Author Topic: New York State shutting state facilities?  (Read 5325 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline blombrowski

  • Posts: 135
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: New York State shutting state facilities?
« Reply #45 on: January 18, 2010, 08:53:00 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Whooter

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5513
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: New York State shutting state facilities?
« Reply #46 on: January 18, 2010, 09:41:59 PM »
Quote from: "blombrowski"
seriously, your efforts to try to spin this are kind of sad.
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.

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.
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
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.
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.
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.



...
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline wdtony

  • Posts: 852
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
    • http://www.pfctruth.com
Re: New York State shutting state facilities?
« Reply #47 on: January 18, 2010, 11:42:22 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Pathway Family Center Truth = http://www.pfctruth.com

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164659
  • Karma: +3/-3
    • View Profile
Re: New York State shutting state facilities?
« Reply #48 on: January 19, 2010, 01:18:03 AM »
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:
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline psy

  • Administrator
  • Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 5602
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
    • http://homepage.mac.com/psyborgue/
Re: New York State shutting state facilities?
« Reply #49 on: January 19, 2010, 04:59:57 AM »
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…

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.

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.

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

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.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
Benchmark Young Adult School - bad place [archive.org link]
Sue Scheff Truth - Blog on Sue Scheff
"Our services are free; we do not make a profit. Parents of troubled teens ourselves, PURE strives to create a safe haven of truth and reality." - Sue Scheff - August 13th, 2007 (fukkin surreal)

Offline mark babitz

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 808
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: New York State shutting state facilities?
« Reply #50 on: January 19, 2010, 09:19:57 AM »
Parents often negate the problems and causes of their kids troubles and blame them on anything but themselves. People by nature hate to admit being wrong and over doing something. The kids are the best resource to truth.They really have no reason to hold back or embellish with others that were in Elan or any place like that.The fact is we as survivors like them, do believe the stories because all of us were in a story like that one time. :rocker:  :jamin:  :rocker:  :rasta:  :rasta:  :cheers:
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Whooter

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5513
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: New York State shutting state facilities?
« Reply #51 on: January 19, 2010, 12:14:17 PM »
@ psy ……Of course Aspen paid for the study.   I don’t think anyone is going to perform a study for free.  They are very expensive.  Aspen chose to have the study done externally.

Canyon Research performs studies of treatment programs so naturally they would want to employ people who are familiar with this area and or have a background in the field.  If they were doing research of retirement facilities it would be advantageous to hire people who had a background and experience in this area.  In fact this would add to the studies credibility not take away from it.  I would agree with you if any of the employees working on the particular study was presently employed by Aspen, but they were not.  Canyon Research gets paid whether the outcome is favorable or not.

I fully understand why you and others want to discredit the study.  I have been here long enough to know that anything favorable to the industry is a tough area to discuss and it is better to bury it or discredit it and I have come to accept that here.  But I maintain that it is important to look at all the information available not just the reports which fit a particular persons’ views.

@ psy and others, As far as asking the kids what their experience has been I think many of you know that I believe the more information a person can have the better equipped they are to make a good decision.  I recommend parents read here on fornits as well as contacting and visiting the programs and speaking to families who have had kids attend the programs.  They should talk to as many people as possible before making a decision.



...
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Ursus

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8989
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
Re: New York State shutting state facilities?
« Reply #52 on: January 19, 2010, 12:56:37 PM »
Quote from: "Whooter"
@ psy ……Of course Aspen paid for the study.   I don’t think anyone is going to perform a study for free.  They are very expensive.  Aspen chose to have the study done externally.

Canyon Research performs studies of treatment programs so naturally they would want to employ people who are familiar with this area and or have a background in the field.  If they were doing research of retirement facilities it would be advantageous to hire people who had a background and experience in this area.  In fact this would add to the studies credibility not take away from it.  I would agree with you if any of the employees working on the particular study was presently employed by Aspen, but they were not.  Canyon Research gets paid whether the outcome is favorable or not.

I fully understand why you and others want to discredit the study.  I have been here long enough to know that anything favorable to the industry is a tough area to discuss and it is better to bury it or discredit it and I have come to accept that here.  But I maintain that it is important to look at all the information available not just the reports which fit a particular persons’ views.
:roflmao:  This is just like the tobacco industry's Altria Group hiring an "outside firm" -- comprised of former employees who still work with and support their former employer -- to do a "study" on the alleged lesser harm of "light" cigarettes. Jeezum! Would YOU believe them?

When all is said and done, it's pretty clear that this is just yet another advertising gimmick, one that cloaks the "info" with dubious legitimacy.

Altria got hauled to court for the fraudulent nature of just that bit of advertising. Perhaps Aspen should be dealt with similarly.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
-------------- • -------------- • --------------

Offline Whooter

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5513
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: New York State shutting state facilities?
« Reply #53 on: January 19, 2010, 01:43:46 PM »
Quote from: "Ursus"
Quote from: "Whooter"
@ psy ……Of course Aspen paid for the study.   I don’t think anyone is going to perform a study for free.  They are very expensive.  Aspen chose to have the study done externally.

Canyon Research performs studies of treatment programs so naturally they would want to employ people who are familiar with this area and or have a background in the field.  If they were doing research of retirement facilities it would be advantageous to hire people who had a background and experience in this area.  In fact this would add to the studies credibility not take away from it.  I would agree with you if any of the employees working on the particular study was presently employed by Aspen, but they were not.  Canyon Research gets paid whether the outcome is favorable or not.

I fully understand why you and others want to discredit the study.  I have been here long enough to know that anything favorable to the industry is a tough area to discuss and it is better to bury it or discredit it and I have come to accept that here.  But I maintain that it is important to look at all the information available not just the reports which fit a particular persons’ views.
:roflmao:  This is just like the tobacco industry's Altria Group hiring an "outside firm" -- comprised of former employees who still work with and support their former employer -- to do a "study" on the alleged lesser harm of "light" cigarettes. Jeezum! Would YOU believe them?

When all is said and done, it's pretty clear that this is just yet another advertising gimmick, one that cloaks the "info" with dubious legitimacy.

Altria got hauled to court for the fraudulent nature of just that bit of advertising. Perhaps Aspen should be dealt with similarly.

Well, I think we all could agree that those tobacco people (researchers) should be hauled into court for that, Ursus.  Having the tobacco company hire an outside firm to conduct research is the right thing to do.  But having the researchers on the tobacco companies parole would be fraudulent, no doubt.  

But as far as research groups go it would be difficult to find any successful researcher (in any field) who doesn’t have a background or experience in the area they are researching.

It is best to have researchers who use to work in the field they are researching it just makes sense.  Now like you said if the people doing research for Canyon Research were also getting paid by the industry (on their parole) then I would see a reason for concern.  But this isn’t the case.

Again I understand why information favorable to the industry doesn’t get discussed here and more energy is put into discrediting it than analyzing the results.



...
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Whooter

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5513
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: New York State shutting state facilities?
« Reply #54 on: January 19, 2010, 02:25:57 PM »
Quote from: "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.


I think I am the first ones to agree that in most cases it is not just the kids problem but rather a family issue.  To send the child off to be fixed without taking a look at the root cause(which could be the home environment) is just not going to work long term.
 
If the family is indeed the problem or part of the problem then removing the child from the situation is probably a good thing.  The Missouri Model does this also and the therapist works with the family at home to try make the necessary changes so that the child returns to a healthy environment.  The program my daughter attended did just this.  They worked with the child individually and also with the family and made recommendations as to what should be changed in the childs home situation to assist with a smooth transition home….  (in my case it was a bumpy transition period but they have  improved themselves since then)... this has actually become one of the programs strengths where as it use to be their weakness in my opinion.



...
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »