Adolescent Brain development, CAFETY, and Washington state

[Ursus]

Whilst reporting on a recent talk on adolescent brain development given by Jeff Georgi, Lon Woodbury manages to deliver a snippy low blow to not only CAFETY, but also Washington state.

-------------- • -------------- • -------------- • --------------

Essays
Posted: Dec 24, 2009

JEFFREY M. GEORGI, CAFETY, AND THE ADOLESCENT BRAIN

by Lon Woodbury

The highlight of the recent Independent Educational Consultants Association (IECA) conference in Charlotte, NC, was a three hour presentation on Saturday morning Nov. 14, 2009, by Jeffrey M. Georgi on the Adolescent Brain. Georgi is the Clinical Director of the Duke University Addictions Program, an author and a popular speaker.

The ballroom was full, which is remarkable considering it was on a Saturday morning after a long and exhausting conference. The wide attendance was a powerful testimony to his expertise and knowledge of the subject. The attendees were not disappointed, and many remarked to me how much they had learned from the presentation.

A major emphasis, since he was speaking to a group of professional educators, was outlining the development of the brains of adolescents. A major point was that a person's brain was not fully developed until a person is into his/her twenties. This conclusion from exhaustive research tells us that many of the impulsive, silly and self-destructive decisions adolescents make are because their brains are not yet fully developed. Their forebrain is not developed enough to put a check on impulsive behaviors. In a sense, when an adolescent does something dumb, it's because their brain has not developed enough to think through the consequences. "If it feels good, do it" seems to be the mantra for the adolescent brain. The ability to think through consequences and implications of a given action will come later when the brain is fully developed.

One of the most frequent comments I heard after Georgi's presentation was "I wish the CAFETY representatives had been there for the presentation." What they were referring to was the well-attended Point/Counterpoint presentation the previous afternoon where representatives of CAFETY and A-START debated representatives from the schools and consultants attending the conference on the topic "Federal Legislation and Therapeutic Schools and Programs."

CAFETY stands for Community Alliance for the Ethical Treatment of Youth. They have been very critical of some residential Therapeutic schools and programs and are strong proponents of youth rights.

What the attendees had in mind in their comments about Georgi's presentation was that during that Point/Counterpoint debate, one of the CAFETY representatives pointed to the State of Washington Age of Consent legislation as a model that should be widely adopted. Part of this legislation requires a child of 13 or older to give their consent before the child can be placed into a residential program. If the child does not want to go to a residential program, the state will enforce that child's right to refuse, even if it is the parents who are trying to make that placement or bring the child home, and the child is involved in very dangerous activities. The only exception would be if a Judge orders the child into placement, which usually is only when an adolescent commits a crime and is sentenced into a Juvenile Justice facility.

All the consultants and school program people in the room picked up on the contradiction between the CAFETY youth rights ideal and Georgi's reality. They were very aware how dangerous it would be for a child with a still forming brain to have that right before the child's brain had developed the ability to foresee tragic consequences.

Indeed, there have been adolescent lives lost that can be traced back to this State of Washington legislation. One parent, whose 13-year-old daughter had been brutally murdered in Spokane, WA, while turning tricks to support her crack habit in the 1990s had established the BECCA Foundation, named after his deceased daughter. His daughter, Becca, had started running away from home at age 13. The State law had prohibited her parents from bringing her back home because she did not consent to go back home, and the State took her into custody. However, the State was unable to keep her in either a foster home or a youth program in Spokane and was reluctant to take action to ensure she would stay in a program, again likely due to the question of youth rights as defined by the legislation.

The BECCA Foundation lobbied to modify the law to better protect children and obtained legislative approval, but the Governor vetoed the modified legislation saying it was "too repressive."

It is our job as a society to protect our children! Giving them rights before they are able to responsibly handle them does no service to children, especially those who like to "live on the edge." We need to rethink the whole question of children's rights in light of research on the functioning of the adolescent brain.


Copyright © 2009, Woodbury Reports, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

[Anonymous]

Jeff Georgi

The last name sounds Russian.  Is Mr. Georgi Russian?

[RMA Survivor]

Whilst reporting on a recent talk on adolescent brain development given by Jeff Georgi, Lon Woodbury manages to deliver a snippy low blow to not only CAFETY, but also Washington state.

-------------- • -------------- • -------------- • --------------

Essays
Posted: Dec 24, 2009

JEFFREY M. GEORGI, CAFETY, AND THE ADOLESCENT BRAIN

by Lon Woodbury

The highlight of the recent Independent Educational Consultants Association (IECA) conference in Charlotte, NC, was a three hour presentation on Saturday morning Nov. 14, 2009, by Jeffrey M. Georgi on the Adolescent Brain. Georgi is the Clinical Director of the Duke University Addictions Program, an author and a popular speaker.

The ballroom was full, which is remarkable considering it was on a Saturday morning after a long and exhausting conference. The wide attendance was a powerful testimony to his expertise and knowledge of the subject. The attendees were not disappointed, and many remarked to me how much they had learned from the presentation.

A major emphasis, since he was speaking to a group of professional educators, was outlining the development of the brains of adolescents. A major point was that a person's brain was not fully developed until a person is into his/her twenties. This conclusion from exhaustive research tells us that many of the impulsive, silly and self-destructive decisions adolescents make are because their brains are not yet fully developed. Their forebrain is not developed enough to put a check on impulsive behaviors. In a sense, when an adolescent does something dumb, it's because their brain has not developed enough to think through the consequences. "If it feels good, do it" seems to be the mantra for the adolescent brain. The ability to think through consequences and implications of a given action will come later when the brain is fully developed.

One of the most frequent comments I heard after Georgi's presentation was "I wish the CAFETY representatives had been there for the presentation." What they were referring to was the well-attended Point/Counterpoint presentation the previous afternoon where representatives of CAFETY and A-START debated representatives from the schools and consultants attending the conference on the topic "Federal Legislation and Therapeutic Schools and Programs."

CAFETY stands for Community Alliance for the Ethical Treatment of Youth. They have been very critical of some residential Therapeutic schools and programs and are strong proponents of youth rights.

What the attendees had in mind in their comments about Georgi's presentation was that during that Point/Counterpoint debate, one of the CAFETY representatives pointed to the State of Washington Age of Consent legislation as a model that should be widely adopted. Part of this legislation requires a child of 13 or older to give their consent before the child can be placed into a residential program. If the child does not want to go to a residential program, the state will enforce that child's right to refuse, even if it is the parents who are trying to make that placement or bring the child home, and the child is involved in very dangerous activities. The only exception would be if a Judge orders the child into placement, which usually is only when an adolescent commits a crime and is sentenced into a Juvenile Justice facility.

All the consultants and school program people in the room picked up on the contradiction between the CAFETY youth rights ideal and Georgi's reality. They were very aware how dangerous it would be for a child with a still forming brain to have that right before the child's brain had developed the ability to foresee tragic consequences.

Indeed, there have been adolescent lives lost that can be traced back to this State of Washington legislation. One parent, whose 13-year-old daughter had been brutally murdered in Spokane, WA, while turning tricks to support her crack habit in the 1990s had established the BECCA Foundation, named after his deceased daughter. His daughter, Becca, had started running away from home at age 13. The State law had prohibited her parents from bringing her back home because she did not consent to go back home, and the State took her into custody. However, the State was unable to keep her in either a foster home or a youth program in Spokane and was reluctant to take action to ensure she would stay in a program, again likely due to the question of youth rights as defined by the legislation.

The BECCA Foundation lobbied to modify the law to better protect children and obtained legislative approval, but the Governor vetoed the modified legislation saying it was "too repressive."

It is our job as a society to protect our children! Giving them rights before they are able to responsibly handle them does no service to children, especially those who like to "live on the edge." We need to rethink the whole question of children's rights in light of research on the functioning of the adolescent brain.


Copyright © 2009, Woodbury Reports, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

I didn't see where this Brain Study was widely accepted as factual.  I also notice how Woodbury leaps to the conclusion that the study means all kids are incapable of making rationale judgment calls about their own welfare, thus the law is of no value, and in a sense, feels that having judges make a determination about whether a kid should be "locked up" in a RTC is flawed.  Suggesting that others, namely himself, should be the ones who decide what is best for the child.  

Citing the death of a single teen, Becca, is weak.  Granted her death is tragic, but I didn't get a complete picture of the cause of her death. It was suggested that someone related to crack murdered her.  But it could have been anyone.  However Woodbury clearly feels that only an RTC would have saved her.  I am unable to make this leap of logic.  I can see Woodbury making the leap of logic that kids rights should be changed in favor of making their arrival at an RTC easier.  Further, I would suspect that Woodbury would also like to see the rights of the child once they are inside an RTC, weakened as well.  

Woodbury sees research about child brain development as connected directly to the placement of kids in RTC's.  He is connecting data that is not connected, in order to draw the conclusion that kids brains are not fully developed, thus they need an RTC to develop them.  And that any laws protecting a child from the legally established harmful effects of many of these CEDU-based programs and a child's decision to not attend, are wrong.  Much like the programs themselves, they believe the teen should have no input or decision making in their own development and should leave it to others to decide their fate and how they will be developed.  No therapy works without the cooperation and input of the patient.  Yet these programs believe they can dictate therapy with the patient having no control or input themselves.  I find it revealing that the judge decided the changes to the laws were too repressive.  Maybe he knew about these programs.  

It is frightening to read that Woodbury equates child rights with decision making.  That he would deny children rights entirely seems to be evident in what I read.  And all because some study was conducted that found the brain of a child is not fully developed before their twenties.  And it appears that Woodbury, not the study itself, came to the conclusion that "not fully developed" therefore must mean that children can not make any rational decisions.  He specifically writes,"This conclusion from exhaustive research tells us that many of the impulsive, silly and self-destructive decisions adolescents make are because their brains are not yet fully developed."   I would find it remarkable if the study itself formed that same conclusion.  And I doubt it did.  I think Woodbury believes he can make the leap of logic for all of us.  Thankfully my brain is fully developed and I can make the decision that Woodbury is full of himself and will find anything, no matter how unrelated, to support his goals and that of the Troubled Teen Industry.

[blombrowski]

So nice of Lon to think of us and how positive it would be for us to be "enlightened"...

Here's the short response though RMA survivor captured the main points well.

There's a lot of room between a situation that allows a 13 year old that is known to make poor decisions to make a unilateral decision not to receive any kind of treatment, and a situation that allows a 17 year old with no such history to be abducted from his home.  

Granted it's easy for both sides of the debate to point to the few examples that prove their case.  Asking for teens to have rights, does not necessary mean giving 13 year olds blanket leeway to make decisions.  But it does give a young person the right to challenge the decision of adults, and to have one adult overrule the decision of another.

I'm sure program parents and educational consultants believe they have all the wisdom in the world to make such decisions, but as we know at least sometimes they get it wrong.  Having a process in place to study whether their judgments are appropriate isn't asking for much.  Yet the idea of tying residential placement to some objective measurement like the CANS instrument, was met with heckles at the same session that Lon Woodbury refers to.  This tells me this argument is a false one, and isn't about making the right decision for a child, but giving parents and paid professionals the right to make that decision over a state sanctioned body.

[Anonymous]

So nice of Lon to think of us and how positive it would be for us to be "enlightened"...

Here's the short response though RMA survivor captured the main points well.

There's a lot of room between a situation that allows a 13 year old that is known to make poor decisions to make a unilateral decision not to receive any kind of treatment, and a situation that allows a 17 year old with no such history to be abducted from his home.  

Granted it's easy for both sides of the debate to point to the few examples that prove their case.  Asking for teens to have rights, does not necessary mean giving 13 year olds blanket leeway to make decisions.  But it does give a young person the right to challenge the decision of adults, and to have one adult overrule the decision of another.

I'm sure program parents and educational consultants believe they have all the wisdom in the world to make such decisions, but as we know at least sometimes they get it wrong.  Having a process in place to study whether their judgments are appropriate isn't asking for much.  Yet the idea of tying residential placement to some objective measurement like the CANS instrument, was met with heckles at the same session that Lon Woodbury refers to.  This tells me this argument is a false one, and isn't about making the right decision for a child, but giving parents and paid professionals the right to make that decision over a[/u] state sanctioned body.

That is exactly the point, making sure a state body and the child can not influence a decision for placement. What is sad is the amount of info out there showing placement w/o appropriate supervision and/or judgements, contributing to deaths of children.
Documented info on parents that are troubled themselves w/ maladies such as drug addiction, sexual perversion towards their children, psychiatric/sociological abnormalaties and immature parenting skills, are probably sketchy at best. Yet these parents make conscious and unconscious decisions along with their paid professionals/staff from treatment centers on the lives of children. From my own personal experience my parents who placed me, were not about to explain what their part was in me turning out the way I did, they wouldn't even come up for any counseling sessions. They were very sick at this time in their life and "honesty" was not high on the list (copping to guilt).
Damn right, I only wish all states had this bill of rights statue for children.

[Oz girl]

Woodbury is purposefully missing the bigger picture here. If the brain is still developing into the 20s then the mistakes adolescents make are more easily explained in the majority of cases by old fashioned immaturity. Thus it is less likely that they need any intense psychotherapy. Rather we are less able to tell what leads to fully blown criminal and addiction issues in adulthood. We can only go on adult rates of addiction,crime etc and per capita neither American teens or adults are not especially worse off than their counterparts in similar western countries that do not have the option of locking teens up.
It is amazing how this man can use any data to milk money from concerned parents

[Anonymous]

Wow, this assclown sounds like Gollum. Hatttessssss thossse nassssty children, he doessss.

[Anonymous]

Wow, this assclown sounds like Gollum. Hatttessssss thossse nassssty children, he doessss.

:rofl:

[Ursus]

The brain data is real, it's been around for some time. I've actually made obscure reference to it in some previous posts, where I've stressed that the critical time for potential suicide is the several years post program. However, I do think this point is key:

It is frightening to read that Woodbury equates child rights with decision making.

It is also worth noting that Jeff Georgi is not a scientist; he is an addictions counseling specialist. Specifically one who, along with his wife and another associate, have put together a addiction recovery program for Carlbrook School (color emphasis mine):

NEW STAFF/ PROGRAMS AT CARLBROOK
(February 4, 2008) R. Grant Price, MA, Director of Development for Carlbrook School, Halifax, VA, 434-476-2406, announced Gillian Smith, PhD, the former clinical director of Outback Wilderness, joined the board to chair the counseling department at Carlbrook. Floyd Wiseman, MD, a board certified psychiatrist, with over 20 years experience also joined the staff at Carlbrook. In addition, addiction specialists Jeffrey Georgi, MAH, LCAS; Rebecca Georgi, MS, LCAS, and Dr. Aaron White have developed a recovery maintenance module to fight the on-going problems of substance abuse. Another new aspect to come is the employment of four master's level Transition Counselors who work with the alumni for one year following their graduation.[/list]

[Ursus]

Some more on the Georgis' involvement with Carlbrook School:

-------------- • -------------- • -------------- • --------------

Breaking News
Posted: Oct 10, 2006

CARLBROOK SCHOOL
Halifax, Virginia

Carlbrook Enhances Recovery Maintenance Program

Contact:
Kim Foran
434-476-2406
http://www.carlbrook.org

October 9, 2006

Dear Colleagues and Friends:

Nationwide, at the collegiate level, almost 30% of all students will drop out by the end of their sophomore year. Based on presenting history prior to matriculation at Carlbrook our students are at even higher risk, particularly given their propensity for substance abuse. That stated we have committed to developing individual and familial approaches to better arrest the pernicious cycle of relapse.

Floyd Wiseman, M.D. and Duke University Medical Center currently provide on-campus psychiatric services for Carlbrook students. Dr. Wiseman has been working with the school for the past 2 years and is clinically familiar with just over 30% of our student body. Additionally, this multidisciplinary perspective, whereby some key members work outside the Carlbrook umbrella, has facilitated an exceptional level of professional candor. In order to further augment the Department of Advising at Carlbrook we have commenced the next phase of this cooperative effort.

Approximately 75% of all incoming Carlbrook students present with a history of substance abuse in tandem with other diagnostic impressions. For the past 8 months we have reviewed multiple approaches and personnel to ascertain what would be an optimal Recovery Maintenance Program for Carlbrook. After much deliberation we have elected to work with Duke University Medical Center's Jeffrey Georgi, M.Div., M.A.H., LCAS, LPC, his wife Becky Georgi, MS, LPC, LCAS, and Aaron White, Ph.D. (bios attached) to develop and staff on-campus, year round substance abuse programming. This module will enjoy real-time access to the most current academic and clinical information available to better educate and prepare our students and families for the toxicity of college life and beyond.

The aforementioned team began a comprehensive assessment of Carlbrook this past August. This includes but is not limited to interviews with randomly selected cohorts of students, parents, alumni, and faculty, as well as observation and evaluation of extant modalities employed (including thematic workshops, group work, strategic individual and family counseling, etc.). Our goal is to instate, by year's end, a comprehensive, integrated Recovery Maintenance Program that addresses both individual and collective needs of our students and families. Information regarding specifics of this module will be forthcoming. In the interim should you have any questions please feel free to contact Kelly Dunbar ([email protected]) in the Office of Admissions.

Kind regards,
R. Grant Price
Dean of Faculty
Carlbrook School
[email protected]

Personnel:

Jeffrey M. Georgi, M.Div., M.A.H, LCAS, LPC, CGP currently serves as clinical director of the Addictions Consult and Intervention Program at Duke University Medical Center. For over 20 years, Jeff has held clinical appointments in the departments of Surgery and Psychiatry at DUMC and has contributed to a number of Treatment Improvement Protocols referenced as best practice guidelines by the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment in Washington D.C. Additionally, Jeff is Clinical Director of Bridges to Wholeness, a professional group that seeks to bridge the gap between research and practice within the addiction prevention, intervention and treatment community.

Rebecca Georgi, MS, LPC, LCAS, CCS is a faculty member in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Duke University. She has also served as Adolescent Substance Abuse Program Director at the Duke Addictions Program. Mrs. Georgi holds a certificate in Marriage and Family Therapy from the Menninger Foundation and is a Licensed Professional Counselor, Licensed Clinical Addiction Specialist and Certified Clinical Supervisor.

Aaron M. White, Ph.D., also on the faculty in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Duke University Medical Center, is an awarded instructor and researcher. Dr. White specializes in adolescent brain development and treatment of substance abuse and has focused on the development of substance abuse education and prevention programs for high school students. Over the course of his career, Dr. White's work has appeared in Discover magazine, USA Today, CNN, NBC, ABC, PBS, BBC News as well as professional publications.


Copyright © 2009, Woodbury Reports, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

[Anonymous]

Indeed, there have been adolescent lives lost that can be traced back to this State of Washington legislation. One parent, whose 13-year-old daughter had been brutally murdered in Spokane, WA, while turning tricks to support her crack habit in the 1990s had established the BECCA Foundation, named after his deceased daughter. His daughter, Becca, had started running away from home at age 13. The State law had prohibited her parents from bringing her back home because she did not consent to go back home, and the State took her into custody. However, the State was unable to keep her in either a foster home or a youth program in Spokane and was reluctant to take action to ensure she would stay in a program, again likely due to the question of youth rights as defined by the legislation.

Indeed, there have been many adolescent lives lost that can be traced back to programs. http://www.isaccorp.org/deaths.asp

But ofcourse these teens don't have fully developed brains an can't be given rights...... like the right to live.  Sound about right Lon?

[RMA Survivor]

On the one hand, it is nice to see a program involving people who are actually educated in a field related to what they are trying to offer.  However, the fact these people, Georgi specifically, aren't actually on campus 24/7, means as usual, the professionals don't have the direct contact with the students one would expect.  

As usual, it is the program itself which will interpret data, research and information to suit its own needs and to fit within the program they have, rather than change the program by having real experts design it.  In computer terms, this is called Garbage In-Garbage Out.  

I am also concerned that this adolescent brain research is being latched on to by Carlbrook and Lon Woodbury, and therefore I have to be suspicious of this because of the history of these programs using whatever myriad conglomeration of stuff to form their cult-like programs with.  Mel Wasserman did this in creating his CEDU schools.  Taking a little here, a little there, with no full understanding of any of it, and mashing it all together to create some kind of program, and then not having any real professionals involved in creating that program or in critiquing it.  

I also noted that the article Ursus just added mentioned cohorts, followed by students, parents, staff, how it would be individual and group oriented.  I question the individual claim.  These programs have a long history of being one-size-fits-all, with little individual focus whatsoever.  So I would gather, that though it looks good to claim this, that in reality it will all be packaged as a group thing.  And though this "after program" contact idea, where they will communicate regularly with students after they have graduated the program sounds nice, the message will probably be mass communication-oriented as well.  Not individual.  And considering that the programs focus on guilt, abuse and humiliation, I question how effective such measures will be as the graduates will no longer be forced in to accepting the threat of punishments, ridicule or abuse or be living in the same climate of fear they were inside the program.  Maybe those who are still underage after graduation might feel fear that if the staff disapprove of them their parents might send them back in, but generally speaking I can't see how anyone would truly welcome constant communication with the program for a year once they had left.  Of course, I am speaking in hindsight.  Many of us may not have come to terms and accepted that we were abused and brainwashed until many years after leaving.  I think for a year after the program, many might still exhibit feelings that the program helped them or saved their lives.  Today I could not possibly imagine accepting a call from the staff asking how I am doing?  I would give them an ear full.

I also wonder if this Georgi fellow will be given a tour of the campus and allowed to sit in on any of the "therapy" activities the students regularly undergo?  I highly doubt it.  From what I understand, most real psychologists and professionals who have directly witnessed what goes on in these places are horrified and do not approve.  But it looks good to have it appear as though there is an air of professional approval of the programs by inviting people from universities to contribute, even if those professionals do not directly participate in the program itself or have direct interaction with the kids.

[Ursus]

On the one hand, it is nice to see a program involving people who are actually educated in a field related to what they are trying to offer. However, the fact these people, Georgi specifically, aren't actually on campus 24/7, means as usual, the professionals don't have the direct contact with the students one would expect.

As usual, it is the program itself which will interpret data, research and information to suit its own needs and to fit within the program they have, rather than change the program by having real experts design it. In computer terms, this is called Garbage In-Garbage Out.

... <snip snip> ...

I also noted that the article Ursus just added mentioned cohorts, followed by students, parents, staff, how it would be individual and group oriented. I question the individual claim. These programs have a long history of being one-size-fits-all, with little individual focus whatsoever. So I would gather, that though it looks good to claim this, that in reality it will all be packaged as a group thing...

Well... I suspect that the Georgis themselves are already quite heavily invested, philosophically speaking, in "group work." Here is the page titled "Group Counseling For Students" from the website of Georgi Educational and Counseling Services (those professionals under contract with Carlbrook School):

-------------- • -------------- • -------------- • --------------

Therapy groups

Therapy groups are the backbone of sustained recovery and personal growth.

GECS embraces a supportive group format where the student will be able to evaluate his/her relationship with alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs; his/her relationship with other people; and his/her relationship with themselves. Within the group therapy setting the student will share their concerns, learn to actively ask for help while offering help to others, learn about how they affect other people and how other people affect them, learn to speak more comfortably about their emotions, practice better self care skills, and develop deep and satisfying connections with other people committed to recover.

The student will discover that many of their issues are not unique to themselves, and they will connect to others within the group. The student will experience the breakdown of their isolation and withdrawal from others. Neither shaming nor confrontational, GECS uses a Modified Interpersonal approach, which embraces the power of connection and our shared humanity. The student will never be forced to divulge anything in group until they are ready. There are times the student may experience some emotional discomfort or anxiety, and if so we encourage them to talk about it and ask for help. If the student is having difficulty connecting with what others are sharing we encourage them to own their own courage and speak up, for undoubtedly they will be identifying a truth within the entire group.

Why we believe this approach works

You may be asking why our groups are so important. At its most fundamental level we are all born into groups, live in groups, are wounded in groups and eventually find healing in groups. Consequently the group experience is highly valued by the senior clinicians associated with GECS and is an experience we believe holds profound spiritual significance.  Group therapy provides a setting in which a variety of important experiences will occur.


© Georgi Educational & Counseling Services. All rights reserved.

[RMA Survivor]

So again, the focus is on group therapy and not individual.  Not surprising the programs are going to like this.  

I am amused at how they claim on the one hand that students will not be forced to divulge anything until they are ready, they are clearly encouraged to do so.  Such encouragement can get out of hand and in group settings, become intense peer pressure to conform, as we program survivors can attest.  And it sounds to me like this is probably what indeed occurs.  

The senior clinicians seem to love it.  No feedback about how the students like it or how effective they feel it is for them. Ironic.  

This just sounds like another one-size-fits-all method.  And it sounds a lot like Alcoholics Anonymous, doesn't it?  Share your experiences and feelings about abusing substances.  Lots of feedback from peers.  Probably sit in a bunch of chairs in a circle.  So original in its approach.

And I bet you don't need a license or any credentials to start your own Georgi Orgy.  Just read from a script like a program workshop.  Anyone can do it.  Act now and receive two free copies of "How to become a therapist without all that education nonsense", operators are standing by...

[Ursus]

Not surprisingly, given that he is a professional addictions specialist, Jeff Georgi is involved in a number of rehab enterprises. Here's his brief bio from the Mychal Institute (a pricey rehab on the Outer Banks of North Carolina).

The Mychal Institute doesn't deal with insurance companies, claims to be sensitive to folks' need for their pets during rehab (but ya gotta house the beast at a kennel in town), offers allegedly individualized "holistic care plans," and even includes "marijuana addiction" on the menu of ailments they treat, to give you an idea...

The mention of Paul Nagy in Georgi's bio is due to Nagy's being the #2 man at Mychal. Alternate link for staff bios.

-------------- • -------------- • -------------- • --------------

Jeffrey M. Georgi, M.Div., M.A.H, LCAS, LPC, CGP from Duke University Medical Center where he serves as the clinical director of the Duke Addictions Program. During his two decades at the medical Center Jeff held clinical appointments in the departments of Surgery, Obstetrics, and Psychiatry. He is a clinical associate in the department of Behavioral Medicine as well as a faculty member of the Duke University School of Nursing. For over three years Jeff was director of the Psychological Services at the Rice Diet Program, and has worked with the Cognitive Behavioral Research and Treatment Program at Duke Medical Center. Although primarily known for his clinical work in field of addictions Jeff is also a national trainer and respected author in the areas of clinical spirituality, ethics, Motivational Enhancement, the clinical applications of our growing understanding of the brain and the Bio/Psycho/Socio/Spiritual model of mental health and disease. He has contributed to a number of Treatment Improvement Protocols which are seen as the best practice guidelines by the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, Washington D.C. Jeff continues to see patients, facilitate groups, and work with families while at the same time expanding his clinical activities with patients struggling with dysregulated eating and the medical complications and that disease.

Jeff has helped to unify drug, alcohol and mental health treatment in NC into an integrated model (along with Paul Nagy); helped to establish Narcotic Anonymous and Naranon in NC; developed the first comprehensive substance abuse consult service to DUMC; was an original faculty member in the North Carolina Addiction Fellowship program; helped define and publish protocols for evaluating the substance abuse patient in remission for long term recovery, thus opening up the option for them to receive organ transplants; and first substance abuse professional to be honored by the American Group Psychotherapy Association as a Certified Group Psychotherapist.