Trails Carolina - new program

[Whooter]

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?

Interesting point.  If the staff were trained by the program to aggravate the kid into punching him in the face then I would see this as a program problem and fault the program for this incident.  There were 3 staff involved and the one who punched the kid back was not properly trained (or his training had lapsed) so it may have been a training issue in which case it would be the fault of the staff for getting involved.  Thirdly it could have just been personal and unprofessional in which case it was not a reflection of the program and they need to deal with the individual.

But I see your point awake that it could have been "program abuse" if the staff had been trained to initiate that particular response.. Interesting.  But then we could not fault the staff member.



...

[Awake]

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?

Interesting point.  If the staff were trained by the program to aggravate the kid into punching him in the face then I would see this as a program problem and fault the program for this incident.  There were 3 staff involved and the one who punched the kid back was not properly trained (or his training had lapsed) so it may have been a training issue in which case it would be the fault of the staff for getting involved.  Thirdly it could have just been personal and unprofessional in which case it was not a reflection of the program and they need to deal with the individual.

But I see your point awake that it could have been "program abuse" if the staff had been trained to initiate that particular response.. Interesting.  But then we could not fault the staff member.



...

Lol. Well I don’t think many program are trying to get the kids to punch their staff in the face, if that’s what you’re thinking,…….  however I doubt any program expects the child not to want to. The level of aggrevation is subjective and dependent on unique circumstances. What would it take to get you aggravated enough to punch someone? , and doesn’t this matter when considering fault?

[Ursus]

...after my first pass I see basically paperwork issues, not enough fire drills, using the wrong process to document background checks, exceeding restraint time limits,  kid punched out a staff member causing a fight etc.  Looks like the inspection team went over that place with a fine toothed comb but didn’t find anything that warranted action against them accept a response and follow-up.

So overall the program seemed to be in full compliance with no gaping holes with the exception of a staff member who participated in a restraint who had not had up to date training, lost his cool, which resulted in one of the kids getting a bloody mouth.  It seemed to be concluded that the program needs to rewrite their policy of removing the kids shoes and replacing it with another which will be equally effective in keeping kids from running.

Mmm. I don't think so. From V 512 · 27D .0304 Client Rights - Harm, Abuse, Neglect:

This deficiency constitutes a Type B rule violation. An administrative penalty of $200.00 is per day will be imposed for failure to correct within 45 days.[/list]

[Pile of Dead Kids]

Two hundred dollars a day?

That isn't shit.

What good is regulation if the regulators have no teeth?

And, apparently, it's okay for any facility found to be harming, neglecting, and abusing its "clients" to do absolutely nothing about it for almost a month and a half and pay absolutely nothing. Who writes these things?

[Troll Control]

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.

Exactly, Ursus.  This staff member - the Kid Puncher - lied about the incident in his report which was contradicted by other staff in their reports.  This happens all the time to these kids.  They are set up from the beginning as being "not credible" and anytime a staff abuses them and gets caught, they take the "blame the kid" approach.  Why?  Because it works.

[Whooter]

Maybe the staff member should be fired for this.  I dont know him or have access to his background.  I wasnt there when the audit team spoke to him.  Reading a few lines on the internet doesnt qualify me to decide if a person should loss their job or not.  I think we can find some comfort in the fact that the incidents (although conflicting) were well documented and some discomfort in the fact that the stories did not line up.  So I can see both sides of the issue and see why many here would want this staff person removed.
The consensus of the audit team and school management team is to get the staff person some more training.



...

[Whooter]

...after my first pass I see basically paperwork issues, not enough fire drills, using the wrong process to document background checks, exceeding restraint time limits,  kid punched out a staff member causing a fight etc.  Looks like the inspection team went over that place with a fine toothed comb but didn’t find anything that warranted action against them accept a response and follow-up.

So overall the program seemed to be in full compliance with no gaping holes with the exception of a staff member who participated in a restraint who had not had up to date training, lost his cool, which resulted in one of the kids getting a bloody mouth.  It seemed to be concluded that the program needs to rewrite their policy of removing the kids shoes and replacing it with another which will be equally effective in keeping kids from running.

Mmm. I don't think so. From V 512 · 27D .0304 Client Rights - Harm, Abuse, Neglect:

This deficiency constitutes a Type B rule violation. An administrative penalty of $200.00 is per day will be imposed for failure to correct within 45 days.[/list]

This fine is to increase the pain level a little more so that the school doesnt respond with "The next training session in our area isnt until 6 months from now."  The $200 a day makes it more cost effective for the school to fly this staff person out for training ASAP.  It lights a little fire under them.  Thats all... $200 a day is $6,000 a month which tips the scales and makes for a better business decision to get the training done sooner.

Things like scheduling extra fire drills is not difficult to implement and probably history has shown they dont need to hold a monetary fine over their heads to get the changes done.



...

[Troll Control]

Maybe the staff member should be fired for this.

No maybe's.  This guy should have been terminated on the spot.  I worked with a much rougher population than this (mostly straght from jail) and never had a physical, ever.  This is the axiomatic Golden Rule for working with kids: YOU DON'T ASSAULT THEM, NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO.  

There's just no excuse for it.  It shows bad character.  It's a bad fit for the profession.  And as long as he's there he will be made an issue by people like us, causing further damage to the facility's reputation, so it's bad for business as well.  Firing that guy is a complete no-brainer from all perspectives.

[Whooter]

Maybe the staff member should be fired for this.

No maybe's.  This guy should have been terminated on the spot.  I worked with a much rougher population than this (mostly straght from jail) and never had a physical, ever.  This is the axiomatic Golden Rule for working with kids: YOU DON'T ASSAULT THEM, NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO.  

There's just no excuse for it.  It shows bad character.  It's a bad fit for the profession.  And as long as he's there he will be made an issue by people like us, causing further damage to the facility's reputation, so it's bad for business as well.  Firing that guy is a complete no-brainer from all perspectives.

You may be right.  But we dont have all the facts, dont know this guy or his history and my view is that it should be left to those people who were closer to the situation and are better able to evaluate it.  Determining if a person should lose there job or not based on a few lines in a report is a little too reckless for me.  



...

[DannyB II]

Thanks Ursus, after my first pass I see basically paperwork issues, not enough fire drills, using the wrong process to document background checks, exceeding restraint time limits,  kid punched out a staff member causing a fight etc.  Looks like the inspection team went over that place with a fine toothed comb but didn’t find anything that warranted action against them accept a response and follow-up.

So overall the program seemed to be in full compliance with no gaping holes with the exception of a staff member who participated in a restraint who had not had up to date training, lost his cool, which resulted in one of the kids getting a bloody mouth.  It seemed to be concluded that the program needs to rewrite their policy of removing the kids shoes and replacing it with another which will be equally effective in keeping kids from running.

It would be interesting to see the corrective action responses to some of the actions particularly restraint training and policy.
 
...

Oh boy, paperwork discrepancies and a bloody lip. Yep need a congressional hearing on this one. No wonder why Ursus wanted to play in the mud,ya got noth'in and never had noth'in.
I love it when your ethics are on the screen, you just keep delivering over and over.
Kids who are belligerent, hostile and out of control, staff who are young and learning. Let me see here, hundreds of thousands of children have gone through these programs and we have a isolated bloody lip here.
I will not even comment on paper issues, with all of America in disrepair as we speak bridges, roads, public schools, ect....were going to chastise Trails Carolina for their paperwork issues.
Yeh guys lets get the extremist engine running.

[DannyB II]

Maybe the staff member should be fired for this.

No maybe's.  This guy should have been terminated on the spot.  I worked with a much rougher population than this (mostly straght from jail) and never had a physical, ever.  This is the axiomatic Golden Rule for working with kids: YOU DON'T ASSAULT THEM, NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO.  

There's just no excuse for it.  It shows bad character.  It's a bad fit for the profession.  And as long as he's there he will be made an issue by people like us, causing further damage to the facility's reputation, so it's bad for business as well.  Firing that guy is a complete no-brainer from all perspectives.

...

Well DJ you would be the first to never have to defend yourself if a altercation was to happen. Part of your training working with folks who come out of prisons is self-defense, so I am not sure where you worked.
You have to be aware of your population and what they can do.
Should he should be fired sure if he hit back with the sole intent of vindication but if he was defending himself well I don't have enough facts yet. Did he punch the kid, wrestle with him, grap him ya know what. Was this kid a bully, very aggressive. Was the staff a bully and out of control.

[Troll Control]

Maybe the staff member should be fired for this.

No maybe's.  This guy should have been terminated on the spot.  I worked with a much rougher population than this (mostly straght from jail) and never had a physical, ever.  This is the axiomatic Golden Rule for working with kids: YOU DON'T ASSAULT THEM, NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO.  

There's just no excuse for it.  It shows bad character.  It's a bad fit for the profession.  And as long as he's there he will be made an issue by people like us, causing further damage to the facility's reputation, so it's bad for business as well.  Firing that guy is a complete no-brainer from all perspectives.

You may be right.  But we dont have all the facts, dont know this guy or his history and my view is that it should be left to those people who were closer to the situation and are better able to evaluate it.  Determining if a person should lose there job or not based on a few lines in a report is a little too reckless for me.  



...

You just don't understand the profession.  This is the biggest no-no in the book (along with sexual relations with clients).  I'll chalk this up to your lack of understanding of how serious this incident really is.  He's not some "poor guy" who is a "victim."  

Whatever his past history, he struck a child in the face with a closed fist.  He should have been summarily dismissed.  Plain and simple.  There is no gray area here.  He could have just walked away, as he should have.  But he chose to batter this child and his collegues prove he lied about it in his report, also a fireable offense.  Sorry, dude, but you are not being the "voice of reason" here - you're making excuses for violence against an institutionalized child, the most helpless victims of all.

[Joel]

Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010

[Whooter]

Maybe the staff member should be fired for this.

No maybe's.  This guy should have been terminated on the spot.  I worked with a much rougher population than this (mostly straght from jail) and never had a physical, ever.  This is the axiomatic Golden Rule for working with kids: YOU DON'T ASSAULT THEM, NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO.  

There's just no excuse for it.  It shows bad character.  It's a bad fit for the profession.  And as long as he's there he will be made an issue by people like us, causing further damage to the facility's reputation, so it's bad for business as well.  Firing that guy is a complete no-brainer from all perspectives.

You may be right.  But we dont have all the facts, dont know this guy or his history and my view is that it should be left to those people who were closer to the situation and are better able to evaluate it.  Determining if a person should lose there job or not based on a few lines in a report is a little too reckless for me.  



...

You just don't understand the profession.  This is the biggest no-no in the book (along with sexual relations with clients).  I'll chalk this up to your lack of understanding of how serious this incident really is.  He's not some "poor guy" who is a "victim."  

Whatever his past history, he struck a child in the face with a closed fist.  He should have been summarily dismissed.  Plain and simple.  There is no gray area here.  He could have just walked away, as he should have.  But he chose to batter this child and his collegues prove he lied about it in his report, also a fireable offense.  Sorry, dude, but you are not being the "voice of reason" here - you're making excuses for violence against an institutionalized child, the most helpless victims of all.

I understand your opinion and the situation.  I just disagree with you, I wasnt there at the meeting where they discussed the details of the altercation and what transpired.  They obviously felt that the situation would be better served/resolved by getting the person training instead of taking his job away.

We differ on this and that is okay.



...

[Ursus]

Maybe the staff member should be fired for this.

No maybe's.  This guy should have been terminated on the spot.  I worked with a much rougher population than this (mostly straght from jail) and never had a physical, ever.  This is the axiomatic Golden Rule for working with kids: YOU DON'T ASSAULT THEM, NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO.  

There's just no excuse for it.  It shows bad character.  It's a bad fit for the profession.  And as long as he's there he will be made an issue by people like us, causing further damage to the facility's reputation, so it's bad for business as well.  Firing that guy is a complete no-brainer from all perspectives.

You may be right.  But we dont have all the facts, dont know this guy or his history and my view is that it should be left to those people who were closer to the situation and are better able to evaluate it.  Determining if a person should lose there job or not based on a few lines in a report is a little too reckless for me.

You just don't understand the profession.  This is the biggest no-no in the book (along with sexual relations with clients).  I'll chalk this up to your lack of understanding of how serious this incident really is.  He's not some "poor guy" who is a "victim."  

Whatever his past history, he struck a child in the face with a closed fist.  He should have been summarily dismissed.  Plain and simple.  There is no gray area here.  He could have just walked away, as he should have.  But he chose to batter this child and his collegues prove he lied about it in his report, also a fireable offense.  Sorry, dude, but you are not being the "voice of reason" here - you're making excuses for violence against an institutionalized child, the most helpless victims of all.

I understand your opinion and the situation. I just disagree with you, I wasnt there at the meeting where they discussed the details of the altercation and what transpired. They obviously felt that the situation would be better served/resolved by getting the person training instead of taking his job away.

We differ on this and that is okay.

Well, if this guy is who I think he is, he's probably not a long-time industry ideologue, but has worked in the industry for a few years prior.

Worth noting, if you read between the lines in the Statement of Deficiencies, he wasn't up-to-date with his restraint training at the time of the incident (12/23/2009), but was current immediately thereafter: "his Crisis Prevention Intervention (CPI) training was effective 1/10 through 1/11." My guess is Trails Carolina knew full well the seriousness of this offense and strove to correct their training defiencies el pronto. Before the state of North Carolina was even able to investigate.

Also worth noting is the fact that this staff member is no longer listed on their website, although his brief bio is still available if you know the link.