Can we throw it away and start over?

[psy]

I would like to thank Act Up, for bringing this discussion to the table, because there seems to be some misinformation and misunderstandings about the issue of "residential treatment", and "treatment" in general.

The simplest way to tel the difference is if the "treatment" is voluntary.  Involuntary treatment is an oxymoron.  Involuntary treatment may in fact be therapeutic

If you define "therapeutic" as "covering up (not actually fixing) some problems while creating entirely new ones" then, yes, I would agree.  If a person does not want help, involuntary treatment implies coersion, the breaking of one's will (via a combination of various pressures and/or thought reform and/or "Behavior Modification").  Nothing is fixed, and more problems are created.  Personally, I don't see that as ever being therapeutic.

, but it is not treatment, it is punishment with side effects.

Remember that in many of the regulated programs like Summit, a good portion of the kids who go there are sent by state or local child welfare agencies.  The proliferation of "programs" is not as simple as parents not wanting to do their job, sometimes it's a matter of the parents being incapable of doing their job, and the state being able to find adequate families to do the job for the birth parents.

Regulated programs can be just as programmatic as the unregulated ones, but their funding sources and the way they are able to hang onto the kids for so long are different.

Youth can be in a "program" truly voluntarily (I know of many kids at Summit over 18)

There are kids that are truly voluntarily in WWASP programs.  It happened in Straight inc. as well.  Have you never heard of learned helplessness?  What about the brainwashing?  What about using parental relationships (threats of being disowned for example) as a bargaining chip?  Howabout when they tell you that you have no rights and refuse to let you leave with any of _your_ money, property, clothing, food, water, shelter...  Howabout when the local cops are on the take (or are part of the program owner's family).  Don't be naive.  "voluntary" means absolutely jack shit when we are talking about programs that DO use brainwashing... and talking to a girl who is fresh out of program who says there was no "abuse" (often a term redefined in program, as it becomes normal), who you just happen to be fucking... I don't see how that is ANY indication at all of the quality of a program, and the fact that you seem to know so many kids at Summit, and have such a positive opinion (or simply nothing negative to say) is very suspect to me.  Considering you are in New York, the wonderful bastion of safe places...  Take a look at this regulated, and still open, place, that just happens to fit kids with shock collars (and gives the parents the remote... LITERALLY).... As well as having automated shock devices.  Yes.  Governmnt oversight can work wonders.  There is a 27 page report by the NYDE detailing the abuses.  The government documented it well, but that's about all they did.

If the philosophy is based on following a program that can't be deviated from, it doesn't matter who's running the "program", the program will be abusive.

Oh.  So you mean each individual should have his own unique program to follow.  Oh.. Sure.  That works just brilliantly.  That way, even after you complete your requirements for "level 2" they can still hold you back based on the subjective whim of the staff and/or program owner.  After all.  Programs have a real motivation to push kids through quickly. :roll:

This industry, everything associated with it, from the deepest of it's cultic roots in Synanon, est, and Lifespring, needs to be cut out and discarded.  It is a cancer.  Shut down a school and it grows 5 new heads as the staff scatter to the four corners of the earth and start their own programs.  Or the former studnets, so convinced that the abuse helped them, who decide they want to dedicate their lives to "helping" others.  Some systems are so innately broken that they CANNOT be fixed.

If the philosophy is based on harm-reduction, keeping kids safe, and only accepting kids who want to be there then actual treatment can occur.

Perhaps it can occur, but there is no guarantee at all that it will.  Even when there is government oversight is there, it is often riddled with incompetence, corruption, laziness, beurocracy, lack of jurisdiction or a blend of all those wonderful aspects of government.  Perhaps... perhaps, if there was competant oversight with an in-depth knowledge of methods of indirect influence, coercion, thought reform, and cult history, there could be a chance of avoiding brainwash camps masquerading as treatment.

[nimdA]

This entire thread is worthless.

Act Up come back after you've pulled your kid out of that unlicensed sky diving facility you have him at now.

Maybe then you will have some shred of credibility and maybe then more people might take you seriously.

Until then make sure your rip cord is properly secured.

[blombro]

Psy, as someone who is fairly familiar with New York State (as much as I can be given my age-limited experience) your points are well taken, particular the brainwashing effect and the lack of true "voluntary" treatment.

While I don't think I haven't been somewhat critical of Summit, here would be my primary complaints about the faciity:

1.  They create a culture of dependence.  The fact that 19 and 20 year olds would prefer to stay in a residential program instead of going out and having a life of their own (although they seem to go out and have a pretty good time of things on the weekends) seems odd.

2.  The program is ineffective.  The same behaviors that were the cause of the placement are still present years after being in the program, although maybe not as extreme (which could just be a result of maturity).

3.  There is an appalling lack of supervision and professionalism.  There is a history of staff having inappropriate sexual relationships and drug use and sexual activity are rampant on the campus.

As far as I can tell, they are nothing like a WWASP program or Peninsula Village or Judge Rotenberg (as you were referring to with the electroshock before) or one of the OCFS juvie detentions we have in New York State.  It would be unfair to lump Summit in that category.

But I think your overall point is the corrosive effect of residential treatment on our society as a whole, and of the undeniable fact that all it would take was for Summit to hire someone who believed in the behavior-mod theory of residential treatment, to turn that place into a mini-WWASP program in no time.

I'd love to talk more, but it's getting late.

[Karass]

Psy brings up some good points about what does it really mean to be "voluntary." Parents can threaten to disown kids, etc. if they refuse to go, and then there is the brainwashing aspect that starts right away in cultish BM programs. I'm reminded of Nick's character in Over the GW, who's mom at one point early on tried to pull him out but he didn't feel he was ready to leave.

Maybe one of the biggest differences between a program and real treatment is the element of time. Psy mentioned "learned helplessness" and blombro mentioned "culture of dependence," which I think are the same thing. If you live in a bubble long enough, you might learn to become dependent on the security and the daily routine of the bubble -- even when it's an abusive environment. You might learn to fear the real world and freedom of choice.

These are some of the negative side-effects of institutionalization. No matter how qualified or well-intended the doctors, therapists or whoever, if you live in that artificial environment for too long, you're most likely going to suffer some negative effects like "dependence" or loss of confidence.

So real inpatient treatment has to be a short-term deal. Notice that Julie's kid only spent 5 days at Ridgeview. The whole "level1/level2" thing she mentioned about the place bothers me, like it bothers others, but it looked to me like "level1" was meant to be for patients who were going to be admitted and discharged very quickly -- in a matter of days -- where "level2" was more like patients who might be there long enough to start forming relationships -- a few weeks, maybe even a month or so. And the levels didn't sound like BM levels where you lose privileges for not playing the game correctly.

blombro, your complaints about Summit are very eye-opening. If it's a Program, it's not much like the abusive programs usually discussed here. But it doesn't sound like treatment either -- more like daycare for young adults.

Those people should be living in apartments or college dorms, or at home or with relatives if they're unemancipated minors. WTF is the point of wearhousing them like this? Oh yeah, the culture of dependence.

[Oz girl]

I have argued this before but why look for an institutional option at all? Most other countries don't unless there is an extremely severe mental illness. There is a great tendency to debate over what constitutes abuse. I honestly think that there may be a few places that are not abusive at all.  But this is not the only test. it is whether being removed from society is the answer to the issues that kids face.

Unless there is a direct medical need I dont see how institutionalisation can possibly help anyone to function in wider society because it is no reflection of the world that they have to live in.

[nimdA]

1. They create a culture of dependence. The fact that 19 and 20 year olds would prefer to stay in a residential program instead of going out and having a life of their own (although they seem to go out and have a pretty good time of things on the weekends) seems odd.

2. The program is ineffective. The same behaviors that were the cause of the placement are still present years after being in the program, although maybe not as extreme (which could just be a result of maturity).

3. There is an appalling lack of supervision and professionalism. There is a history of staff having inappropriate sexual relationships and drug use and sexual activity are rampant on the campus.

As far as I can tell, they are nothing like a WWASP program or Peninsula Village or Judge Rotenberg (as you were referring to with the electroshock before) or one of the OCFS juvie detentions we have in New York State. It would be unfair to lump Summit in that category.

There are no shades of gray when it comes to dealing with a program. Either they are a treatment facility or they are a program. Summit is a program and as is such its impossible to separate it from the pack of others. Anything less than a treatment facility is totally unacceptable.

Summit may do somethings right. Does it matter?

No.

They are a program. To much middle ground thinking going on here.

[blombro]

TS, I find your generalizations are not in touch with the reality as I see things here in New York.  The line between "therapy" and "program" is thinner than you may want to admit.

The therapeutic hospital that Julie was referring to could turn into a program just as easily as having a new director come in who believes in a strict level system as a way for measuring patient progress and nothing else, or a state administrator who was enthralled with the psychoeducational model that they use at Boys Town and decided that all of the children's psychiatric hospitals use it (it happened here in NYS only for the state run facilities, but was probably actually an improvement on the old system which was even more programmatic).

It is not helpful to say that "therapeutic inpatient" is good, and "program" is bad, because whenever you concentrate power in the hands of a few over a group of disempowered people, you leave your faith in the fact that the monarch is benign.

Summit is not ideal, but for some it is the difference between being in an abusive or neglectful home environment or an abusive or neglectful foster home or being in a juvenile detention facility or being in a worse residential treatment program.  To see the shades of gray is not to condone the taint.

That said, one of the issues that I take with residential treatment as opposed to outpatient services is that you're putting your faith in too many people in positions of power to do the right thing, so the risk of abuse is greater no matter how good the "program" is, which is why I have far more faith in therapeutic foster care (for those times when a youth simply can't deal with their parents) than residential programs.  So there are alternatives, even in the most extreme examples (hard drug use, prostitution, fire setting, assault).  

Finally, Summit is at its core an educational program, not a therapeutic program.  It caters specifically to youth who are in special education (yes many with that label emotionally disturbed) but the reason why I believe many kids stay on past their 18th birthday has to do with getting a high school diploma, which is actually more of an issue with the NYS Department of Education than the school itself.  

It might be worth noting that Summit also has a day program, presumably for youth who live in the area.

Anyway, I realized I've rambled a bit, but especially when you're considering programs that are regulated it is impossible to separate the mental health, education, child welfare, and juvenile justice systems, because many of the kids who go to regulated resdiential programs are involved in all 4.  Going "home" may not actually be an option due to their legal status.  So while a program like Summit might be equally as problematic as JRC, FFS, and Ivy Ridge, treating them in the same way or just lumping them together as "programs" would be like treating an SUV and a Prius the same ways because they are a "car".

[Anonymous]

Blombro:
A program is a program--and you can take up as much space as you wish with your senseless argument as you please--and you will not change anyone's opinion here.

And you are a dyed-in-the-wool ED CON ,and you proved that in your original posting when you defended Summit: and you  have already offered up your weak defense on this matter.

This poster admits she has her son enrolled at Summit, and that this young man is received no REAL THERAPY. She simply keeps him placed there because Summit is being paid by someone OTHER THAN HERSELF. From her description, Summit may be meeting some of her needs; but few if any of the needs of her child.  That's her choice, and she has made it.
She asked for advice---she was given it: She doesn't like the advice offered; and  she have to accept it. That's how it works around here.

Summit is a program; and it AIN'T working for this young man.

But no one needs YOU to describe or define a program, either.  We know what a program IS.

[nimdA]

Middle ground thinking is ozzing out the pores today.

[nimdA]

The therapeutic hospital that Julie was referring to could turn into a program just as easily as having a new director come in who believes in a strict level system as a way for measuring patient progress and nothing else, or a state administrator who was enthralled with the psychoeducational model that they use at Boys [Town and decided that all of the children's psychiatric hospitals use it (it happened here in NYS only for the state run facilities, but was probably actually an improvement on the old system which was even more programmatic).

That is the parental responsibility to ensure such a thing doesn't happen. Should such a thing transpire then the place is no longer a valid place of care, and then should be flame throwered.

It is not helpful to say that "therapeutic inpatient" is good, and "program" is bad, because whenever you concentrate power in the hands of a few over a group of disempowered people, you leave your faith in the fact that the monarch is benign.

Programs are bad no matter how you try spin it. Programs deprive young men and women of their rights. They strip them of their dignity. They force them to accept care that is unwanted or un-needed.

True inpatient or outpatient treatment does neither. Buyer beware always applies to any such place and no matter where you go careful investigation is needed.

Summit is not ideal, but for some it is the difference between being in an abusive or neglectful home environment or an abusive or neglectful foster home or being in a juvenile detention facility or being in a worse residential treatment program.  To see the shades of gray is not to condone the taint.

Shades of gray? It is either right or wrong. Either the place is a program/duckfarm or it isn't. How hard is that to figure out?

That said, one of the issues that I take with residential treatment as opposed to outpatient services is that you're putting your faith in too many people in positions of power to do the right thing, so the risk of abuse is greater no matter how good the "program" is, which is why I have far more faith in therapeutic foster care (for those times when a youth simply can't deal with their parents) than residential programs.  So there are alternatives, even in the most extreme examples (hard drug use, prostitution, fire setting, assault).

There is no such as a good program, stop trying to insist that such a thing could ever exist. . I've been in foster care and it blew ass. Try telling a kid abused in a foster care what he or she thinks of your idea. I bet the response will be one you won't forget in a while. We here on Fornits have been seeing an ongoing trend of abusive group homes, foster care, and other so called therapeutic environments popping with greater frequency.

Finally, Summit is at its core an educational program, not a therapeutic program.  It caters specifically to youth who are in special education (yes many with that label emotionally disturbed) but the reason why I believe many kids stay on past their 18th birthday has to do with getting a high school diploma, which is actually more of an issue with the NYS Department of Education than the school itself.  

Interesting that a facility with many emotionally disturbed kids don't have any sort of proper treatment. No doubt they are to busy making sure all the windows are locked to keep anymore unscheduled parachute jumps don't occur.

It might be worth noting that Summit also has a day program, presumably for youth who live in the area.

Sucks to be the kids in the local area.

Anyway, I realized I've rambled a bit, but especially when you're considering programs that are regulated it is impossible to separate the mental health, education, child welfare, and juvenile justice systems, because many of the kids who go to regulated resdiential programs are involved in all 4.  Going "home" may not actually be an option due to their legal status.  So while a program like Summit might be equally as problematic as JRC, FFS, and Ivy Ridge, treating them in the same way or just lumping them together as "programs" would be like treating an SUV and a Prius the same ways because they are a "car".

 A program is nothing more than a program. I never will accept that lessor degrees of the program is in anyway acceptable than greater degrees. This was thinking some of your own Cafety members applied to Magnolia. They felt that the abuses they went through in their various WWASP programs where so horrific that the corporal punishment doled out by Judge Roy "The Assbeater" Bean was acceptable.

Whether that program be a government or private facility makes no difference to me. Either they provide quality care that isn't forced or they get labeled a damn shithole that needs to be flame throwered.

Forced care is wrong. In the case of Summit they don't even try. Program is at best a warehouse. A warehouse with some desks to pass it off as a school. Funny they did almost the same thing with Straight.

[Anonymous]

A warehouse with some desks to pass it off as a school. Funny they did almost the same thing with Straight.

Straight never advertised itself or promoted itself as a school at all.  In fact, the opposite.  Kids weren't allowed to go to school until or unless they "earned" it and even then it was to local public schools. (Where we were summarily tortured for being the fucking robots that we were terrified into being).  Newton was big on talking about how the kids weren't going to school anyway when he was questioned about the logic of pulling kids out for his "therapy".

[nimdA]

A warehouse with some desks to pass it off as a school. Funny they did almost the same thing with Straight.

Straight never advertised itself or promoted itself as a school at all.  In fact, the opposite.  Kids weren't allowed to go to school until or unless they "earned" it and even then it was to local public schools. (Where we were summarily tortured for being the fucking robots that we were terrified into being).  Newton was big on talking about how the kids weren't going to school anyway when he was questioned about the logic of pulling kids out for his "therapy".

Was aiming more for the idea that straight just tossed a bunch of chairs and a desk or two into a warehouse.. and it seems like that is all Summit has done. More of a comparison of the physical rather than therapeutic similarities.

[Anonymous]

The love affair with inpatient/outpatient programs IMO is misguided. Yes they strip you of dignity and yes they strip you of your first and most important fundamental right of freedom of choice. You can't leave unless they say you can. Most kids brought in come from the hospital after suicide attempt or juvie anyways so it's not like it's some bastion of freedom within the trouled teen industry. The reason I talk about my private program experience more than my own experiences in hospitasl is because it's less traumatic and easier to talk about. So I can definitely see botyh sides to this argument. They are two different, yet very similar ways of degrading and convincing people they are shit, and need to be pooper scoopered out of the way of the better people in society.

[blombro]

I deeply take offense at being called an ed-con.  I have not once and will never refer a youth or a family to a program that houses youth against their will.  My comments about Summit were only to make the point that even the "best" program in NYS isn't good.  If you read carefully you should realize my defense isn't a defense at all, it's a backhanded compliment.

My posts have been about solutions.  If we flame every single "program" to the ground, where do all the kids go?  Foster homes?  As you've said they're crap.  With their parents?  Well, I guess that would be best, force parents to actually learn how to be parents.  Let kids roam the streets?  What about kids who are adjudicated by the courts?  What about kids who are victims of real child abuse?  

I don't have any, but to provide information as accurately as I can, and to try to use my power to pull kids out of residential programs back into the community, and keep those who are at risk of being placed out of residential programs, one kid at a time (which I have done already and will continue to do).  Furthermore, there is a youth that I'm working with other professionals are recommending for Summit, but I refuse to recommend it.  My job (what I actually get paid for) is to make sure that kid stays with their parent.

I would get fired for doing the work of an ed-con and I would choke in my own vomit if I ever did.  So I am asking you to retract that smear.

[Anonymous]

This should go well. :lol: