houses.  He would be supporting the bill.

REP. ANDERSEN testified that she would support the bill and she reported that she was very impressed with the poise and maturity of the students she was able to visit with.  She wished to thank the students for giving her the opportunity to spend time with them.  

REP. WINDHAM reported that she felt the bill represented the understanding that the government is not going to go away.  The programs are being pro-active and they do want to be responsible and accountable.  She believed that peer review is a wonderful way of control.  She commented that the programs are private industry at its best. ::puke::
   
REP. GALVIN-HALCRO said she was not going to support the bill in committee because she was concerned about the "bad apples out there" that the committee had not heard about.  She didn't see the bill addressing them.  She planned to visit with the SPONSOR and do what she could to have her concerns met.  
 
Vote:  Motion that HB 628 DO PASS AS AMENDED carried 13-3 by roll call vote with REPS. GALVIN-HALCRO, REP. KOOPMAN, and REP. MCKENNEY voting no.  REPS. LAKE, RASER, and SONJU voted by proxy.

[Deborah]

Yeh, it's alot to read, but grab a couple of beers and wade through it when you have nothing better to do.
Might be a good topic for the Yahoo group too.
I can't even begin to imagine the long-term implications of this.
Anyone else care to speculate?

[Deborah]

::bump::

[Oz girl]

This is why i would argue for uniform independent federal regulation on the industry.

[Anonymous]

Kids don't deserve no goddamn rights, cuz they ain't no better than a bunch of fuckin' NIGGERS! If mine ever try to "assert their rights" I'm gonna drag 'em out to the woodshed and tear up their uppity little asses!

[Anonymous]

Matt Ihrig, enrolled in Spring Creek Lodge Academy, testified that the program had helped him earn his high school diploma, gain self confidence, morals, goals, and confidence and self-esteem.
------
Brandee Dellasilva was enrolled at Spring Creek for twelve months. She graduated the program eight months ago and since then she has earned scholarships for college and has traveled around the state talking to students about drugs. Spring Creek program had changed her life around.
------
Elizabeth Kleg, Chrysalis resident, testified that before arriving at Chrysalis her life was unmanageable from the time she was twelve years old and coming to Chrysalis was a rebirth for her and her family.
--------
Rachel Berlin-Allaire reported that she had lived at Chrysalis for two years. Before arriving there, she had been making very poor decisions and her parents decided to send her to Chrysalis. She had learned to love herself and in doing so had gained values and morals.
--------
Liz Gochnauer, Carroll College student, testified that she had graduated from the Chrysalis program about six months ago. At fifteen she had been expelled from high school and her parents sent her away. Her life is changed and she is earning A's in college. She never dreamed she could do that.

I feel sorry for these kids. I can't believe their parents let them become willing tools.

[Deborah]

Paul Clark
http://leg.mt.gov/css/sessions/59th/leg ... LAWSID=430

ISAC has a sworn statement posted by a parent with experience with Galena Ridge and 20 Peaks. Sounds like they use the same MO as all the others. Any wonder Clark is pushing so hard for self-regulation?
This parent addressed item-for-item the programs violations of NATSAP Principles.

http://www.isaccorp.org/documentsam.asp#galena

[Troll Control]

NUTSACK (natsap) does not enforce its own rules and has no mechanism for doing so.  NATSAP is a SADSACK.  They are "organized crime," plain and simple.

[Deborah]

Utah Working To Break new Ground
The Utah NATSAP member programs are breaking new ground in working with one another and working with the State of Utah. In the past few months Utah NATSAP member programs have been particularly busy.

Following a very successful regional conference in June, a call went out to
members to participate in an ad hoc series of meetings designed to review current Utah state licensing standards and make recommendations for changes. Kreg Gillman of the Provo Canyon School hosted an initial meeting in which thirty administrators and key staff from several schools and programs attended. Jerry Spanos and the Heritage School then hosted two follow up sessions culminating in a meeting with Ken Stettler, Director of the Utah Office of Licensing.

The group identified four main areas of focus which included:
1) Staff to Student Ratios, 2) Development of Policies Related to Housing Eighteen Year Olds, 3) Revisions to Overall Standards, Particularly as They Related to Behavior Management and 4) The Development of an Additional Licensing Category, Focusing on Therapeutic Boarding
Schools Separate From Residential Treatment Centers.

Draft revisions were then emailed to member programs for feedback. Once the final revision was completed, the recommendations were presented to Mr. Stettler. Mr. Stettler, who will follow up further as the State Legislature considers a bill that includes the recommendations, has already incorporated much of what was provided.

Brent Hall of Discovery Academy, James Meyer and Jared Balmer of the Oakley School, Pam Nielsen of Cedar Ridge Academy, and Robin
Stephens of the Aspen Education Group put in extra effort to synthesize the group?s ideas into print. We would particularly like to recognize Kimball
DeLaMare of Oakley School and Island View who spearheaded these meetings.

Kimball reports that it was remarkable how generous everyone was with their time and talent, even though many who participated are direct competitors. He notes that each successive meeting further deepened the
camaraderie of the group as a whole. In the course of putting together these recommendations, it was suggested to Ken Stettler of State Licensing that a member of NATSAP would be interested in representing the group on the Department of Human Services Licensing Board.  The seat on the Board was granted and Jeff Smith of Logan
River Academy was selected to represent us. Jeff?s considerable experience, coupled with his administrative and personal abilities will certainly add much to the Board while benefiting our industry overall.

NATSAP Board members, Craig LaMont of Telos Residential Treatment and James Meyer of the Oakley School, visited with the group about furthering the NATSAP mission through a greater public presence in the State. These discussions helped generate an invitation for NATSAP programs to provide in-service training to over fifty State Licensing Specialists.

The training, which encompassed presentations about the continuum of care and behavior management standards, culminated in a panel presentation by students from six different facilities, who brought a real
human element into what is otherwise seen as only a regulatory process by many. Feedback from the Licensing Office has been very positive.

Utah Chapter?
With the success of these events, Utah is now exploring ways in which to formally organize a NATSAP Regional Chapter. Craig LaMont did significant groundwork about how a Chapter might function. This work is presently being disseminated to NATSAP members with the goal to start a Chapter early in 2005.

FROM THE SAME NEWSLETTER
Natsap Standards Used As Template for Montana Legislation
Penny James-Riddell, Explorations
Over 30 programs and schools in Montana are currently faced with the involvement of the State of Montana in ways not present in the past. In July 2004, open dialogue began between program and school officials and the Department of Health and Human Services regarding potential licensure for those operating in Big Sky country. Since then, representatives from a broad base of youth care options available statewide have convened in Helena at the state legislature committee level and have met in numerous meetings across the state to discuss potential licensure or regulation.

NATSAP member programs have been integrally involved in the process which currently includes subcommittee work to draft potential bill legislation for the upcoming legislative session. Current bill language
advocates for mandatory registration of all alternative residential care providers in Montana. The bill further suggests a governor-appointed Board, comprised of youth care professionals, state officials, and individuals from the general public, as a public service to monitor and
maintain standards of care and ensure the safety of adolescents and parents using such programs.

Professional codes of conduct, principles of good practices, and ethical code language have been incorporated into the bill language.
NATSAP standards have been utilized as a template, both for numerous discussions and as the foundation for the actual bill draft. John Santa (Montana Academy), John Mercer (Mission Mountain School), and Penny James-Riddell (Explorations) have assisted in the process by working with like-programs statewide to educate others regarding the process of devising standards applicable to a wide-range of programs and schools. NATSAP Interim Executive Director, Jan Moss, provided input to
program representatives in Montana at a meeting held in November in Kalispell. Mercer and Santa developed the initial draft language for the sub-committee work, with James-Riddell, Kenny Pannell (Chrysalis), and Patrick McKinnon (The Monarch School) also contributing to the final bill language. The bill is anticipated to be brought forth in the January session. NATSAP member programs, as well as others throughout the state, watch the outcome with anticipation.

[Anonymous]

Let's look at what isn't discussed in the press release.

It doesn't say what the new regulations are supposed to accomplish.

It doesn't say why the regulations would be put into place, or how they would be enforced, or even IF they would be enforced. To make doubly sure that nothing would actually happen to their abuse centers, there's nothing to enforce and no one to enforce it.

Bottom line: This is a thinly veiled attempt to legalize the unconscionable.

[Deborah]

The agenda is to get Utah to distinguish TBSs from RTCs and adopt NATSAPs lame guidelines as regulations for TBSs.
As I've been saying for a while, NATSAP is positioning its self to become a national accrediting agency for the industry. Programs defining the terms or regulation.

Exactly what will NATSAP present during their "in-service" training of Licensing Specialists?
Since when does any entity that is regulated "train" their regulators?
This is absurd.

[Deborah]

ATTN: MT Program alumni
Your letter of testimony are needed!!

We are also seeking folks who can fund their own transportation to MT to testify!

DEADLINE FOR LETTERS - (tentatively 1/13)

NOT MUCH TIME LEFT!!!!

For those who would like clarification, in a nutshell Senator Schmidt is trying to pass a law which would require oversite, regulation and monitoring of currently unregulated programs like SCL, like MMS. Just as the state is required to do with all other child-caring institutions, ie. residential treatment programs, juvenile justice programs.

Places like SCL and MMS have fallen through a legal loophole by calling themselves therapeutic boarding schools, that way they don't get looked into by the state or any health care acrrediting body. In a recent informal study, we found MT does not investigate allegations of abuse at 'UNregulated facilities' because of this loophole and the private nature of the schools. That's why programs have effectively been able slide on by, mistreating children and calling it therapy.

Hopefully, with all of your hard work, our letters will put a stop to that.

Obviously this will not be easy to do. The Senator has no funds to bring folks in to testify - so if any of you are anywhere near Helena, MT please let us know if you would be willing to travel and cover expenses. Perhaps we (CAFETY) may be able to secure funding, this is tentative but an effort we are focusing on.

We all know there will be many current students and alumni expressing, in person, their devotion to both facilities. Few understand the mental break down that allows youth to become complicit in their own mistreatment, for this reason it is IMPERATIVE we work to present the flip-side of the industry to the MT State legislature.

So please take a moment to express your grievances and help spread the word!!

This is our big shot to help protect youth and stop the mistreatment so many of us both witnessed and experienced. Please ACT NOW!

Lenore Behar, Phd is collecting the stories to submit to Senator Schmidt.

Please e-mail her:

[email protected]

Please don't hesitate to contact me with any questions.

Best,

kat & the CAFETY team

The Montana legislature meets from early January until the end of April, so things will move fast. They also meet every other year, so if Sen. Schmidt isn't successful, it will be another 2 years before she can try again. Also, MT has limits on congressional terms and 2009 will be her last one.

The bill that was passed last time was put in the Department of Labor, which was an attempt by the lobbyists/program directors to weaken it. In addition, the bill only called for a committee to determine what kind of oversight to provide. Their report, after 2 years, was that they need more time! To decide anything.

The new bill can be seen shortly and tracked at:

http://laws.leg.mt.gov/pls/laws07/law0203w$.startup

It is LC 1004 (use the second box for the bill #)


ALSO SEE:
Online PBS Doc on MT Industry
Who's Watching The Kids?
www.montanapbs.org

[Anonymous]

deberah, since you have info about an obvious violation of the law..

WILL YOU PLEASE CONTACT THE APROPRIATE LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES?

(if these things exist)
pretending to have accreditation or practising medicine without a liscence is a very serIOUS CRIME!!!! :exclaim:  ops:

[Covergaard]

deberah, since you have info about an obvious violation of the law..

WILL YOU PLEASE CONTACT THE APROPRIATE LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES?

Why should she? Crimes against children made while they are in programs are not taken serious.

The staff goes free or get a slap on their wrist!

It is only the self-pronounced colonel, who has to do time.

What your country needs:

1) A number of concress men driving around the country showing up unanounced in whatever program they choose. Any time - any place !

2) Oversea programs should be forbidden for american citizens unless they agree also to be visited unannounced.

3) All programs has to be listed in Washington. If an un-listed program exist it should mean jail-time for the owner and heavy fines for the staff-members.

4) All education should be accredited from standards made by the education board in Washington. (Then the education would count in Europe too.).

[Deborah]

(if these things exist) pretending to have accreditation or practising medicine without a liscence is a very serIOUS CRIME!!!! :exclaim:  ops:

Apparently NOT in Montana. It appears that Mr State Rep can do just about anything he wants. Let's just hope Senator Schmidt takes him down a few notches before she leaves office.
Who will one complain to?
DHR? Nope, no jurisdiction.
Dept of Labor?  :rofl:
This info is not secret. He had the audacity to post it on public websites. Guess he thought no one would check his credentials.