Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > Facility Question and Answers
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:
--- Quote from: ""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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
High turnover rate is very common with many of these programs.
--- Quote ---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.
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
This is mostly by design.
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
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"...
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: ""Charly"" ---
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."
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: ""Oz girl"" ---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.
--- End quote ---
That's the entire point.
Karen. In Carlbrook's admissions contract, did they have a "covenant not to sue" or similar document?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version