New York State shutting state facilities?

[Antigen]

This is starting to start sounding like some sense.

Report Finds Problems Plague State-run Juvenile Detention Centers
by Cindy Rodriguez
Download MP3 | Embed HTML

NEW YORK, NY December 14, 2009 —A report by a state task force recommended today that Gov. David Paterson close or significantly downsize state run juvenile detention facilities. A draft copy of the report obtained by WNYC, says the facilities are damaging young people and wasting taxpayer dollars.

Jeremy Travis, President of John Jay College of Criminal Justice, headed the task force and says the state must shift from a punitive approach to one that's therapeutic.

The report says 1,600 youth enter the facilities annually, costing the state about $200,000 a year per child. Travis says those resources should be reinvested in services for youth.

"This is a big challenge that we are laying at the doorstep of the state of New York here," he says. "Other states have made the shift and we have every confidence that New York State can make this transformation as well."

Upstate lawmakers and unions that represent facility employees adamantly oppose closing them down, and warn that sending troubled kids back into communities poses a public safety hazard.

The report comes as the state continues to negotiate an overhaul of facilities with the Department of Justice. A two year investigation by the DOJ revealed serious abuse of kids at four upstate facilities.

According to a court memo, the state agency overseeing detention facilities has already urged family court judges not to send kids to facilities unless they pose a danger. The memo outlines a serious lack of services to deal with mental health problems, substance abuse and educational needs.

The DOJ has investigated 100 youth facilities across 16 states and its currently monitoring 65 of them.

The report says 53 percent of kids in detention facilities are there for misdemeanor offenses, including shoplifting and assault.
http://www.wnyc.org/news/articles/146177

[Ursus]

This is starting to start sounding like some sense.

Well... I'll tell ya one thing. I bet the private prison contractors are salivating at the bit. Organizations like Youth Services International Inc. and Sequel Youth and Family Services are probably polishing up their bid submissions for management contracts as we speak. Getting involved in molding young minds and behaviors in the "schoolhouse to jailhouse" spectrum is big binnis.

I'm not sure that'll be an improvement.

[Ursus]

This is from a long past conference on prison privatization, although I don't think much has changed, as far as which direction some would have the industry take:

"While arrests and convictions are steadily on the rise, profits are to be made - profits from crime. Get in on the ground floor of this booming industry now."

-

from an invitation to a World Research Group conference; Dallas, December 1996[/list]
Presenters on said investment opportunities included executives from Wackenhut, Correctional Services Corp, Avalon Community Services, Cornell Corrections, Youth Services International, Youth Track Inc, Children's Comprehensive Services and Res-Care Inc.[/list]

[blombrowski]

from the bowels of the nys government.... I would be shocked by a private takeover of our juvenile justice system, ala three springs.  however, what is already happening is that youth are being diverted from our ocfs programs to non-profit residential programs licensed by ocfs.  it's part of a steady trickle where youth who used to be served by rtcs are being served in the community, to fill the beds those rtcs are taking court referrals that would have been served by the facilities that they are considering closing.

[Ursus]

Here's some more background to the OP...


See also: copy of the draft report by the New York state task force

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

The New York Times
New York Finds Extreme Crisis in Youth Prisons
By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE
Published: December 13, 2009

ALBANY — New York's system of juvenile prisons is broken, with young people battling mental illness or addiction held alongside violent offenders in abysmal facilities where they receive little counseling, can be physically abused and rarely get even a basic education, according to a report by a state panel.

The problems are so acute that the state agency overseeing the prisons has asked New York's Family Court judges not to send youths to any of them unless they are a significant risk to public safety, recommending alternatives, like therapeutic foster care.


Violent offenders could be housed with young people in custody for lesser offenses, including truancy, the report said.
Robert Stolarik for The New York Times

"New York State's current approach fails the young people who are drawn into the system, the public whose safety it is intended to protect, and the principles of good governance that demand effective use of scarce state resources," said the confidential draft report, which was obtained by The New York Times.

The report, prepared by a task force appointed by Gov. David A. Paterson and led by Jeremy Travis, president of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, comes three months after a federal investigation found that excessive force was routinely used at four prisons, resulting in injuries as severe as broken bones and shattered teeth.

The situation was so serious the Department of Justice, which made the investigation, threatened to take over the system.

But according to the task force, the problems uncovered at the four prisons are endemic to the entire system, which houses about 900 young people at 28 facilities around the state.

While some prisons for violent and dangerous offenders should be preserved, the report calls for most to be replaced with a system of smaller centers closer to the communities where most of the families of the youths in custody live.


Family Court judges have been urged to send only dangerous youths to the juvenile prisons.
Robert Stolarik for The New York Times

The task force was convened in 2008 after years of complaints about the prisons, punctuated by the death in 2006 of an emotionally disturbed 15-year-old boy at one center after two workers pinned him to the ground. The task force's recommendations are likely to help shape the state's response to the federal findings.

"I was not proud of my state when I saw some of these facilities," Mr. Travis said in an interview on Friday. "New York is no longer the leader it once was in the juvenile justice field."

New York's juvenile prisons are both extremely expensive and extraordinarily ineffective, according to the report, which will be given to Mr. Paterson on Monday. The state spends roughly $210,000 per youth annually, but three-quarters of those released from detention are arrested again within three years. And though the median age of those admitted to juvenile facilities is almost 16, one-third of those held read at a third-grade level.

The prisons are meant to house youths considered dangerous to themselves or others, but there is no standardized statewide system for assessing such risks, the report found.

In 2007, more than half of the youths who entered detention centers were sent there for the equivalent of misdemeanor offenses, in many cases theft, drug possession or even truancy. More than 80 percent were black or Latino, even though blacks and Latinos make up less than half the state's total youth population — a racial disparity that has never been explained, the report said.

Many of those detained have addictions or psychological illnesses for which less restrictive treatment programs were not available. Three-quarters of children entering the juvenile justice system have drug or alcohol problems, more than half have had a diagnosis of mental health problems and one-third have developmental disabilities.

Yet there are only 55 psychologists and clinical social workers assigned to the prisons, according to the task force. And none of the facilities employ psychiatrists, who have the authority to prescribe the drugs many mentally ill teenagers require.

While 76 percent of youths in custody are from the New York City area, nearly all the prisons are upstate, and the youths' relatives, many of them poor, cannot afford frequent visits, cutting them off from support networks.

"These institutions are often sorely underresourced, and some fail to keep their young people safe and secure, let alone meet their myriad service and treatment needs," according to the report, which was based on interviews with workers and youths in custody, visits to prisons and advice from experts. "In some facilities, youth are subjected to shocking violence and abuse."

Even before the task force's report is released, the Paterson administration is moving to reduce the number of youths held in juvenile prisons.

Gladys Carrión, the commissioner of the Office of Children and Family Services, the agency that oversees the juvenile justice system, has recommended that judges find alternative placements for most young offenders, according to an internal memorandum issued Oct. 28 by the state's deputy chief administrative judge.

Ms. Carrión also advised court officials that New York would not contest the Justice Department findings, according to the memo, and that officials were negotiating a settlement agreement to remedy the system.

Peter E. Kauffmann, a spokesman for Mr. Paterson, said the governor "looks forward to receiving the recommendations of the task force as we continue our efforts to transform the state's juvenile justice system from a correctional-punitive model to a therapeutic model."

The report contends that smaller facilities would place less strain on workers, helping reduce the use of physical force, and would be better able to tailor rehabilitation programs.

New York is not unique in using its juvenile prisons to house mentally ill teenagers, particularly as many states confront huge budget shortfalls that have resulted in significant cuts to mental health programs. Still, some states are trying to shift to smaller, community-based programs.

The report by New York's task force does not say how much money would be needed to overhaul the system, but as Mr. Paterson and state lawmakers try to close a $3.2 billion deficit, cost could become a major hurdle.

Ms. Carrión has faced resistance from some prison workers, who accuse her of making them scapegoats for the system's problems and minimizing the dangerous conditions they face. State records show a significant spike in on-the-job injuries, for which some workers blame Ms. Carrión's efforts to limit the use of force.

"We embrace the idea of moving towards a more therapeutic model of care, but you can't do that without more training and more staff," said Stephen A. Madarasz, a spokesman for the Civil Service Employees Association, the union that represents prison workers. "You're not dealing with wayward youth. In the more secure facilities, you're dealing with individuals who have been involved in pretty serious crimes."

Advocates have credited Ms. Carrión, who was appointed in 2007 by former Gov. Eliot Spitzer, with instituting significant reforms, including installing cameras in some of the more troubled prisons and providing more counseling.

But the state has a long way to go, many advocates say.

"Even the kids that are not considered dangerous are shackled when they are being transferred from their homes to the centers upstate — hands and feet, sometimes even belly chains," said Clara Hemphill, a researcher and author of a report on the state's youth prisons published in October by the Center for New York City Affairs at the New School.

"It really is barbaric," she added, "the way they treat these kids."

A version of this article appeared in print on December 14, 2009, on page A1 of the New York edition.


Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company

[Ursus]

Another article coming right on the heels of the one just previous; this one focusing on Gladys Carrión, the commissioner of the state Office of Children and Family Services:

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

Official Hopes Prison Crisis May Spur Change
By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE
Published: December 15, 2009

ALBANY — After a state task force delivered a withering indictment of New York's juvenile prisons, the head of the agency responsible for the prisons reacted by going on a publicity blitz — not to challenge the findings, but to promote them.

"It is a lever, and I think that is important," Gladys Carrión, the commissioner of the state Office of Children and Family Services, said Monday, in between an interview with a radio station and a meeting with the chairman of the task force. "Usually the lever is the death of a child, and I don't want to see that. If it takes this report to push through change, then good."


Gladys Carrión has the support of child-welfare advocates but draws criticism from unions representing workers at her agency.
Damon Winter/The New York Times

When Ms. Carrión, a lawyer and a former executive at the United Way, took over the department in 2007, her track record as a no-nonsense leader raised hopes that she could overhaul what was widely considered a broken system.

But after almost three years progress has been halting, and the task force, which was appointed by Gov. David A. Paterson last year, described a system rife with problems. Many of the youths at the state's 28 facilities have mental illnesses or drug addictions for which they get inadequate treatment, the report found. Many of those released from state custody are arrested and jailed again within a few years. And despite stringent rules imposed by Ms. Carrión dictating when staff can use physical force, abuse complaints are still common.

The United States Department of Justice, which highlighted serious physical abuse at four prisons in a separate report last summer, has threatened to take over the entire system if the problems are not fixed.

Ms. Carrión and her supporters — including juvenile justice experts and child welfare advocates — blame a combination of bureaucratic inertia, scarce state dollars, and resistance from unions and elected officials to closing or reducing the size of the prisons, many of which are in struggling upstate communities that need the jobs.

Ms. Carrión, 58, a blunt yet cheerful Bronx native who previously was a city community development official and worked as an executive at the United Way of New York City, said she embraced the task force report's findings in part because they revealed the magnitude of the work that remains.

"I have people on staff that have two, three, four, five cases of abuse or inappropriate restraint, and I can't get rid of them" because of civil-service rules, Ms. Carrión said. "I'm also the commissioner of child welfare. If you as a parent abuse your child, I take them away from you. Why is there a different standard for children that are in juvenile justice?"

But her critics, including the unions that represent agency workers, seized on the task force's findings on Monday to argue that Ms. Carrión was the problem.

"If things haven't improved in the three years she's been in this position, the governor should decide what's in the best interests of these kids," said Ken Brynien, the president of the New York State Public Employees Federation.

Some advocates believe there needs to be a greater sense of urgency because the future of many young people in the agency's care is at stake. "The system is turning in a new direction," the task force's report said, "but there is still much more to be done."

Ms. Carrión acknowledged that she needed to do better.

Asked what her biggest failure had been, she did not hesitate before answering.

"My greatest disappointment continues to be the number of restraints in my system — that we still have a correctional model where kids get hurt," she said. "The worst day for me always is when I go visit a facility. I see these children, and it kills me. I grew up in the same communities that these kids come from. I see our future."

Still, she has aggressively downsized the system of state-run youth prisons and diverted resources to community-based care: smaller group facilities located closer to a youth's family that emphasize psychological counseling and rehabilitation, with longer-term residential prisons reserved for the truly dangerous.

"She believes, and I am a proponent as well, that in New York State we have historically overvalued institutional care for the juvenile delinquent population," said Bill Baccaglini, executive director of the New York Foundling, a private child welfare agency, and a former senior official at the Office of Children and Family Services.

Ms. Carrión has closed 11 facilities and has cut the population in the detention facilities by about 50 percent. Cameras have been installed to protect the workers and the youths in custody, Ms. Carrión said.

Workers are required to report every instance in which they use physical restraint, and Ms. Carrión receives a weekly summary. "I read them, and I think everybody holds their breath," she said. "Because if it goes up, they hear from me."

But many workers have resisted the changes, arguing that limits on physical force have put them at risk, pointing to a rise in workplace injuries among agency employees. They also argue that Ms. Carrión underestimates the danger that many youths in custody pose to themselves and others, and that community-based programs are not equipped to handle them.

"The youth are there because they have committed crimes," Mr. Brynien said. "Many of them pled down from violent crimes. Some of them are larger than the staff, some are involved in gangs. To portray them as children who are locked away and shouldn't be is a very oversimplified view."

Despite the harsh spotlight on her agency, Ms. Carrión still seems to have the support of her boss, Governor Paterson, who praised the task force's report as well as Ms. Carrión, saying she "has done everything possible to provide better care for the mentally disabled."

Ms. Carrión's efforts may get a boost when the state finishes negotiating a plan to address the problems in its juvenile justice system with the Department of Justice, which could compel the agency to institute a more aggressive overhaul.

"This is like a huge ship," Ms. Carrión said. "Trying to turn it around is very difficult."

A version of this article appeared in print on December 16, 2009, on page A36 of the New York edition.


Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company

[Whooter]

This move to the “Missouri model” will be a great step for all the more serious juvy offenders who are placed into programs through the justice system and the acknowledgment that one of the keys to success is a smooth transition back into society is encouraging.  Moving from the present "state run facility" mentality to one that is more closely modeled after the private sector will not only reduce costs by 50% or more for tax payers but will reduce the rate at which these kids end up back in front of a judge.  They are local and also provide a therapy component, although I know that many here are opposed to any therapy which is not voluntary.   This is a step up from the existing programs,  especially in the state of New York where I heard the places were terrible.

For those families who can afford an alternative the private Therapeutic boarding schools will still be a better option because the majority of these kids are not serious offenders and also can avoid getting a record which could affect college acceptance in many cases.

But whether the crimes are serious or not the kids need to be taken off the streets.  The judges have no other choice in this matter.



...

[blombrowski]

They are local and also provide a therapy component, although I know that many here are opposed to any therapy which is not voluntary. This is a step up from the existing programs, especially in the state of New York where I heard the places were terrible.

For those families who can afford an alternative the private Therapeutic boarding schools will still be a better option because the majority of these kids are not serious offenders and also can avoid getting a record which could affect college acceptance in many cases.

But whether the crimes are serious or not the kids need to be taken off the streets. The judges have no other choice in this matter.

You either knowingly contradict yourself or you have no idea what you're talking about.

1)  Juvenile records are expunged.  They should have no impact on college admissions.  The only impact that a juvenile court record might have when it comes to college admission is what the name of the school on the high school transcript says.  Yeah, go ahead and play on parents' fear.

2)  The New York State OCFS facilities are terrible, we also have lots of other RTC's and one TBS in our state that are also terrible.  All different kinds of terrible, but terrible none the less.  

3)  What makes the difference in the Missouri model is something that no therapeutic boarding school does to my knowledge, is that they keep kids in their communities, and allow them to have regular interactions with their families.  For the private industry to even approach what Missouri does, they would have to build small group home like settings in the areas that they recruit their families from.  Don't go praising the Missouri model on one hand and then praising it's polar opposite on the other.

[Whooter]

You either knowingly contradict yourself or you have no idea what you're talking about.

Neither, I understand your sensitivity to the subject but you have to be intimately familiar with the industry from a standpoint other than having attended a program to understand.  Here are the bases for my original thinking:

1) Juvenile records are expunged. They should have no impact on college admissions. The only impact that a juvenile court record might have when it comes to college admission is what the name of the school on the high school transcript says. Yeah, go ahead and play on parents' fear.

They “Should” have no impact but they do.  Having a name like “Academy at Swift River” as the  present name of your highschool vs. a New York State detention center makes a big difference to the college acceptance board.  I think we can all agree here.  Believe me they will find a reason to reject you.

2) The New York State OCFS facilities are terrible, we also have lots of other RTC's and one TBS in our state that are also terrible. All different kinds of terrible, but terrible none the less.

Exactly, I hear you on this one, that’s why New York is looking outside their State for solutions.

3) What makes the difference in the Missouri model is something that no therapeutic boarding school does to my knowledge, is that they keep kids in their communities, and allow them to have regular interactions with their families. For the private industry to even approach what Missouri does, they would have to build small group home like settings in the areas that they recruit their families from. Don't go praising the Missouri model on one hand and then praising it's polar opposite on the other.

No, the therapeutic Boarding Schools are not local that is one of their drawbacks.  But they do offer therapy in a group setting and also one on one.  They typically have a better staff to student ratio than state run facilities and most have an effective transitional program for when the kids move back into society (as a couple of examples).  On the other hand Missouri model doesn’t have the freedom to prescreen the kids who enter their program to the point that private TBS’s can which is why Private TBS’s maintain a high success rate.  Also, sometimes removing the child from the family setting is exactly what is needed in cases where the family setting is abusive and the Missouri model would not be very effective here.  So we need to look at the possible solutions from many vantage points to determine success.  They each have their strengths and weaknesses.



...

[Anonymous]

Once again as I posted over the thread concerning the Missouri. Most 95% of these kids are not from middle or upper class lets just get honest. They don't have many options of getting sophisticated thraputic help especially w/ the family.
Which in most cases is one parent and maybe a grandparent. The ethic group is not always minority, I was one of these cases and I am as white as a "Gandorf the White". It is the crimes that brought us all together in these institutions.
Treatment centers today are not taking these cases as much today b/cuz of liability, not b/cuz they don't want them....shit they would take them in a heart beat lock them down just to get there hands on that steady cash flow from the states.
Remember Elan we took these cases back in the 70's, this is the only time I know about could have been more years there....75-78.....rapist,molesters, man slaughter, atempted murders, car theft/jacking, kidnapping, severe mental diseases, eating disorders, autism,drug/alcohole addicts and cases I can't even get into until I understand more of the legal process here. What I can say is we wharehoused them. Until consequences came, frustrations w/staff for being unable to deal w/these cases so on and so forth, we kno the drill.
Now I will say this going to Elan vice staying in juvie in 1975 was a no brainer go to Elan....Juvie was violently insane...Elan was just insane.
I applaude Missouri for making the effort to take my kin folk (young criminals) and w/ whatever family they can scrap up
and try w/ a sincere sophisticated educational/treatment system, to help these folks.

[Ursus]

...On the other hand Missouri model doesn't have the freedom to prescreen the kids who enter their program to the point that private TBS's can which is why Private TBS's maintain a high success rate.

While I'm not in Missouri, it would appear that their state programs screen on the basis of whether or not the kid has committed an actual crime, by virtue of what those programs are for. A kid who will not be helped by that system is unlikely to be there. *

TBSs, on the other hand, screen strictly on the basis of whether or not a parent can pay! Consequently, there are many kids who really do need some help ... mixed in with kids who just pissed their parents off or offended their sensibilities. This helps no one, save for the folks whose pockets get lined. And I beg to differ on that "high success rate," lol...

Also, sometimes removing the child from the family setting is exactly what is needed in cases where the family setting is abusive and the Missouri model would not be very effective here.

I think you are dead wrong here. From what I've read, the counselors in Missouri attempt to address the reasons for the kids' having headed down the path they did, which, in many cases, is abusive home settings. Here, listen to the 4:20 clip from NPR:

NPR: Missouri Youth Prisons · Listen to this Real Player news clip that explains how Missouri's Juvenile Justice System differs from the juvenile systems in other states.

August 21, 2001 · Morning Edition
Matt Hackworth of member station KCUR has a report on the Missouri juvenile justice system -- while over 70 percent of kids housed in conventional jails nationwide end up back behind bars, in Missouri that figure is only 11 percent. State officials credit their juvenile justice system, which emphasizes counseling and rehabilitation.[/list][/list]

Whereas in the other corner, while no longer actually physically residing in an abusive home helps in some cases, TBSs rarely address the reasons for that abuse in any meaningful fashion. They definitely stop short of the point where it might affect their funding source! Plus, in many cases, the abuse that subsequently happens at a TBS is even worse than the abuse which was happening at home. Gotta wonder just how meaningful this kind of "preparation for life" is for anyone.



* See also this thread on the Missouri model:

Commentary: Lock up teen criminals?
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=29834[/list][/size]

[Whooter]

While I'm not in Missouri, it would appear that their state programs screen on the basis of whether or not the kid has committed an actual crime, by virtue of what those programs are for. A kid who will not be helped by that system is unlikely to be there. *

TBSs, on the other hand, screen strictly on the basis of whether or not a parent can pay! Consequently, there are many kids who really do need some help ... mixed in with kids who just pissed their parents off or offended their sensibilities. This helps no one, save for the folks whose pockets get lined. And I beg to differ on that "high success rate," lol...

If I remember your past correctly you never had to go through the process of choosing an appropriate placement.  I believe this was done for you.  I also think you represent the predominate view here on fornits.  TBS’s that I have been exposed to will not take kids unless they feel they can be successful or refer them to programs that they feel could help them if they cannot.  I know many programs which will not take specific kids if they are too violent,  have a long history of depression, suicide, eating disorders etc.  no matter how much money they have.  Each program may have differing strengths which is what is making them more successful.
In Missouri, like you said, if the kid commits a crime he is placed regardless of whether or not they are equipped to deal with each specific cause.  The private sector has the flexibility to do a better job of screening for success, which they do.

I think you are dead wrong here. From what I've read, the counselors in Missouri attempt to address the reasons for the kids' having headed down the path they did, which, in many cases, is abusive home settings. Here, listen to the 4:20 clip from NPR:

I don’t think I said Missouri ignores the problem.  My point was that some kids need to be away from the family setting if it is abusive.

Whereas in the other corner, while no longer actually physically residing in an abusive home helps in some cases, TBSs rarely address the reasons for that abuse in any meaningful fashion.

If a TBS takes on the case of a child in an abusive household then that is the problem they are going to address.  Anyone who has been through the process knows that the strength of TBS’s is repairing family relations.  From what I have read I don’t think Elan has this reputation which shows that not all programs are the same.

They definitely stop short of the point where it might affect their funding source!

I think Nigel is a good example that this isn’t the norm.  I am sure it happens though because it is a business and some would take advantage of the situation.  Almost every program I have seen has a predetermined end date which they target fairly closely.  

Plus, in many cases, the abuse that subsequently happens at a TBS is even worse than the abuse which was happening at home. Gotta wonder just how meaningful this kind of "preparation for life" is for anyone.

We both know that abuse occurs in the state run agencies also.  It occurs everywhere, we could all toss up examples public or private.  But I think it is a feather in the private TBS’s hat that the state run facilities are starting to model their programs after the private sector by introducing a softer and more therapeutic approach to helping these children instead of just locking them up and abusing them.



...

[blombrowski]

But I think it is a feather in the private TBS’s hat that the state run facilities are starting to model their programs after the private sector by introducing a softer and more therapeutic approach to helping these children instead of just locking them up and abusing them.

 :roflmao:

Who's kidding who (no pun intended).

On paper do you think even the programs in New York State are about punishment?  They are called Residential Treatment Centers.  The problem is the culture of the programs.  Much like many of the private programs, where adults feel entitled to do whatever it is in there judgment will be helpful to the youth that they serve, whether that means sexualized role play, electric shocks, confrontational group therapy, making everyone in the program admit that they are an addict even if they've never used drugs, boxing rings, giving kids eight different kinds of powerful anti-psychotics, it's power run amok.  As long as you look at youth as having deficits that need to be fixed in a coercive fashion instead of strengths that need to be built on in a collaborative fashion, abuse will happen.

[Whooter]

Who's kidding who (no pun intended).

On paper do you think even the programs in New York State are about punishment?  They are called Residential Treatment Centers.  The problem is the culture of the programs.  Much like many of the private programs, where adults feel entitled to do whatever it is in there judgment will be helpful to the youth that they serve, whether that means sexualized role play, electric shocks, confrontational group therapy, making everyone in the program admit that they are an addict even if they've never used drugs, boxing rings, giving kids eight different kinds of powerful anti-psychotics, it's power run amok.  As long as you look at youth as having deficits that need to be fixed in a coercive fashion instead of strengths that need to be built on in a collaborative fashion, abuse will happen.

I very much doubt that New York will model their new approached based on those methods.  I think you will see that they will take a softer more therapeutic approach.   We can be assured  that they will not try to incorporate the strategies which have failed, when designing a new system from the floor up.  The approach is to look at what has worked and what has not worked and I think what we will see is that they will model their new system around the Missouri system and the positive aspects of the private TBS’s.  I very much doubt they will adopt a model which includes electric shocks, sexualized role playing and feeding them various anti-psychotic drugs.

I realize the perception of TBS, here on fornts,  is that kids get electric shocked and sexually abused and force feed medications etc. (on a daily basis, lol).   I would probably think that too if all my information was derived from fornits.  But the reality is that the industry is very successful and the public sector has sat up and taken notice of the progress and adopted similar programs (As we see Missouri did).

If fornits was dedicated to exposing corruption within, say, the “public school system” we would all be lead to believe that football coaches run every kid to death, every teacher is out to rape all the kids, the suicide rate is thru the roof and Columbine is your typical high school and you need to carry a weapon to survive.  So I understand why you have the perception that you do.  You are only seeing a small piece of the information.



...

[wdtony]

Missouri is still a very lax state when it comes to laws that apply to children. If I am not mistaken, Missouri is one of the few states where children are allowed to restrain other children in state public and privately owned programs.

@ Whooter, It is not the success of these programs that people are witnessing, it is the "illusion" of success that is purported by these programs. Please correct me if I am wrong. Which program, particularly, would you say is successful?

I believe children are force fed medications on a daily basis in programs across the country. I have talked to many of the "recently released" and stories of this. I believe that children receive electro-shock "treatment" daily at the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center in Massachusetts, which is no secret.  As for sexual abuse, I believe the loose regulations within this industry allow for many types of abuse to go unseen and therefore do not think it is unlikely that children are sexually abused daily in these programs. To trivialize these terrible things by acting as if they do not occur or to imply that they do not occur as frequently as people opine is to miss the point entirely.