Trails Carolina - new program

[Troll Control]

At first pass it seems this facility is doing almost everything in an illegal manner.  These aren't "paperwork issues."  Two staff members reported a third staff member punched a kid in the face.  Paperwork?  Bullshit.

Like I said, a list of what they were doing right would be a very short list indeed.

[Whooter]

Thanks for posting the information Ursus.  I think it would be a wise idea for the state of North Carolina to suspend enrollment until the program complies with company policies and state laws.  The State of North Carolina could also take actions against Trails Carolina like the State of Oregon did against the shit pit ASPEN program Mount Bachelor Academy.  I think both solutions are appropriate.  

Reading through the complaint and findings I don’t see where there would be any risk to new enrollees.  If there were a company policy that stated “staff must punch kids in the face” then I could see suspending enrollment because company policy would jeopardize the children’s safety and wellbeing.

Sometimes it is good to put it in another perspective.  Suppose an employee at McDonalds punched out a customer and give him/her a bloody mouth.  The popular sentiment would not be for the state to step in and prevent people from eating there.  I also don’t think that people would view all fastfood restaurants as abusive based on this incident.  See what I mean?

For the most part this program is doing all the right things they just need to get their act together and follow the local code more closely.  I think you will see that they don’t even get a slap on the hand because of the discrepancies found.



...

[Troll Control]

How about the fact that the guy who likes to punch kids in the face is still employed there?  Don't you think that new enrollees are going to be subject to this dangerous individual?  Maybe next time he chokes a kid (or already has)?  Or maybe next time he punches a kid in the face he causes permanent brain damage.  The fact he even still works there is alarming at least and criminally negligent at worst.  

How about that Trails Carolina didn't report this child abuse?  What else has their staff done to kids that went unreported?

Your constant apologies for this abusive facility say a lot about you and program supporters in general.

[Whooter]

How about the fact that the guy who likes to punch kids in the face is still employed there?  Don't you think that new enrollees are going to be subject to this dangerous individual?  Maybe next time he chokes a kid (or already has)?  Or maybe next time he punches a kid in the face he causes permanent brain damage.  The fact he even still works there is alarming at least and criminally negligent at worst.  



Your constant apologies for this abusive facility say a lot about you and program supporters in general.

Nobody is apologizing for Trails Carolina that I am aware of, I am certainly not.  We are discussing a report that came out and that Ursus posted.
Having the facts in front of us makes this discussion a lot easier.  The people conducting the interview spoke with the staff and management.  If they felt this person was a threat to other students then they would have noted this in the report or would have surfaced.  If you read through the various steps you will see that the kid was out of control and attacked the staff person and punched him in the mouth and the staff lost his cool and responded by punching him back.  What they typically do is look at all the pieces and the persons history in the industry.  If he had a history of violence then maybe they would suggest his being removed.

You and I sitting here do not have the advantage and information to assess whether or not this person is a danger to the other students.  For all we know he might have a long history of working with children and this was his first incident.  I dont think we can judge down to that level.

I think if their policy advocated punching children in the mouth then I would side with you and say the program should be terminated until they have a change in policy.  Children would certainly be placed in harms way in my opinion.  But this was not the case.

How about that Trails Carolina didn't report this child abuse?  What else has their staff done to kids that went unreported?

None, they went through and audited their records and didnt find any other incidences.  There was only the one incident.



...

[Troll Control]

You're not very convincing.  Who cares what the stated policy is if they clearly don't follow it?  A bunch of these violations are for items where they didn't even follow their own policy.  Right now they have policy that says "Never commit physical violence against a child" and they did it anyway.

Since they don't follow their own reporting policy the conclusion can be drawn that there were likely other events of abuse/neglect that didn't make it into their own reports to be reviewed by the state.  I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that if the kid puncher were alone with that kid that report would never have been filed.

[Whooter]

You're not very convincing.  Who cares what the stated policy is if they clearly don't follow it?  A bunch of these violations are for items where they didn't even follow their own policy.  Right now they have policy that says "Never commit physical violence against a child" and they did it anyway.

Since they don't follow their own reporting policy the conclusion can be drawn that there were likely other events of abuse/neglect that didn't make it into their own reports to be reviewed by the state.  I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that if the kid puncher were alone with that kid that report would never have been filed.

Of course you could speculate that, any of us could speculate anything we want,  But the fact is that they documented the incident, there is no getting around that fact.
We could also applaud them for documenting the details of the incident....  dates times, how long he was restrained, who hit who first etc.   Depends on your point of view, I guess.



...

[Ursus]

You're not very convincing.  Who cares what the stated policy is if they clearly don't follow it?  A bunch of these violations are for items where they didn't even follow their own policy.  Right now they have policy that says "Never commit physical violence against a child" and they did it anyway.

Since they don't follow their own reporting policy the conclusion can be drawn that there were likely other events of abuse/neglect that didn't make it into their own reports to be reviewed by the state.  I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that if the kid puncher were alone with that kid that report would never have been filed.

Of course you could speculate that, any of us could speculate anything we want,  But the fact is that they documented the incident, there is no getting around that fact.
We could also applaud them for documenting the details of the incident....  dates times, how long he was restrained, who hit who first etc.   Depends on your point of view, I guess.

Given that there were two other staff who witnessed — and to some degree participated — in this assault, it would have been sheer folly to pretend that it never happened.

[Joel]

Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010

[Whooter]

Given that there were two other staff who witnessed — and to some degree participated — in this assault, it would have been sheer folly to pretend that it never happened.

Exactly, that’s why there is so much emphasis placed on documenting each event no matter how small.  To you and I a teenager acting out and getting in a fight may seem normal ,especially in a program for troubled teens, but for the childs family and for tracking purposes it is important to document the events.  Agencies can use this data to determine if one school seems to have a higher incidence than normal which could spark an investigation… or just the opposite, if a program has zero incidences this may raise an eyebrow as to whether or not they are following the proper reporting procedures.

Even public schools now document every incident and submit reports in triplicate to the appropriate agencies.   Most of this is driven by lawsuits and if a staff person doesn’t follow procedure (and puts the school at risk, exposes them to lawsuits) he/she risks getting fired and never working in the profession again.



...

[Ursus]

Given that there were two other staff who witnessed — and to some degree participated — in this assault, it would have been sheer folly to pretend that it never happened.

Exactly, that’s why there is so much emphasis placed on documenting each event no matter how small.

Not really. From the standpoint of a staff member covering their ass, if there are no witnesses, why not report it in a way that minimizes their fault, if at all?

In fact, that is exactly what happened. The Facilities Manager claimed the kid injured himself whilst trying to bite him. Pity for the Facilities Manager that ... the other two staff members didn't quite see it that way. They witnessed the Facilities Manager punching the kid in the mouth, with the kid getting a bloody lip as a result of that punch.

As to "documenting each event no matter how small," we do not know that, nor can infer it from how staff behaved, and documented or didn't document, in this particular incident. If anything, we can infer that the Facilities Manager may be prone to covering his ass at the expense of the truth.

[Whooter]

Is Whooter doing damage control again?  :roflmao:

Joel, I responded to your post with good intentions.  Instead of joining the conversation you decide to just make fun of people?  Why do you do that?



...

[Ursus]

If you read through the various steps you will see that the kid was out of control and attacked the staff person and punched him in the mouth and the staff lost his cool and responded by punching him back.

I did not get the impression that the kid was out of control. Sure, he may have been a handful, but nothing that a "professional" couldn't handle, eh?

The impression that *I* got was that he was initially uncooperative and refused to do the task that he was supposed to do, and that staff escalated the situation by insisting on cooperation, rather than deescalating it or leaving it be.

From the kid's POV, he may have even felt goaded into this altercation. *I* probably would have.

[Froderik]

If you read through the various steps you will see that the kid was out of control and attacked the staff person and punched him in the mouth and the staff lost his cool and responded by punching him back.

Not so cool of him, eh?

[Whooter]

If you read through the various steps you will see that the kid was out of control and attacked the staff person and punched him in the mouth and the staff lost his cool and responded by punching him back.

I did not get the impression that the kid was out of control. Sure, he may have been a handful, but nothing that a "professional" couldn't handle, eh?

The impression that *I* got was that he was initially uncooperative and refused to do the task that he was supposed to do, and that staff escalated the situation by insisting on cooperation, rather than deescalating it or leaving it be.

From the kid's POV, he may have even felt goaded into this altercation. *I* would have.

I read it a little differently.  The kid was out of control and started hitting the staff (punched one in the face) and one of the lead staff lost his cool and punched him back.  Neither one of us was there so it is a difficult discussion.  We need to yield to the people who conducted the interviews on the three involved.  From the report it didnt seem like they needed to take it further and were satisfied with the way it was reported.
I am sure each person may read it differently.  Maybe the staff did escalate it which would be an indication that more training is needed.  It was noted that the lead staff had not been current with his training and should not have been involved.  So it appears to be a training issue on the surface.



...

[Awake]

If you read through the various steps you will see that the kid was out of control and attacked the staff person and punched him in the mouth and the staff lost his cool and responded by punching him back.

I did not get the impression that the kid was out of control. Sure, he may have been a handful, but nothing that a "professional" couldn't handle, eh?

The impression that *I* got was that he was initially uncooperative and refused to do the task that he was supposed to do, and that staff escalated the situation by insisting on cooperation, rather than deescalating it or leaving it be.

From the kid's POV, he may have even felt goaded into this altercation. *I* would have.

I read it a little differently.  The kid was out of control and started hitting the staff (punched one in the face) and one of the lead staff lost his cool and punched him back.  Neither one of us was there so it is a difficult discussion.  We need to yield to the people who conducted the interviews on the three involved.  From the report it didnt seem like they needed to take it further and were satisfied with the way it was reported.
I am sure each person may read it differently.  Maybe the staff did escalate it which would be an indication that more training is needed.  It was noted that the lead staff had not been current with his training and should not have been involved.  So it appears to be a training issue on the surface.



...

This brings back an old conversation. The counselor may have been aggravating the ‘client’ (in this doc.) but doing it appropriately according to the program. How do we evaluate fault? Everyone is going to defend themselves under certain personal circumstances. In evaluating fault, root cause, and who is defending from who, don’t we need complete transparency from programs as to their process?