The Carlbrook thread

[Charly]

I am not as educated about the CEDU programs as many of the rest of you. From what Psy has told me, I think there is a potential for damaging confrontation IF the leader is not well-trained and compassionate.  I suspect, as with anything else, there are many who can emerge unscathed, and others, like many on this forum, who are scarred for life.  I think from what I have read here that there is a serious lack of competent staff at most of these programs. I think Carlbrook was possibly one of the best in getting and keeping good staff, but there was turnover even there. That is an unfortunate part of the model- these programs are in remote places where qualified professionals don't want to spend too many years.  
I think there can be some abuse of authority/power outside the groups as well.  There is a clear food chain established, and those at the top (including senior management) are put in a position where they can abuse that power to the detriment of those below them.  Also, in the guise of "treatment", there can be a lot of arbitrary consequences imposed. Some of this is possibly justified, some is not.
Another problem is that the person most informed about the particular kid- his therapist/advisor- often had the LEAST input as to decisions involving that kid because the advisor was lower in the pecking order of the school.  So decisions were made by people with the least day to day contact with the kid and the parents.
One of the problems is that parents have no clear idea what they are really getting into.  This may be different now since there is more information available (here and through other parents and sites).  It was quite different for me, as a parent, than what we were used to having as far as input and communications with a school our kids attended.

[psy]

I am not as educated about the CEDU programs as many of the rest of you. From what Psy has told me, I think there is a potential for damaging confrontation IF the leader is not well-trained and compassionate.

Since the state does not require certifications or qualifications for counselors in these "schools" ... from a strictly from a business perspective, who would you hire?

Think about it.  I'm guessing Carlbrook responded to questions about qualifications with something like "years of experience bla bla bla.." or "real world experience" (ie.  none at all).

Training?  I'm sure TSW can tell you, most counselors are expected to get trained "on the job".  Now.  Do you have "on the job" training for brain surgeons?  No.  Do you have "on the job training" for people using questionable (read: unethical) psychological techniques on kids minds for extended periods of time?  Yes.

I suspect, as with anything else, there are many who can emerge unscathed, and others, like many on this forum, who are scarred for life.  I think from what I have read here that there is a serious lack of competent staff at most of these programs. I think Carlbrook was possibly one of the best in getting and keeping good staff, but there was turnover even there. That is an unfortunate part of the model- these programs are in remote places where qualified professionals don't want to spend too many years.

High turnover rate is very common with many of these programs.

I think there can be some abuse of authority/power outside the groups as well.  There is a clear food chain established, and those at the top (including senior management) are put in a position where they can abuse that power to the detriment of those below them.  Also, in the guise of "treatment", there can be a lot of arbitrary consequences imposed. Some of this is possibly justified, some is not.

But there is no oversight, no due process, and no appeal process.  Not even a trial.  Often, kids are punished without even being given a good (or any) reason of what they have done.  Why?  To take them out of their "comfort zone".  This is probably why they took your kid's running privileges away.  What it actually does?  Builds mistrust...  Makes kids less respectful of those who would punish them for no reason....  But ultimately... in the end... it teaches kids that they have no power at all over anything of value to them... nothing, and nobody, but the program, that they can turn to for comfort.  Ultimately, the kid is expected to view the program itself (and it's staff) as a "higher power", from which all forms of comfort come.

Another problem is that the person most informed about the particular kid- his therapist/advisor- often had the LEAST input as to decisions involving that kid because the advisor was lower in the pecking order of the school.

This is mostly by design.

So decisions were made by people with the least day to day contact with the kid and the parents.
One of the problems is that parents have no clear idea what they are really getting into.

Oh i second that... and so do my parents.  "Boarding School with therapeutic aspects"... my ass.  It's a program.  Ask your son what he was told his "school" was.  Was he told it was a "school" or a "program" or an "RTS/RTC"...

This may be different now since there is more information available (here and through other parents and sites).  It was quite different for me, as a parent, than what we were used to having as far as input and communications with a school our kids attended.

Hmm.  I'm going to send you some letters my parents were sent from staff.  They should look eerily familiar.  I've annotated the bullshit.  Eventually my parents figured a lot of it out on their own... but there was a lot of it that there was no way for them to confirm.

Let me ask you a legal question if I may.  Is it slander/libel if the speech/text is sent to a private audience (ie my parents)?  In most states, as far as I am aware, the statute of limitations starts ticking from the time it is realized that a crime has been comitted.  So... If i could prove (and that's easy) that my parents were lied to, with malicious intent, would i have a case?

[Charly]

"What is the desire to make a bad thing better? I'm sorry but in mind if that program is broke and busted for a reason then good riddance to it. Lets try not to recreate it and improve on it when the core underlying model is still pretty much the same."

I agree with the analysis in TSW's post above. I guess no one has come up with a better model starting from scratch, and there is still a perceived need for a therapeutic school that provides academics and some emotional growth work.  I DO think Carlbrook tried to improve the model, probably in part because the school founders had been at Cascade, and realized what didn't work and what was harmful (one would hope).  I am wondering if it was too easy to slip back into some of the failings of the CEDU model, though.

As for staff, I think the founders (hiring committee) were pretty careful. There were some senior people who were excellent- I watched them work with kids and families and also had input from my son and other kids (during and after they were at the program). There were some younger men and women being trained, too. That doesn't bother me as long as they are monitored and have the right attitude towards the work they are doing and the kids they are impacting. My son told me that there were a few crazies there.  One man (got fired) actually changed my son's name and wouldn't call him by his "real" name because he thought it sounded juvenile. My son had to answer to a different, although similar, name.  There was a female counselor who was into the power-trip.  I could tell that the majority of the people who worked at Carlbrook really cared about these kids and wanted to help them in every possible way.

There was more than one nurse, if I'm remembering correctly, and I found the medical staff to be very competent. My son was NOT on any psychiatric meds, but did have a couple of minor illnesses and things while he was at Carlbrook and everything was diagnosed properly and handled well.  

His reading was not censored, although he was put on "book bans" at one point so he would talk to people during his free time.  I think he wound up not obeying these bans.  

CB was pretty selective about the type of kid they would admit. Obviously, some misfits (like my son) slipped through, but the group of 100+ kids was pretty similar in terms of the level of seriousness of the issues.  There were a number of prep school kids who had screwed up in enough ways to wind up at Carlbrook, but who would ultimately wind up in college and do pretty well.  There were a few kids with serious enough substance issues that they wound up back in drug treatment not too long after leaving Carlbrook.

Psy- A private letter to your parents from the school is probably not a "publication" as required by law to show libel.  It IS a writing, and it did adversely impact you, presumably, so it could be actionable as a malicious tort.

[Oz girl]

What bothered me the most?  Probably the lack of attention to individual needs and differences. Again-the round pegs thing. My son could have benefitted from some things (like being permitted to train for his sport) that could have completely made his experience different. This may seem like a minor thing, but if you understood his needs, which I hit them over the head with over and over, it was a big factor in his resistance there.  It is hard to strike a balance between valuing the parents input (after all, we are the ones who screwed up the raising of these kids in the first place) and holding to the line of "you gave us your kids, now trust us without interfering."

It is funny that you raise this issue Charlie because it seems to be the big thing about a lot of places. They have a catch all method which they claim works for every young person. They also have a just trust us mentality. i can not imagine the kind of reaction a regular private school would get if this was the line they gave to concerned parents.
You said they did not censor your sons reading material but put him on book bans. i would say that this is a form of censorship. i could even understand if they said no reading betwen say 5 and 6 but again it is this all or nothing idea which to a kid that is possibly already a challenge is bound to incite rebellion and cause friction. This can give parents the false impression that their kid is more of a problem than they may otherwise be.

[psy]

but again it is this all or nothing idea which to a kid that is possibly already a challenge is bound to incite rebellion and cause friction. This can give parents the false impression that their kid is more of a problem than they may otherwise be.

That's the entire point.  

Karen.  In Carlbrook's admissions contract, did they have a "covenant not to sue" or similar document?

[try another castle]

This does not HAVE to be the case, but I simply don't know how good the current staff is at conducting proper group therapy.

The system and ideology dictates the nature of the personnel. Changing the personnel will not change the system. The underpinnings remain in place. If anything, the personnel will soon be in lock-step with the program. There will be those, however, who are smart enough to get the fuck out of there, like TSW.

I could get a degree in psychology, and decide that I would form my own TBS that would be "different" from all the others, because of my own negative experience in one. I could hire staff I felt to be qualified, and the outcome would still be the same. Why? Because of the role the TBS plays in society. i.e. it is a tool for the re assimilation of children who were believed to have fallen through the cracks. That equals coercion, because there is already a preconceived notion of what these kids are supposed to be, and it is a one-size-fits-all template. Many schools will say they are helping your child become an individual, but in reality, it is the opposite. They enforce conformity. You're sending your kid to a "fixing" factory. That is the role of every TBS.

It's nothing more than the Ministry of Love.

[psy]

Karen.  I've been thinking about programs...  I think the reason most people on fornits hesitate to recommend any school in this industry, even if there are no allegations of abuse is partially for this reason:

Ever read about the Stanford prison experiment?  A bunch of normal college students were selected to participate in an experiment... Some would be prisoners, some would be guards. The guards, slowly but surely, began to "assert their authority"...  The situation soon became so abusive that the experiment had to be shut down prematurely... and these were normal, peacenik type people before they became guards...

What happens?  Power happens.  Absolute power, in the hands of a few, quickly tempts people to take advantage of it.  That is the entire reason for the system of checks and balances, in our government and the justice system.

Kids, whose parents send them away to program because they see them as troubled kids (manipulators, etc...)... they make the perfect prisoner.  The guards, in this case, know full well that they can do whatever they want to the kids, and nobody will believe them since their credibility is next to nil (and systematically destroyed even further due to inevitable bad reports from the program).  Since they control the environment, they also control all the means a kid might collect evidence with.  All a kid has is his/her word...

So how is it possable to know if this is not one big hoax, perpetrated by a bunch of rebellious, druggie, fucked-up, manipulative, program-failures-with-a-grudge?

Well to answer that question.. let's ask mister interrogator.  Mister interrogator goes and interrogates person A, and then he goes and interrogates person C, and then he goes and interrogates person B.  The interrogator does not have to be a psychic.  he simply has to look for places where their stories line up...

Benchmark used this technique on a large scale with a "dirt list" that they would make everybody write.  They never missed anything.  Becuase after repeated interrogations where you were handed back your "dirt list" to re-write it (standard procedure), you never knew what you missed.  They got everything, every time, using this procedure...

How did they make sure people didn't "fix" their stories in advance?  The same way interrogators do.  If 5 people know about something, the first person to break gets a lighter punishment...  When the dirt lists were handed back again and again, you never knew if somebody broke.  What always happened?  Somebody always broke.  That person got off easy.  So what was it in your best interest to do?  Rat out friends (for often ridiculous or frivolous offenses(ie. breaking bans))

So what's my point?  When you have kids coming out of these schools year after year, and telling the exact same detailed story...  It can't possibly be a lie.

The staff in these programs know full well the power that they wield over people.  They know they can abuse it. So inevitably, it will happen.

Many (most) of the staff at these programs are recycled from school to school (most often within the same family of school).  They have been in the system a long time...  Look at politicians.  Regardless of their values coming into office... given enough time and temptation... the power will get to them.  It's a universal truth:  power corrupts.

The kids in these places have nobody to believe them.. and when you have no hope.. nobody to turn to, no friends... you break.  The abnormal becomes normal, and what would once be thought of as abuse becomes "emotional growth".. or "the tools i needed to suceed"...  Most kids don't realize the abuse that they have been put through, and many go on to become staff... why?  Because the higher you get in the levels, The more ruthless you are expected to be in your reporting of others... as a benefit, you are awarded "semi-guard" status...  The higher levels get to taste that power.. and just like the staff.. they think what they are doing is "helping" everybody else... in reality, victims simply become victimizers...

I hope that sheds a little light on things for you.

But i digress.. with that little bit of information, there are still questions here that would be nice to have answered first before commenting on this.

[Anne Bonney]

Ok, but I'd like to respond to Psy's post though.  I figured here would be appropriate.

http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?p=243810#243810

[Charly]

There were levels, but they were pretty broad.  You came in as a "lower school" student.  I think you moved to "middle school" after the second or third workshop if you were not on any kind of "program".  There was an Upper School, but hardly anyone made it before they graduated.  You had more privileges at each level.  I don't know a whole lot about it, because my son never made it out of lower school. You could get demoted back if you really screwed up (like getting caught in a big lie or in a relationship with a girl/boy).

Bans- could last for a few days or permanently.  Sometimes bans were imposed very arbitrarily.  Sometimes they made sense.  

By the way, there were no isolation rooms, physical restraints or anything like that.  If someone had psychiatric issues or tendency towards violence, they were gone.

[Dr Phil]

I have to ask, why would anyone want to improve on the model of such a clusterfuck like CEDU? What is the desire to make a bad thing better? I'm sorry but in mind if that program is broke and busted for a reason then good riddance to it. Lets try not to recreate it and improve on it when the core underlying model is still pretty much the same.

Monkey see monkey do! Isn't it obvious yet? Anyone, from kid to director who is exposed to this industry fancies themselves an expert and feels they have enough information to start their own franchise. Afterall, no credentials needed, just an appearance that you are like the rest. It's like showing people a room full of gold, shutting the door and telling them to forget that exists. It's easy money. From referring to running a place, you can do it all with just enough experience to know how it works.

[Charly]

I disagree- I think Carlbrook really wanted to have an appearance that it was NOT like all the rest.  The question in my mind is whether it is different in meaningful ways.

I would not say the senior level kids had "authority" over the newer ones, but I'll check on that.

There can be power without abuse, and there is in many parts of society. You just have to be careful who has the power and how equipped they are to deal with it.  It's just like all the fraternity hazing stuff- it can be done without causing problems, or kids can die from alcohol poisoning or other results of the hazing.  Be careful who has the power.

[Anne Bonney]

I disagree- I think Carlbrook really wanted to have an appearance that it was NOT like all the rest.  The question in my mind is whether it is different in meaningful ways.

I would not say the senior level kids had "authority" over the newer ones, but I'll check on that.

There can be power without abuse, and there is in many parts of society. You just have to be careful who has the power and how equipped they are to deal with it.  It's just like all the fraternity hazing stuff- it can be done without causing problems, or kids can die from alcohol poisoning or other results of the hazing.  Be careful who has the power.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.  Frats don't have absolute power.

[Charly]

Neither did any one person at Carlbrook.  Very few individuals ever have "absolute power".  However, I don't even think absolute power, whatever that is, necessarily means corruption.  It takes an ABUSE of power to have corruption.   Built in checks and balances reduce the potential for abuse (speaking generally, not about CB)

[Anne Bonney]

Neither did any one person at Carlbrook. Very few individuals ever have "absolute power".

Carlbrook has the absolute power.  You're a smart cookie Karen, you know what absolute power is.  Especially if you're an atty.


 

However, I don't even think absolute power, whatever that is, necessarily means corruption.  It takes an ABUSE of power to have corruption.   Built in checks and balances reduce the potential for abuse (speaking generally, not about CB)

The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition.  2002.
 
Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely
 
 
An observation that a person?s sense of morality lessens as his or her power increases. The statement was made by Lord Acton, a British historian of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

[Charly]

Carlbrook doesn't have absolute power.  A parent can remove their child at any time.  You did not pay in advance (paid per month).  A kid could refuse to comply with anything. Yes, there would be consequences, but there was no force used.  To me ,this is not absolute power.  As a spiritual person, I choose to believe that no one can have absolute power over another individual.  An institution can not have absolute power.