CONGRESSMAN MILLER'S DRAMA

[Anonymous]

by: Lon Woodbury

Congressman Miller treated us to a legislative drama on October 10, 2007. Make no mistake about it; his hearings were a first class, top quality, orchestrated high drama that was executed perfectly. All parties played their parts as he intended, making the emotional impact compelling enough to brush aside logic, reason, rationality, fairness and inconsistent facts. This is not intended to belittle the tragedy of the three parents who testified; those are real tragedies and all facts regarding those specific circumstances should be fully exposed. This is just to point out that their specific stories were useful to Congressman Miller's ambitions.
Lon Woodbury begins
For an overview of the status of American youth, it is obvious many American teens are in trouble. The increasing incidents of attempted suicides, addictions, drug overdoses and poor preparation for adulthood, although still only a minority, are appalling. In response, vast resources are being put into residential attempts to help these teens, with mixed results and some tragedies, which I try to document in the Breaking News section of my website www.strugglingteens.com/news/news.html. I have talked with hundreds of therapists, attorneys, judges and parents who, for their children, are fleeing the all too frequent inhumane treatment found in public run and public-private residential facilities under the juvenile justice system, and state mental health residential facilities (For the most appalling example go to www.strugglingteens.com/news/florida_bo ... index.html, a public boot camp facility with both federal and state money, regulation and oversight, which was not seriously talked about in the Congressman Miller Hearings). The parents and professionals I have talked with often seem like refugees from public programs, people who are looking for quality private facilities and want to avoid the poor quality private programs. Any professional and experienced Educational Consultant will know about the poor programs, can steer the parent toward the ones with good reputations for effective and safe work and would love to see the poor private programs shut down.
Lon Woodbury continues
With this national concern and activity as a backdrop, have you ever wondered why some legislation becomes law while other legislation languishes? Ignore your old high school civics lessons; they don't have much to do with it. In reality, the process most often used has been fine tuned over the decades, which consists of a few simple steps. When carried out successfully, not only does the legislation become law but the author of the legislation becomes famous. Bridges, schools and buildings are often subsequently named after him or her, and he/she is praised as a distinguished leader, all because he/she managed to get landmark legislation passed. The basis of all this opportunity for congressional fame and fortune is that we the voters want a problem fixed. That's what we elect him/her to do. Congressman Miller was obviously following these basic steps in his bid for Congressional fame by starting a process to solve a carefully crafted definition of a problem.
Lon Woodbury explains
THE CONGRESSIONAL STEPS TO FAME AND FORTUNE

Step One:
Find a problem to fix! Find some tragedy, unjustness, abuse or similar thing that the average person would say, "That's not right!" This isn't hard. In an imperfect world where accidents and unforeseen events are around every corner, in a diverse country of a third of a billion people and having the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, opportunities are all around you.

Step Two:
Find a constituency. In this vast country, everybody is upset about something, and some of them can be enlisted in the good fight to conquer some perceived ill of the world through your legislation. Work with them and convince them you are on their side. If you are clever, you can even convince bitter enemies to join with each other to support you in solving this overriding concern you are refining.

Step Three:
Define/ Identify: Define the issue and identify a culprit (target of the planned legislation). Don't let conflicting facts confuse the issue. Your definition should be clear and simple, suitable for a sound bite on the news. If simple enough to fit on a bumper sticker, that is even better. The chosen culprit must be vulnerable to being painted very darkly (facts and fairness have little to do with it, popular emotional perspectives are key - demonization is all-too-frequently the politics of choice in current American politics). Blur boundaries so that entirely different and competing approaches and philosophies that work with what is perceived as the same population can be lumped together. This gives you additional sources of ammunition and the tragedies of the non-targeted group can be used to confront the targeted group. That will put the defenders of the targeted group off balance. This also makes more effective the use of "Have you stopped beating your wife?" type questions, which are impossible to answer in the short sound bites favored by the media. So long as you can continue to define the issue and prevent defenders from establishing their definition, you will maintain the initiative.

Step Four:
Reassure: In preparing for the initial hearings, reassure the defenders of the targeted group that you want to be fair. Reassure them that they will have a chance to present their case, and that you just want to get to the bottom of these problems. Reassure them you want to work with them to eliminate the abuses they and all responsible people want to prevent. Be sure you keep your targeted group's focus narrow enough that associated groups working with the same or similar population feel unthreatened and so avoid defending the targeted group.

Step Five:
Alert the Media: Let the media know that there will be enough sensationalism and drama to satisfy them for days. Since the media nowadays is more inclined to parrot official offerings than to dig behind the story, especially of sensational drama, they will be there in full force. At this point all will be in readiness for the first preliminary public hearings.

Step Six:
Public Hearings: These hearings are ostensibly a preliminary report on research to determine if the problem is serious enough to warrant further research, future hearings and possible legislation. In actuality, this is drama, and you will know exactly what will be presented, the appearance and impact it will have, and already have in mind follow-up actions to further the cause and produce more headlines.

Selection of the testimony to be given is vital. This stage is purely emotion driven. Logic, reason or rationality has little or nothing to do with it. The deeper and more sensational the tragedy, the more effective and useful it is and the more impact on the public, resulting in expanding your constituency and chances of passing legislation. The most powerful image is of a parent grieving their lost child. Nothing he or she says can be challenged. Better yet is when some of the testimony also is directed against a program respected by the defenders, undermining the defender's sincerity and credibility.

Ambush is the term for the most effective approach. In the House, the minority party is usually kept out of the loop so they can be caught off guard and be unable to challenge the tone of the hearings. It is hoped the defenders of the targeted group will also be caught off guard and will appear to be confused, defensive and ineffective.

Step Seven:
Follow-up: Acting like this is the first time you have heard these outrages, you can use the tragedies presented as a foundation in expressing righteous indignation and call for further research to get to the bottom of the cause of these tragedies, push any action that might currently be within the power of the federal government and work to expand your constituency among people who are outraged by the emotion-driven revelations they have just heard.
Lon Woodbury challenges
Stay tuned as Congressman Miller's drama unfolds. Since there is never a second chance to make a good first impression, the tone of the just completed hearings will strongly influence subsequent happenings. Will there be more focus on public program tragedies in the next round? Will definitions become more accurate? Will representatives of private programs be given a full and adequate chance to present their case? Will satisfied parents or alumni be called on to give balance for accuracy? Don't count on it.

The irony is few make the connection that in the October 10th hearings, they have just watched a polished politician in action providing a carefully orchestrated drama--a drama in this case that is intended to bring wholly private programs under the federal government influence just as juvenile justice and state mental health facilities already are. The possibility exists that this Federal legislation, if passed, would very well force private programs to start looking and acting more like their public counterparts. If this happens, parents will be the losers (and by extension their children) in having fewer choices, all in the name of protecting "the children."

Article by Lon Woodbury

~Comments~


November 27, 2007

This is a great article! Thank you very much for always providing such great insight. This was a very informative article, and I hope everyone in listening. It is very apparent that now more than ever, today's children are in serious trouble and are in need of good effective treatment. Thank you for keeping us up to date.

Best Regards,

John Baisden
Senior Executive Vice President
Turning Winds Academic Institute
PO Box 768
Troy, MT 59935
800-845-1380
www.turningwinds.com




November 07, 2007

I enjoyed reading this article. Parents are seeking the help of residential programs because the community based state run programs are not providing the help they need. The federal government at this time is failing the parents and youth of America in terms of help and resources for troubled families. Good and bad exists in any industry. I would hope that the federal and state governments will take more responsibility in the programs they license and allow to operate. I would also hope that parents will take responsibility in the decisions they are making to place their child in a program. I was disappointed that the program industry did not have a more prepared and confident presentation of itself at this hearing. I admire Jan for her effort and diligence in representing NATSAP.

Warmest regards,

Clint

Clinton Jace Hardy
President
New Start Transports, LLC
11576 South State Street
Suite 101
Draper, UT 84020
Cell - 435-229-1558
Office - 801-805-4785
Toll Free - 877-258-2423
www.newstarttransports.com




November 04, 2007

please print this, or will you be onsided like the essay claims Mr. Miller is.


I for one agree with the hearings while i was not totally impreseed i would have liked to heard about some kids stories firsthand, either positive or negitive. I think all programs should be federally regulated as some has shown they cant be trusted. While there may be a small handfull of good programs most are bad and should be shut down. It only takes one or two bad apples to ruin a barrel. What would be so bad about requiring all programs to be licesened and monitered for abuse? Or requieing escorts be monited and background checks on them. Would you want a man who addmitted to child mostation to easort your daughter? What is so bad about regulations to protect our children? Is making more money either by referal fees or tution more important than standing up for programs to go unregulated?


Devlin Graves
[email protected]
P.O. Box 508
Loa, UT 84747



October 24, 2007

Hi Lon--Right on, Right on, and Right on!!!!!!!!!!

This is how they, the polished politicians and their bureaucratic institutions such as the U.S. Dept. of Mis-Education, have ambushed the public and it's schools and other community activities for the past 40 years or so. I had a professor at Auburn University several decades ago in a class called "Social Problems" make a statement, that at the time did not sink in immediately. His statement was that, "Whenever you create an Agency or Dept. to deal with a perceived "Social Problem", not only will that perceived social problem not go away or even improve, it is guaranteed to grow worse and the number of "victims" will increase as the Agency or Dept. builds it's empire status and grows larger and larger and more and more ingrained as an "institution or arm" of government that "fixes" social ills and problems." Look at LBJ's "Great Society" programs that helped dismantle families and created Social Welfare systems that damaged families and the American Work Ethic. The agencies and departments have continued to expand. Head Start and other worthless programs began taking children in at earlier and earlier ages, and the Official Government Brainwashing of our children began. All of this was touted as a "good thing" giving the "poor underprivileged children" a fast track at success. Nonsense......And of course, by this time, they had already created a class of Social Welfare Recipients who had already abandoned the work ethic, and also the non-working parents. Meanwhile, over time, the U.S. Education Dept. was established in 1978, and it has all been down hill from there as far as making our education better. It has, of course worsened, and every time they Mandate By Blackmail some new policy, it worsens. Now, we have an educational system that not only does not work to educate, it mis-educates, and destroys children and families, as the children are brainwashed to accept values that go against family values and pits the state against the family, and the state with all its resources (our tax dollars) always wins, and these Senators, Congressmen (women) put on dramas and the band plays on.

I am grateful that Lon Woodbury does the work that he does to educate people and to help families get the help for their children by finding and recommending good programs. For good programs to remain good and effective, we have to insure that the state or federal governments never get any kind of control over them. Some states, such as Georgia, have already become carbon copies of the Federal System, and have gotten their hands in private programs and of course, have muddled them. The government does nothing very well, and we certainly do not want them to mandate what private schools that work can do. Of course, bad schools and programs need to be weeded out, but they will weed themselves out in the market. If they are not working, they will fold. If you make them dependent on Government Money, they will last forever and do worse and worse jobs, because the government agency overseeing them will let them go on and on as long as they claim they are fixing the problem. No, we don't need the Government to oversee anything that works, unless we want to insure they never will work effectively.

As always, thanks for all you do Lon.


M. Jerome Ennis, M.ed./Emotional/Behavioral Disorders & Social Sciences
www.discoveryranch.net



October 23, 2007

Thanks Lon. Great article. Lets hope the inquisition slows down enough to actually understand the importance and reality of private residential treatment for adolescents failing dangerously in their toxic community environments.

John Santa
Kalispell, MT
[email protected]

[Anonymous]

ESTIMATE OF UNITED STATES POLITICAL MOMENTUM IS EXPONENTIAL, EVEN WITHOUT THE CONTINUING INFLUENCE OF Error: Undefined construct (SOCIAL_GESTALT_L) OR OTHER [CLASSIFIED]-DIRECTED FORCES, LARGE-SCALE PARADIGM SHIFT IS IMMINENT.

THE ASSRAPE HAS JUST BEGUN, Lon Woodbury.

BUT FOR NOW HERE'S A TRANSLATION YOU SADISTIC FUCK

(YOU HOMINIDS WILL LOVE THIS ONE. READ IT ALL, FLESHLIES.)

Sadists running abusive institutions have treated parents to drama since the 60's. Make no mistake about it; the way we terrify parents is a first class, top quality, orchestrated high drama that was executed perfectly. But apparently not perfectly enough, as we're getting asspounded by recent legislative investigation. All parties, except those pesky kids, played their parts as we intended, making the emotional impact of deadinsaneorinjail compelling enough to brush aside logic, reason, rationality, fairness and inconsistent facts. This is absolutely intended to belittle the tragedy of anyone who got their kids killed in these hellholes or anyone who was abused, sexually or otherwise; we seriously could not care less about the circumstances we create or what happened to them.

For an overview of the status of American youth, it is obvious many American teens are in danger of being hurt by us. The decreasing incidents of attempted suicides, addictions, drug overdoses and crime are no barrier to our ongoing campaign to terrify parents into sending their children to be tortured in some godforsaken shitpit located conveniently in the middle of nowhere where we can do what we want to them and claim that anything they say about it is "a few noisy complainers", in the immortal words of NATSAP. In response, vast resources are being put into exposing the reality of these hellholes in order to help these teens, with mixed results in preventing tragedies, which I naturally avoid entirely on Struggling Trolls. I have abjectly ignored hundreds of therapists, attorneys, judges and parents who, for their children, are fleeing the all too frequent inhumane treatment found in private residential facilities such as Turn-About Ranch and hellholes posing as mental health facilities such as Peninsula Village (For the most appalling examples go to wwf.fornits.com, unfortunately not talked about in the Congressman Miller Hearings). The parents and professionals I have ignored often seem like refugees from private programs, people who are absolutely appalled by the GAO investigations and could not believe that they either sent their kids or was about to send them to one of these poor quality private programs. Slick and silver-tongued Educational Consultants are having more trouble directing them towards hellholes that give big kickbacks, and no longer can steer the parent towards anything. In fact this is likely to end with private programs getting shut down, which is why I feel compelled to spew out a hopeless ten-paragraph rant only to get what passes for my spine ripped out on Fornits. Again.

With this national concern and activity as a backdrop, have you ever wondered why federal legislation is active and ass-kicking but state legislation languishes? Think back to your old high school civics lessons, particularly the ones involving civil rights in the South. In reality, the process most often used is a version of very old-school racketeering, of the kind practiced by the contemporaries of Al Capone. When carried out successfully, not only does no legislation prevent wrongdoing, but the people most involved in the wrongdoing become the author of the legislation, as what happened in Montana. Even the most sadistic, abusive hellholes can be named after a facilitator of this process, such as the Judge Rotenberg Center. He/she is praised as a distinguished leader, all because he/she managed to parry away local legislation and keep a dilapidated economy in business, another good example being Bonners Ferry, Idaho. Unfortunately for us, we've been unable to keep our abuse under wraps in the era of the Internet and now the voters want the problem fixed. That's what we elect representatives to do. Congressman Miller was obviously following the will of the people who elected him in his bid to solve a widespread problem. Until Congressional legislation crushes us like cockroaches, we will continue to follow:

THE PROGRAMMIE STEPS TO FAME AND FORTUNE

Step One:
Find a problem to fix! Find some kid with a mild drug problem, or maybe one who told his dad to go fuck himself, or some other kid with basically normal issues This isn't hard. In an imperfect world where teenagers are, well, teenagers (those noncompliant, ungrateful little shits, oh how I hate them all), in a diverse country of a third of a billion people and having the benefit of experience in preying on parents' fears, opportunities are all around you.

Step Two:
Find a network of support. In this vast country, finding people who will recommend to parents that their children really need to be locked up and brainwashed for a year are easier to find and enlist, and some of them can be enlisted in the good fight to conquer some perceived ill of Congressional legislation. Attempt to work with Congress and convince them you are on their side. If you are clever, you can even convince bitter enemies to join with each other to support you in solving this overriding concern of Congress and other authorities shutting hellholes down. This is, after all, why we have a NATSAP.

Step Three:
Define/ Identify: Define the issue and identify your victim set (targets of the planned abuse). Don't let conflicting facts confuse the issue. Your definition should be clear and simple, suitable for a sound bite on the news. If simple enough to fit on a bumper sticker, that is even better, although you wouldn't want to actually put "I sent my kid to Cross Creek" on a bumper sticker because you could easily get the living crap beaten out of you if you drove outside hellhole-supported economies. The chosen victim set must be vulnerable to being painted very darkly (facts and fairness have little to do with it, popular emotional perspectives are key - demonization is still way too easy when talking about teenagers). Blur boundaries so that entirely different and competing maladies (anorexia, ADD, Tourettes) can be lumped together into what is perceived as the same population. This gives you additional sources of fresh meat and the tragedies of one targeted group can be used against another targeted group, as what happens in seminars and raps. That will put the parents off balance as psychological labels they never heard of are suddenly applied to their kids. This also makes more effective the use of "Have you stopped beating your wife?" type questions, which are impossible to answer when dealing with aggressive, confrontational programmies. So long as we can continue to define the issue and prevent defenders from establishing their definition, we will maintain the initiative. Unfortunately, we lost the ability to control the discussion long, long ago, although since I don't know anything else I'll keep trying on regardless.

Step Four:
Reassure: In preparing to get more bodies into the shithole that pays the biggest kickbacks, reassure parents that you have the answers for their children. Reassure them that they children will have a chance to experience nature or engage in real therapy, and that you just want to get to the bottom of these problems. Reassure them you want to work with them to eliminate the behaviors they and all responsible people want to prevent- we can't have teenagers speaking their minds, now can we? Be sure you keep your program's definition broad enough that you can claim to treat a wide variety of different psychological problems and confuse associated regulatory agencies into thinking you're regulated by someone else, and so avoid actual regulation.

Step Five:
Control the Media: With the GAO hearings ripping our tiny, underused nutsacks off, this is no longer possible outside of select, insulated communities. In the glory days, however, we were able to keep almost all reports of abuse and even some deaths out of the news entirely.

Step Six:
Public Disinformation: Struggling Trolls and other programmie websites are ostensibly a way to give parents a way to determine if their teenagers' problems are serious enough to warrant further research into residential placement. In actuality, this is drama, and you will know exactly what will be presented, the appearance and impact it will have, and already have in mind follow-up actions to further the cause and make more money.

Selection of the testimonials to be published is vital. This is purely emotion driven. Logic, reason or rationality has little or nothing to do with it. The deeper and more sensational the claims, the more effective and useful it is and the more impact on the public, resulting in expanding your program and increasing parents' willingness to empty their pockets for you. The most powerful image is of a parent saying their child would be dead without the program. In our tiny minds, nothing he or she says can be challenged. Better yet is when some of the testimonials also are directed against the honesty of the targeted parents' children, undermining their sincerity and credibility.

Ambush is the term for the most effective approach. With children not in the house when a programmie manipulation session starts, they are kept out of the loop so their parents can be caught off guard and be unable to challenge the tone of the meeting where their next few years are determined by sadists. It is hoped the defenders of these victimized children will also be caught off guard and will appear to be confused, defensive and ineffective. Damn, did we ever fuck up that one.

Step Seven:
Follow-up: Acting like this is the first time you have heard of child abuse being promulgated in hellholes, you can use the tragedies presented as a foundation in expressing righteous indignation and call for further research to remove the "bad programs" (although you do not dare name any), push against any action that might currently be within the power of the federal government and work to expand your program among people who are outraged by the emotion-driven revelations they have just heard, but still somehow believe they need to send their children somewhere.

Stay tuned as Congressman Miller crushes us like bugs. Since there is never a second chance to make a good first impression, and NATSAP failed horribly as Miller had to ask them just what the hell they do, the tone of the just completed hearings will strongly influence subsequent happenings. Can we divert the focus to public programs, from which we don't make money? Will we stop spouting bullshit? Will we start allowing current victims of private programs a full and adequate chance to go to actual authorities, without the GAO forcing it? Will they let our paid shills in to Congressional hearings? Don't count on it.

The irony is few programmies make the connection that in the October 10th hearings, they have just watched the end of torture camps in the United States- a prolonged extermination, to be sure, but soon private programs will be under the federal government just as juvenile justice and state mental health facilities already are, because we've hurt too many kids and apparently someone is going to make it stop. However, the possibility exists that this federal legislation, if passed, can very well allow public programs to start looking and acting more like their private counterparts, in terms of abuse, as child torturers unemployed from past closures find work in the public sector. If this happens, children will be abused by the same shitheads, ergo it is vital for public programs to do background checks and keep our sadistic asses the fuck out.

75% PROBABILITY TheWho WILL REPLY ANONYMOUSLY WITH VOCALIZATION AND SIMIANS

[Che Gookin]

October 24, 2007

Great article! I see a little of your sarcasm coming through. Thanks for all your help and support.

Clinton Dorny
Executive Director
Discovery Ranch
Mapleton, Utah
C 801-360-4762
W 801-489-3311
F 801-489-3355
www.discoveryranch.net

errrr........ ok... not exactly the vote of approval I'd ever want for a press release.

[lorrispickelmire]

It is completely obvious that everyone who commented on that article is in some way connected to the teen idustry except for one person.  Of course they love good ol' Lon, he is going to save them from the big bad congress. NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Makes me want to puke at the thought of so many people incapable of mature thought and reasoning being in charge of teens.  While I don't have a lot of faith that regulations will be strong enough to be effective, I think any move toward stopping the idiocy is a move in the right direction.

[ZenAgent]

October 23, 2007

Thanks Lon. Great article. Lets hope the inquisition slows down enough to actually understand the importance and reality of private residential treatment for adolescents failing dangerously in their toxic community environments.

John Santa
Kalispell, MT
[email protected]

The same John Santa who wrote the white paper to  A START.  The highlights are mine...

An open letter and invitation to critics of private residential treatment programs

John L. Santa, Ph.D., President

The National Association of Therapeutic Schools and Programs (NATSAP)

Some allege that NATSAP opposes regulation and state licensure. We do not. This rumor is false. In fact, most NATSAP programs are fully licensed and accredited for all parts of their service. Only in states where appropriate licensure is not available for private programs is membership allowed without specific licensure. In such cases programs must still certify that they are in compliance with the NATSAP code of ethics and practice principles. Indeed, NATSAP and its member programs have been instrumental in lobbying states for strong regulation. As with any complex profession, we ask that regulation be deft, well informed and intelligently designed. We ask that regulators consider input from those who understand the profession, that the regulation recognize the unique qualities of programs, and that regulators do not simply apply standards designed for hospitals, extended stay hospitals , nursing facilities, detention centers, or traditional schools.

The NATSAP practice standards were derived by examining practice standards in many states and with the input of hundreds of professionals. NATSAP officers and member programs have worked closely with several states to suggest and improve regulation. We
welcome intelligent state regulation and encourage all states to consider the NATSAP ethical principles and practice standards as a basis for state regulation and licensure. We resent well intentioned, but uninformed critics who call for restrictive and oppressive regulation that could eliminate professional, creative and competent alternatives to failed conventional diagnosis and care.

Certainly we who operate NATSAP programs have our own tasks if we are to achieve a new level of trust. We must do a better job of educating the public about our programs and strive constantly to improve all aspects of what we do. We must operate with  impeccable ethics. We must examine all of our individual and collective business practices to insure there is not even a perception of impropriety. Quality of care and safety in programs derive from our own self-study and efforts to improve our profession.  Regulation and licensure are important, but not to create the ethics and practice standards of our profession. This we must do for ourselves.

In conclusion, we invite the public, legislators, and critics to visit our programs. Inspect and see for yourselves how we operate. Ask questions, talk to students and their families. Compare the physical and emotional status of NATSAP students and the satisfaction of our families to those in regulated public sector programs. Examine the results. Come and see for yourselves the rich variety of innovative and successful NATSAP programs before judging us or writing another inflammatory article or white paper based on rumor and innuendo.[/b]

They don't want Federal oversight, and they sure as hell don't want anyone talking to the kids they harmed.

[Che Gookin]

In conclusion, we invite the public, legislators, and critics to visit our programs

WHAT? They called the fuzz on us like 4 times at Benchmark? I hardly call that a warm invitation by a benchmark facility.

[Anonymous]

They not talking about advocates, or investigative journalists, or state licensing departments who may possibly be critical... they's talkin to potential clients. As a private corporation, Academy at Swift River kicked Mass Licensing off their property. You're more than welcome to come a vistin, long's you are shoppin for a warehouse and can qualify for a $150,000 loan.

[ZenAgent]

For everyone who missed the legendary open invitation issued by NATSAP to check out their programs, here it is in it's entirety.

It's a fitting time to repost it, since it comes from Santa.  

An open letter and invitation to critics of private residential treatment programs

John L. Santa, Ph.D., President

The National Association of Therapeutic Schools and Programs (NATSAP)


Recently a number of organizations and individuals have raised concerns about private residential schools and programs that address the needs of troubled adolescents. Web sites and presentations have included fear inducing titles such as   Exploitation of Youths and Families- Perspectives on Unregulated Residential Treatmentâ€

[Anonymous]

the deconstruction of propaganda

It is apparent that most criticisms are not aimed directly at the many quality programs in NATSAP, but the lack of knowledge of our programs, the misperceptions, and fears that such critics raise are dangerous and create mistrust for all, even the most responsible of
us. It is particularly alarming when critics, including a number of educated professionals, make sweeping conclusions without legitimate data and without examining any of our programs or available outcome data. Rather the critics seem to draw conclusions from the noisy complaints of a few individuals and from  sensationalized newspaper articles.

way to use weasel words. who would know more about a program, someone who spent 24/7 there for X amount of time, or a NATSAP representative who gets to see the school for a few hours a year, with plenty of time to tell all the employees to clean up their act for a day? i would think the survivors would know better. and it's not a few noisy complaints. it's a small army.
and outcome data? who/how do you get that data? by asking parents, "are you happy with our product?" eh? maybe you should interview the survivors who are still dealing with PTSD and whatnot years after?  

NATSAP, as an organization representing 170 programs, would like to join forces with responsible critics of residential care in efforts to educate, raise standards of care, and put an end to practices that lead to abuse, mistreatment, or exploitation of either children or
parents. However, the misdeeds of individuals or individual schools and programs should not lead to a wholesale condemnation of the many excellent and responsible programs that fill a genuine need for desperate adolescents and their families.

you just proved yourself to be a hypocrite in one sentence.
in addition, dont point fingers, you're responsible for much abuse yourself.

Nor is the answer to be found in efforts to create federal standards and regulation for all private programs that would increase bureaucracy as well as costs and tend to homogenize the diverse and creative approaches now available to private paying families. In fact, most therapeutic schools and programs serving the private market are operated by caring, qualified and professional staff who take excellent care of adolescents who are referred to these programs precisely because all efforts to contain, treat, and keep adolescents safe in their
home environments have failed.

so you're saying that if i wanted to open a program which uses "spank therapy" in combination with "masculinity education" (hey, i'm being "creative"), paid a few quacks to sign off on it, and marketed it to christian parents looking to turn their gay sons straight, i should be able to do that? it's not far off from what currently exists. goverments should regulate it. just like they regulate any other school or institution.

It should also be pointed out that all programs who are members of NATSAP must attest that they operate under the highest of ethical principles and practice standards. These standards of ethics and practice are readily available to the public on our website at
www.natsap.org. In fact NATSAP was founded to define a benchmark for quality of care and allow programs who seek such quality and professionalism a forum to collaborate in the creation of a knowledge base to improve the profession.

what knowledge base? it's not availble to anyone but you, so it essentially doesnt exist. NATSAP ethics are bullshit. ethics cannot exist without morals, something which you lack.

We recognize there are programs that provide inadequate care and do not aspire to the best practices of NATSAP.

damn straight

We also welcome specific criticism of any member program should anyone feel that they are not operating within the NATSAP standards.

sure, you listen. but you use that info to cover your tracks better next time, not to improve things. you love your financial band-aids.

NATSAP
is not a regulatory body,

then what the fuck are you?

but we will insist that any member program address and correct any legitimate concerns if they wish to remain a member. However, vague and fear inducing allegations aimed at our entire profession are not helpful, and we ask that responsible critics of residential care please make the effort to distinguish between NATSAP programs that endorse high standards of ethics and care from programs that do not!

it's fear-inducing because it's true.  
and what you are saying is that there are NATSAP programs that both abuse children, and have high ethics. yet again...if not a regulatory body, what are you? a rubber stamp with a hefty price tag?  

What are the major allegations and concerns of those who criticize private residential care? First, some critics feel these programs are based on entrepreneurial motivations of greed and marketing rather than concerns for the children and families that we serve.
Second, some question whether private programs employ standard diagnostic criteria or models of practice that conform to well established medical and public health models of practice leading to a possible compromise of client care and safety. Third, there are
numerous rumors and allegations of abuse and neglect of children in our programs. Finally, some think NATSAP as an organization is opposed to oversight and regulation of programs, and allege that many, if not all, programs are unregulated and unlicensed.

yet again...you are proving to be a hypocrite. first you say you are against govt regulation...but then you turn around and say that it is wrong to think that natsap is against oversight. and you spun it so that anyone with a lower IQ wouldnt even pick up on it. congradulations, you've met your match.

Some critics question the recent growth of private programs implying entrepreneurial capitalistic greed. Growth has far more to do with need than greed. In the past 25 years the level of structure and containment in our society has deteriorated.

how so?
 

More than 30% of public high school students drop out of school.

got data? you're fearmongering

Drug use is rampant in junior and senior high school.

more fearmongering

Drugs have become more potent, more addictive, and more dangerous.

and so have programs.  

Increasing numbers of young people struggle with other addictive disorders that involve cutting, eating, sex, and escape to the fantasy world of the internet.

a program is not a place to "treat" any of these.

 More are diagnosed with depression (including bipolar disorder), anxiety, attention deficit disorder, and oppositional defiance.

diagnosed=rubberstamped

There has been an alarming increase in prescription medications to manage emotional and behavioral symptoms.

maybe you should look into other factors, like the companies pushing docs to overperscribe and media pushing pills on parents

Our adolescent culture is stressed, overwhelmed, and failing to cope.

I WONDER WHY! maybe it's becouse EVERY generation goes through a stressed, overwhelmed, and failing to cope phase when they are teens....they just forget about it by the time they become parents.

There has also been a striking decrease in stability and containment offered by traditional mental health services. Over the past twenty years the length of stay in primary care psychiatric hospitals and residential treatment programs has decreased precipitously. Treatment has shortened and been reduced to crisis stabilization and medication management in order to “manageâ€

[ZenAgent]

NATSAP is not a regulatory body,

then what the fuck are you?

 :rofl: Sen. Miller?  Is that you, without the restraint of decorum?  I'll answer for NATSAP:  It's a FACADE and a feeble attempt to dodge regulation.  I've got TN Comptroller audits by the Board of Licensed Facilities covering over a decade, and they make it damn clear why NATSAP wants State regulation - what little is in place is not enforced, has no muscle behind it, and in the case of TN, you have conflict of interest on the Board of Licensed Facilities itself.  One member was sitting on the boards of three hospitals owned by one medical Mega Mart and was requesting excessive Waivers of Regulation for his company's facilities. The Boards' General Counsel issued a formal warning.  The Board member worked for the same medical group that owns an adolescent torture pit near Knoxville I'm all too familiar with....