If You had the chance to speak at NATSAP

[wdtony]

Questions:

Is this event open to the public? I think I might like to attend.

Will Psy and Ginger be able to debate? Will anyone else who has been in a program be able to comment?

This seems to be a completely different event compared to what was described earlier as something between Fornits folk and NATSAP alone. This changes everything as far as the dynamic of the meeting and who will be involved.

No one mentioned this type of event being a debate. Is this something entirely independent of what was being discussed or is this the larger picture of what was being discussed?

Will this be covered by any media outlets?

HI everyone.

To clarify any misconception, this is a proposed and tentative schedule.  

In response to questions above, I would think anyone could come, you'd just have to register. Its a conference, most conferences charge a fee ranging from $200 to $400 per person.  I would think the same would apply to this one, though I don't know the costs.

Participants and the people sitting on the panel are part of the people involved in the initial proposal, talks and advocacy efforts, you would have to ask the people involved in organizing the conference about including other participants.  

Yea, this is unrelated to Fornits, fornits being a forum with a bunch of people with a bunch of different views - meaning this was in the works before Mike made his inquiry and a very different effort in that CAFETY is an organization with a strategic plan and policy agenda developed by reaching a consensus among its members...   So, anyone can comment generally speaking, as individuals.  We all are entitled to share our opinions, of course, and is done with regularity here!  But this conference session isn't a public hearing, so to speak.  

I think CAFETY will have some kind of vid documentation of the event, mainstream media probably wouldn't be interested... not sure it'd be appropriate for a conference.  But, who knows?  Its all in the planning stages.

Anyway, it would great to get some feedback and hear what others may think make valuable talking points, beyond the usual CAFETY talking points.  Some of them are listed below - but also include some things mentioned at the Capitol Hill Briefing in Feb 2009  (more on that here:  http://cafety.org/events/archives-confe ... ry-19-2009 ) along the lines of continuum of care, thought reform, parental education, and youth being partners in their own care:

http://cafety.org/images/stories/docume ... tation.doc

Access to advocates

The right to due process/Ban on Escorts

Alternatives to aversive behavioral interventions

Alternatives to restraints and seclusion

Routine reporting of abuse in residential treatment programs

Federal government oversight and regulation of residential treatment programs

Ratification of the Children's Rights Convention

Ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its Optional Protocol

Lower the Age for Consent to mental health treatment

http://cafety.org/policy-briefs

In solidarity,

kat

Kat,

Thank you for answering my questions and explaining what this conference will entail. I am very interested in discussing many of the talking points you mentioned above as well as general views held by CAFETY and ASTART. Personally, I do not care for NATSAP.

I would hope that CAFETY could collect video coverage of this conference for informational purposes and for posterity.

I am hopeful that this will be a good vehicle to start making changes to a largely broken and corrupt teen-help industry.

Tony

[wdtony]

Kat.  The IECA conference you speak of is a different event.  The NATSAP event we are invited to takes place in late January of next year in southern California.

So does this mean that NATSAP is scrambling to save themselves or just trying to get into bed with any organization against institutionalized child abuse?

I do hope this isn't a ploy to legitimize themselves as a bonafide trade organization as mentioned earlier. I liked what I heard in one of the congressional hearings where George Miller aksed what exactly NATSAP did? I remember hearing someone say repeatedly that NATSAP was essentially giving the "good housekeeping seal of approval" and that NATSAP was giving this false sense of accountability.

Quite possibly the pressure is so high that NATSAP is actually considering drastic changes to stay afloat. We can only hope.

[katfish]

Kat.  The IECA conference you speak of is a different event.  The NATSAP event we are invited to takes place in late January of next year in southern California.

Thanks Mike!  I didn't see any of the specs posted here, sorry for confused interjection - is this a general presentation?  That's fantastic news.  Would love to hear more details.  

On to a quick brainstorm response to your question!

I suggest a significant change in policy as far as membership w/in NATSAP.  Some policies I think make basic common sense are posted above.  Those not posted above would be having members change program policy to ensure youth voice is heard, true individualized care is achieved (not a one size fits all program), maybe suggesting youth advocates as a rule for all programs, and that member programs accept youth only close to home (at least in the same state!)

I would explore other trade orgs that are considered youth friendly (AACRC) and find out what makes them so - (even if by my own standards, are still not youth friendly enough if not blanketly discriminatory, depending on your position on residential care) and see about adopting similar policies.

Ask them to become signatories of the Building Bridges Initiative.

Beyond abusive institutionalization, I think discussing over/Inappropriate institutionalization would be very important. Yes, you talk about consent I think, but beyond that is, even if a child wants to be locked up b/c they're 'encouraged' to be, the question is also whether or not they can be served in their community, and even, I would argue separate is not equal.  So, in other words, institutionalization is to be avoided at all costs and NATSAP needs to get with the times and abide by what consumers of mental health tx have been arguing since the 1970's, if not earlier: integration, not segregation.  At 13 I knew I needed help, I was very unstable, and for some time I thought I had to be taken away from my family and was crazy - as such, needed to be taken away from the community.  I fully disagree with this now, and disagree with this approach for other youth in similar positions, particularly given what I now about community based services that exist (that not enough families use/know about now).  My family was nuts, its clear I could have been helped at home.  If my parents didn't get it together, doubtful they would have, it would have been useful to learn to cope and have some one help make sense of my home life and normalize my responses to such an environment and help cope/change my belief system/biological response.  All this to say, NATSAP should be a org made up of community base programs, with very few res tx programs.  


 I think the BBI would be helpful as guiding principles and noting some points made (linked above) on Capitol Hill info  re: continuum of care would help make this point.  They could potentially change culture of the industry changing their membership criteria (and way they ensure these are met) by choosing to represent programs that subscribe to those principles and are carefully attuned (as in aware that its crazy) to the crazy speak of Rudy Bentz or Randall Hinton or willfully ignorant speak of Lon Woodbury (as in NATSAP would be aware that some stakeholder in the industry just like to talk out of their ...) of the industry - basically up their moral code, ethical standards and knowledge base expectations.  

Beyond that, don't have much.  Hard to have a discussion about residential care, when they so clearly represent programs that misuse it and its so deeply embedded in their culture.  I think pitting some programs against other may be key, shame can be a powerful motivator for change.  Much as the way the UN operates...

Finally, if you see John Mercer of MMS, can you tell him I said 'Yup, you were right.  Accountability IS key!'

[katfish]

So does this mean that NATSAP is scrambling to save themselves or just trying to get into bed with any organization against institutionalized child abuse?

I do hope this isn't a ploy to legitimize themselves as a bonafide trade organization as mentioned earlier. I liked what I heard in one of the congressional hearings where George Miller aksed what exactly NATSAP did? I remember hearing someone say repeatedly that NATSAP was essentially giving the "good housekeeping seal of approval" and that NATSAP was giving this false sense of accountability.

Quite possibly the pressure is so high that NATSAP is actually considering drastic changes to stay afloat. We can only hope.

I don't know what their deal is.  What CAFETY has in the works differs greatly from what Mike (and Ginger?) is to participate in, from what I gather.  I don't see any specs on it, so hard to say...

My sense, though, is that they probably think it would behoove them to reply to educational efforts (presumably what Mike is doing) or debates, particularly given that CAFETY will be working to educate the ed cons not in the know (and the few that may be ethical) and is advocating strongly for a change of IECA policies that have helped sustain innappropriate/abusive institutionalization... but I don't see that NATSAP is particularly inclined to get involved.  They'd rather everyone disappear, is my sense.  If Mike has reached out to them and communicated with them further, directly, he may see things differently, though.  

I sill think they see as 'noisy complainers'.

[psy]

Quite possibly the pressure is so high that NATSAP is actually considering drastic changes to stay afloat. We can only hope.

Well.  It's not NATSAP itself I hope to reach.  Rather those few "Moral Busybodies" in the audience.

[katfish]

Quite possibly the pressure is so high that NATSAP is actually considering drastic changes to stay afloat. We can only hope.

Well.  It's not NATSAP itself I hope to reach.  Rather those few "Moral Busybodies" in the audience.

What was the response of NATSAP, Mike?  Did they seem receptive to you speaking?

[Ursus]

One thing I'd really like to know is... who broached the issue of an invitation first? Mike/Ginger? Or someone from NATSAP? And if the latter, which person would that be?

[wdtony]

One thing I'd really like to know is... who broached the issue of an invitation first? Mike/Ginger? Or someone from NATSAP? And if the latter, which person would that be?

Excellent questions.

And if it was someone from NATSAP, did they also extend the invitation to CAFETY/ASTART first?

[katfish]

One thing I'd really like to know is... who broached the issue of an invitation first? Mike/Ginger? Or someone from NATSAP? And if the latter, which person would that be?

Excellent questions.

And if it was someone from NATSAP, did they also extend the invitation to CAFETY/ASTART first?

Oh no, NATSAP would never reach out to CAFETY!  Ha, that would be that one bright day in the middle of the night.  IECA certainly didn't reach out to us either, fyi.  People in power don't usually reach out to the disempowered... The only folks who have specifically solicited us has been the National Association for Regulatory Administration (NARA) which was great.  That should be a fantastic conference to be a part of.  

I've met a few NATSAP leaders at the American Psychological Association conference- Jan Moss and.... I'll have to look to see who the other person was.  It was difficult to stand in the same room as her without displaying my clear feeling of disgust and disdain. At that time, I had to walk away and let others do the talking.  This was in 2005, maybe 2006, I think, when they were clearly interested in dismissing the problem and their role in it and completely negating the experiences of the pple who attended the abusive programs they represent. I was too angry at that time to be coherent in front of people like them.

It is a little bit like engaging the enemy, but for me it was difficult b/c the guy that ran my program and was extremely abusive was a founding member, on the board and well respected.  So its a bit strange, to try to convince pple who simply don't believe the survivor experience as valid and they are the leadership!  

Reaching out to IECA was different, though they too would seem to represent the enemy.  Their leadership is receptive to change, though, and  doesn't seem entirely invested in remaining part of the problem.  That is critical.  Whether or not this will result in substantive change remains to be seen.  I had connected with Mark, their ED, simply to convey to him my concerns about the ed con who sent me to MMS.   BACKSTORY (skip if you'd like): I had called her for some info on my record and we got to talking.  It became clear to me she was as ignorant as they come.  Worse, dismissive and basically  she said that regulation would hinder programs by making them cost prohibitive, that people who run programs/therapy groups don't need a mental health degree, she wanted to know if I had found God, suggesting I was in the wrong for feeling outraged and said that she would send me my information only if I promised not to use it against 'her firends' at MMS.  So, of course I had to do something - if my ed con represented even a  small fraction of ed cons (likely that and more), that meant hundreds/thousands of kids were basically effed.

I went to file a complaint and began a dialogue with Mark about potential policy changes and educational efforts that were important to the members of CAFETY.  He was open to hearing us out and we submitted a bunch of docs on de-institutionalization, community care, the bit of data we have on the scope of the problem, GAO reports and our position papers.  Brian met with him and formalized the proposal for their conference. Some discussion was had about how these would take shape, including a proposed NATSAP debate, and so that's where we stand now...


I feel more comfortable having a mediator, even if it's IECA, than going directly to NATSAP at this point because it doesn't seem they're ready...  but.. perhaps that's irrelevant?  Or, even better, perhaps not reality!  I guess we'll see!  Of course some members will be open, and I think Mike is on point with that as a focal point.  I think we could shame and create enough of a rift to weed the good guys from the bad... if nothing else.  I'd like to see their entire org reshaped.  You can't just represent a bunch of business served consumers without having consumer input.  That's so... 1950's... 1960's.. 1970's.  Its done.  We've learned much from people who have paved the way long before I came around (such and UNSUP - Tina Minkowitz) ...  Just more work needs to be done.

They did spend 30k lobbying, I'd like to know what their position is on H.R. 911.  No love has been shown as far as I know.
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/client ... &year=2009

[wdtony]

Kat,

Thanks for all of the information. It really does help to better understand your situation as well as a little history for people like me who don't know what is being done at the level you are at.

So, if NATSAP didn't do the inviting, I would be more hopeful about the conference.

Yeah, I didn't care for Jan Moss when I watched the Hearings. She was just a mouthpiece/apologist sent to deflect attention away from NATSAP as being in any way responsible for what programs do. If memory serves, she was "let go" from her position at NATSAP soon after her representation.

You wrote:

I went to file a complaint and began a dialogue with Mark about potential policy changes and educational efforts that were important to the members of CAFETY. He was open to hearing us out and we submitted a bunch of docs on de-institutionalization, community care, the bit of data we have on the scope of the problem, GAO reports and our position papers. Brian met with him and formalized the proposal for their conference. Some discussion was had about how these would take shape, including a proposed NATSAP debate, and so that's where we stand now...

This sounds very effective and is probably the best route to go.

Personally, the most damaging aspect of my program experience was the thought reform. If I were to address anyone of importance about residential teen programs, I would stress the unseen damage caused by thought reform techniques. It isn't the easiest topic to discuss but to me, at least, it is very important to walk people through the process that occurs over time and how the child's identity is destroyed and remolded. Cults and psychological POW tortures should be given as examples and set side by side to known, present day program techniques. A few examples are Biderman's Chart of Coercion, Margaret Singers six conditions for thought control and Robert J. Liftons documented observations of POW's from the Korean War that had been brainwashed.

I have been told that my description of how the thought reform process worked on me as a teenager is very compelling. If this is what I can offer to a discussion, so be it.

[psy]

So, if NATSAP didn't do the inviting, I would be more hopeful about the conference.

They didn't.  Ken Huey invited Ginger and I after our first conversation.  He claims he got a lot out of it and felt many of the member schools/staff could benefit from our opinions.  I was skeptical at first but after talking to Ginger about it at length, we decided some good might come out of it (mainly the fact that some are moral buzybodies and not robber barons).  After that, we told Ken we accepted and he contacted NATSAP.  Apparently we have to write some outline within the month on what we will be speaking and from there, NATSAP will make it's final decision.  We started this thread to brainstorm.

[psy]

What was the response of NATSAP, Mike?  Did they seem receptive to you speaking?

Receptive?  Not entirely sure.  They're willing to consider it and Ken Huey is pushing them to accept.  His view is that while we disagree on how to help the kids, we all agree that the kids could benefit from sharing of ideas about treatment...  even if those ideas are contrary to what most, if not all, of the audience members hold dear.

[psy]

Reaching out to IECA was different, though they too would seem to represent the enemy.

It's a choice between those who imprison and "treat" kids without trial and those who deal in human trafficking.  Personally, i'd wager the NATSAP conference would have a higher moral buzybody to robber baron ratio.  IECA sounds more cutthroat to me, as if they're really just after the money.

[wdtony]

So, if NATSAP didn't do the inviting, I would be more hopeful about the conference.

They didn't.  Ken Huey invited Ginger and I after our first conversation.  He claims he got a lot out of it and felt many of the member schools/staff could benefit from our opinions.  I was skeptical at first but after talking to Ginger about it at length, we decided some good might come out of it (mainly the fact that some are moral buzybodies and not robber barons).  After that, we told Ken we accepted and he contacted NATSAP.  Apparently we have to write some outline within the month on what we will be speaking and from there, NATSAP will make it's final decision.  We started this thread to brainstorm.

Well, that is a great start. I am assuming that if something in your proposal/outline doesn't jive with their idea about how this conference should go, they might just retract the invite.

Sounds like a good opportunity. I guess none of us can know the outcome of all of this but it certainly seems to be worth a shot.

And I do agree that there are probably some of the upper echelon that are only concerned with the profit margins. Maybe it is possible to convey the tragedy and get through to a person or two.

Good luck no matter which way the wind blows. Keep brainstorming. But between you and Ginger, I think you two know what points to talk about without anyone's help. It's probably just a matter of how to present them and timing.

[Anonymous]

So, if NATSAP didn't do the inviting, I would be more hopeful about the conference.

They didn't.  Ken Huey invited Ginger and I after our first conversation.  He claims he got a lot out of it and felt many of the member schools/staff could benefit from our opinions.  I was skeptical at first but after talking to Ginger about it at length, we decided some good might come out of it (mainly the fact that some are moral buzybodies and not robber barons).

I asked you if Ken Huey invited you before, and you ignored  my question .


Strange.