Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > Public Sector Gulags
New York State shutting state facilities?
blombrowski:
Seriously, your efforts to try to spin this are kind of sad.
The distance issue is really simple. You make a reasonable point that if you happen to be from a family where jet-setting is pretty common, and "community" is a relative term, and the parent has a Gulfstream, I suppose a trip of hundreds or even thousands of miles wouldn't pose much of a barrier. However, that's the exception for most families, and distance can be as much of a psychological barrier as much as a physical one.
By keeping youth closer to home there's a psychological and physical engagement with the family that is more likely to happen. Not to say that a parent couldn't just as easily place a child in an RTC down the street, and then never go see them, but it's more unlikely. Research shows that family engagement leads to better outcomes. Out of sight, out of mind. Out of mind, and the transition back can be jarring, leading to relapse and recidivism.
Making their dorms not look like jail cells helps. I've seen rooms in RTCs that look more like jail cells than the ones in Missouri.
But the real secret to their success is the screening process, where they are probably assessed multiple times by a trained team of social workers, psychologists, and psychiatrists, on intake, and at the juvenile detention center. And lastly and most importantly, the youth have a lawyer, who can defend their client's rights and make sure that whatever screening process is being used is being properly administered. I can tell you that's something they didn't learn from the private industry.
Whooter:
--- Quote from: "blombrowski" ---seriously, your efforts to try to spin this are kind of sad.
--- End quote ---
Its just a discussion. I think we have covered some good points. Just because we dont see eye to eye on every point doesnt mean one of us is spinning.
--- Quote ---The distance issue is really simple. You make a reasonable point that if you happen to be from a family where jet-setting is pretty common, and "community" is a relative term, and the parent has a Gulfstream, I suppose a trip of hundreds or even thousands of miles wouldn't pose much of a barrier. However, that's the exception for most families, and distance can be as much of a psychological barrier as much as a physical one.
By keeping youth closer to home there's a psychological and physical engagement with the family that is more likely to happen. Not to say that a parent couldn't just as easily place a child in an RTC down the street, and then never go see them, but it's more unlikely. Research shows that family engagement leads to better outcomes. Out of sight, out of mind. Out of mind, and the transition back can be jarring, leading to relapse and recidivism.
--- End quote ---
I agree , the closer the better. But I haven’t seen a correlation between distance and success.
--- Quote ---Making their dorms not look like jail cells helps. I've seen rooms in RTCs that look more like jail cells than the ones in Missouri.
--- End quote ---
I am sure the private industry varies widely and they wouldn’t model their new system after an RTC that looked like a jail cell. Personally I wouldn’t send my kid to one that looked like that either. The "Missouri Model" utilizes a dorm type layout with no locks on the doors. The rooms look very similar to those my daughter stayed in at ASR.
--- Quote ---But the real secret to their success is the screening process
--- End quote ---
I think this is where we closely agree.
--- Quote ---, where they are probably assessed multiple times by a trained team of social workers, psychologists, and psychiatrists, on intake, and at the juvenile detention center.
--- End quote ---
This is where the private sector has an advantage because they have many options at their disposal. The private sector needs to rely on local services to perform these screenings. My daughter needed to be evaluated at a local hospital for 3 days prior to acceptance. The program did not provide this service. But the end result was the same.
--- Quote ---And lastly and most importantly, the youth have a lawyer, who can defend their client's rights and make sure that whatever screening process is being used is being properly administered. I can tell you that's something they didn't learn from the private industry.
--- End quote ---
No they didn’t take this from the private sector. The state/court system is not likely to give up control and the parents are not the childs advocates in the public sector. It is tough on parents to have to turn over their parental control to lawyers and state employees. That is why I always advocate that if the parents can afford it they should keep their kids out of the court system and get them the help they need, out of pocket, thru a private Boarding school. In many cases they can have their child see a private therapist which adds an extra dimension and they have a little more control over when the child comes home.
...
wdtony:
Whooter wrote:
"No they didn’t take this from the private sector. The state/court system is not likely to give up control and the parents are not the childs advocates in the public sector. It is tough on parents to have to turn over their parental control to lawyers and state employees. That is why I always advocate that if the parents can afford it they should keep their kids out of the court system and get them the help they need, out of pocket, thru a private Boarding school. In many cases they can have their child see a private therapist which adds an extra dimension and they have a little more control over when the child comes home."
It is tough on parents to give up control, but not as tough as a child who has been stripped of his or her rights and sent away while having no legal procedure to protect them. Parents, in many cases (if not most) are just as big a part of the problem as the children. Sometimes the entire problem stems from the parents themselves. In these cases, should the kids receive "therapy"? And if so, for what reason? I have no problem with a kid being allowed to live away from the family for a short period of time as long as that child ALWAYS has the option to control where they are staying and always has open communication to complain to authorities if there is any abuse. And I agree with blombrowski that placement should be close to home if there is no other option than placement, preferrably in the same state. Once a parent has made the decision to send their child away, they have essentially given up control over their child anyway. Why would it be a bad idea to give that child the ability to obtain legal representation and advocacy? The parents are paying either way.
Maybe we are focusing on the children too much here. A family problem should be treated as such, with the parents taking the majority of the responsibility for the family problem. When an assessment is conducted on a child, wouldn't it be wise to assess the problem from the standpoint that the parents may be the largest contributing factor (or, at least "a" factor) to the dynamics of the child's "bad" behavior? A family assessment instead of an individual assessment seems more appropriate. This would also aid in any counseling the child received in the future. No matter where you send the child, the family will likely be unchanged when the child returns. And this is why I often side with blombrowski and his thoughts on the family approach.
Anonymous:
I sincerely doubt that assessing parents will start anytime soon w/ integrity....if they did this then the whole "shooting match" would change and the treatment industry would falter almost as much as the housing market.
They would have to create a whole knew cottage industry w/ the concentration on the parents getting treatment to learn how to responsibly raise children....If they could put the parents behind bars w/ their chilren....you know the dads that run out and don't pay....mom's that use the rent money for meth....ect...put them along side their children....pass a bill in every state that if you fail in your responsibilities of parenthood due to being a asshole, well by God you will be held accountable.
I know this sounds rather naive and stupid ....but is it really.....irresponsible parents account for the industry(youth treatment)
financial gains...on the backs of their own children....How many of us had parents that dropped ball, now I am not saying that we don't have to accept our own responsibility we do, I'm talking about when we were young and the ball was set in motion before we even knew b/cuz of decisions made by parents that were either ill equiped or selfish and self-centered.
How much conversation does this attract here or on any site......wonder if there are any opinions written or data on this...maybe a study done..lab study...anyone have any idea...let me be more specific, a study done on the parents contribution negatively on their children and how this is assessed as part of the process prior to acceptance of treatment for their children.
Thanks for bringing this point up...cause for thought.... :shamrock:
psy:
--- Quote from: "Whooter" ---This is getting off topic but I’ll respond…
I checked your link and your first source is a random posting with no back up where you tried to show she was a clinical director…
--- End quote ---
It's a cached posting by Tom Croke, educational consultant, from his old website, Bridge to Understanding Online.
--- Quote ---also I couldn’t find any evidence that she is currently referring to aspen programs.
--- End quote ---
It used to be on her website. Can't find it anymore but it was there.
--- Quote ---But even if she were you need to look at the time frame when the study was being done, not what she is doing today. What if a researcher joins one of the companies they researched? Does this invalidated their previous work? Of course not.
--- End quote ---
She worked, for Aspen. Aspen paid for the study (as admitted by NATSAP's Jan Moss in this document) which says "Disclosure Statement: Aspen Education Group provided funding for this study". The study was on 9 aspen programs, presumably from data provided directly from Aspen. I could go on and on but the credibility of just about every element of the study and those who conducted it was pretty well picked apart in this post.
--- Quote ---Until that happens we will rely on the next best thing which is to speak to families which have had kids attend these programs
--- End quote ---
Why is it with you always "Speak to families who have had kids attend..." and never "Speak with the kids" themselves, who were actually in the program and have first hand experience... And for the sake of neutrality, seek the kids out rather than let the programs recommend them. There are plenty of Facebook or MySpace groups for any given program which is a good place to start.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version