How long ago were you in a program?

[Whooter]

Now a days kids get unmonitored phone calls home.

When I worked for Eckerd Youth Alternatives children made their telephone calls from the master counselor office.  I did not want to be two feet away from the child when a telephone call was made, so I sat outside the master counselor office (the door was open).  The children knew staff would listen to (monitor) telephone calls when they sat outside the master counselor office.  Monitoring telephone calls wasn't something I enjoyed doing on the job.  There was never a time I cut off a telephone call.  If I heard loud voices I'd walk in the office, wait for the situation to simmer down, then leave.

This is pretty much the experience I have had.  Many here on fornits believe that the kids cannot call home without staff listening in.  What I saw was a bank of phones (6 phones) with partitions between each child so they wouldn’t be talking over each other.  There would be counselors coming and going from the room but no one could possibly monitor the calls of those kids… eaves drop?  Yes.

So in a program environment I am sure someone is in earshot of your conversation if they wanted to be.  Growing up our phone was in the hallway near the front door and anyone who wanted to listen in could, I guess, but we didn’t consider it being “monitored”.

I guess we need to hammer out a definition of the word monitored.  I view it as someone tied into the line listening to both sides of the conversation… sort of like wire tapping.



...

[psy]

Now a days kids get unmonitored phone calls home.

When I worked for Eckerd Youth Alternatives children made their telephone calls from the master counselor office.  I did not want to be two feet away from the child when a telephone call was made, so I sat outside the master counselor office (the door was open).  The children knew staff would listen to (monitor) telephone calls when they sat outside the master counselor office.  Monitoring telephone calls wasn't something I enjoyed doing on the job.  There was never a time I cut off a telephone call.  If I heard loud voices I'd walk in the office, wait for the situation to simmer down, then leave.

This is pretty much the experience I have had.  Many here on fornits believe that the kids cannot call home without staff listening in.  What I saw was a bank of phones (6 phones) with partitions between each child so they wouldn’t be talking over each other.  There would be counselors coming and going from the room but no one could possibly monitor the calls of those kids… eaves drop?  Yes.

That's another way.  But the program knows that they can rush in right after the call and do damage control.  It could go something like this:

Program Rep: "Sir.  We're very very sorry for how upsetting that last call must have been for you.  One of our staff members happened to be passing by and heard him telling absurd things about the school.  We'd just like to assure you that what your son said was false. Here.  Talk to Ralph here. He's a level 1 on his way to being a level 2 and would like to talk to you freely and without fear of "consequences" from our program (wink wink).  Oh.  And here's a level 3.  Name's Brian Isgon.    Please talk to them all you want."

The rare child that speaks out is how lawsuits get started.

Few hours later the parents have calmed down.  Few hours after that they're enraged at their bastard kid for trying to get back by lying and making them feel guilty.  After it all dies down, they don't listen to their kids, if they ever did to begin with.  Soon the kid gives up hope and gives in to the program...  few weeks later he's singing "praise the program" to his parents on the phone.  This convinces parents there has been a real underlying change and makes for very convincing marketing.

Few years later you read that same marketing and ... some of those kids are dead.

There are many ways you can run this con game Whooter.  Superficial changes you're ranting about mean nothing.  it's not proof.  Where is the proof your precious indutry has changed?  The burden is on you.  If you expect these parents to entrust their kids to you, where is your proof you have changed?  Educated parents want to know.

[Whooter]

That's another way.  But the program knows that they can rush in right after the call and do damage control.  It could go something like this:

Program Rep: "Sir.  We're very very sorry for how upsetting that last call must have been for you.  One of our staff members happened to be passing by and heard him telling absurd things about the school.  We'd just like to assure you that what your son said was false. Here.  Talk to Ralph here. He's a level 1 on his way to being a level 2 and would like to talk to you freely and without "consequences" from our program (wink wink).  Oh.  And here's a level 3.  Name's Brian Isgon.    Please talk to them all you want."

The rare child that speaks out is how lawsuits get started.

Few hours later they're calmed down.  Few hours after that they're enraged at their bastard kid for trying to get back by lying and making them feel guilty.  After it all dies down, they don't listen to their kids, if they ever did to begin with.  Soon the kid gives up hope and gives in to the program...  few weeks later he's singing "praise the program" to his parents on the phone.  This convinces parents there has been a real underlying change and makes for very convincing marketing.

Few years later you read that same marketing and ... some of those kids are dead.

There are many ways you can run this con game Whooter.  Superficial changes you're ranting about mean nothing.  it's not proof.  Where is the proof your precious indutry has changed?  The burden is on you.  If you expect these parents to entrust their kids to you, where is your proof you have changed?  Educated parents want to know.

Look, psy, I have seen the phone banks.  I made some calls using them.  Unless the child is screaming on the phone there is little chance that anyone can hear what the kids are saying, especially with multiple conversations going on simultaneously.  But I do understand that if there was that lone last child calling home and they were in the room alone with a staffer and the room was quiet for that period of time then his/her conversation could be overheard.  So I see how some kids could say that their calls were being monitored.  We both know that if this happened then fornits would hold this one event as the standard for all programs and try to make people believe that all kids’ calls are monitored.

But in any event if you step back and look at the stories from 10,20 30 years ago where the staff person was sitting next to each child or listening in on another line then you can see how far these places have come.  I heard stories of staff just hanging up the phone in mid conversation if the child didn’t say the right thing.  Now we have improved to the point where a Childs’ words can possibly be overheard if the conditions are just right.

Do you see now why the readers need to take the stories with a grain of salt?  Torture, kidnapping, wiretapping, abuse, mind control, isolation and brainwashing……  when you get down to the actual facts the allegations fall apart fairly quickly which accounts for the lack of lawsuits in over 50,000 kids going through these places each year.

I also like how you try to relate children dying to just making a phone call… just thought you would toss that in there for effects?

Shall I say more?



...

[Ursus]

Look, psy, I have seen the phone banks. I made some calls using them. Unless the child is screaming on the phone there is little chance that anyone can hear what the kids are saying, especially with multiple conversations going on simultaneously. But I do understand that if there was that lone last child calling home and they were in the room alone with a staffer and the room was quiet for that period of time then his/her conversation could be overheard. So I see how some kids could say that their calls were being monitored.

From what I recall at Hyde, the phones were always located in areas that were relatively populated (e.g., in the hallways, near the central activity areas). In the dorms, it seemed like the higher up kids were housed in the rooms closest to the phones, but maybe that was just coincidence.

Given the way the peer culture is inculcated there, you'd have to be insane to complain or to convey too much negative information to your parents on the phone given that, in all likelihood, you'd be reamed a new asshole for your "bad attitude" during the next seminar if not that very evening by your dorm head (as well as during the next seminar). I can't speak for how things are now, but I can't imagine that they're much different.

The phones at Hyde may not have been physically monitored as in something analogous to a wiretap. But... that's because the psychological environment there created a self-censorship far more effective.

[ticked]

At Rocklyn Academy, staff either sat in the room or actually listened on the line while parents were called-once a week for 15 minutes IF they didn't come up with an excuse to not allow any calls. If the student attempted to complain, life was going to be miserable and more than likely other excuses made to remove any priviliges, like outings and usually result in removing a level or not being able to move up. Of course, it could also mean removal of phone priviliges completely.

Emails( to parents only allowed) were also monitored both ways, and held back frequently without either student or parent being told.

There was no way for students to express safety concerns to an outside person.

[Joel]

Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010

[Whooter]

I have to agree, somewhat, that the environment is sometimes enough to censor or tone down the criticism.  When I was in parochial school there were many kids that would never talk bad about the teachers/nuns no matter what they did for fear the nuns or priest would call your parents.  The last thing anyone wants is for the kids to be bitching to their parents about the school all the time.  In programs the kids only get 15 to 30 minutes on the phone so they should try to make it productive.  I use to ask my daughter all the time how the people were and how she was treated.  She told me straight out who was nice and who was an asshole.  If the kid is getting abused or raped then anyone would speak up whether they can be overheard or not.  But there will always be that one kid who acts out and loses privileges for the whole peer group.  So then the peer group culture kicks in and puts pressure on the kid to cut the crap.  So things do work out eventually and like I said if anything damaging were occurring the kid would tell his/her parents during the phone call.

Putting phones in the hallways is a good way to go because it is centralized but can be noisy and distracting at times.  I like the set-up they had a ASR where they brought 6 – 8 separate lines in and banked them on a big table separated by partitions.  This gave you a little more privacy and cut the noise level down.



...

[Ursus]

If the kid is getting abused or raped then anyone would speak up whether they can be overheard or not.

Nope. Not always. Especially when a program convinces a kid that the abuse is the kid's own fault. And especially when a program convinces all the other kids that that abuse is that kid's own fault.

So things do work out eventually and like I said if anything damaging were occurring the kid would tell his/her parents during the phone call.

Again, I disagree.

Of course, a lot also depends on the relationship between the kids and his parents, eh? If it was so fine, chances are, the kid wouldn't be in a program anyway.

It was my experience at Hyde that they drove a wedge of mistrust between kids and their parents, unless and until both parties drank the kool-aid sufficiently.

[justonemore]

Whooter " if a kid were getting raped" does that happen a lot in your experience? apparently, it does. What sort are you that you can tolerate that, that that is normative? I think I've answered my own question, I guess I know what sort you are. J.O.M.

[Whooter]

It was my experience at Hyde that they drove a wedge of mistrust between kids and their parents, unless and until both parties drank the kool-aid sufficiently.

I have heard this in the past also, here on fornits.  It has always been my experience and those of just about everyone else is that programs bring families closer.  That is their main function.  Typically the communication has broken down between the child and the parents and the central part of getting the child back on track is to repair this bound and trust.  If it is true that Hyde is still doing this then this would be a great message to get out to prospective parents.
I don’t buy into the whole Kool-aid thing unless you mean being supportive of the school like… “I’m a Yale man”!! and wearing Yale sweatshirts and such and then I can see your point.  But that isn’t destructive it just occurs naturally as you assimilate yourself into a group heading down the same path and have experiences in common.

@Justonemore:  The word “Kid” was singular and was used as a hypothetical in my case.  But yes I have read about many kids getting raped, especially in our public school system.  Not so much in privately run programs.  Do a google search and you will see what I mean.



...

[John Whooter Reuben]

I have heard this in the past also, here on fornits.  It has always been my experience and those of just about everyone else is that programs bring families closer.  

...

 It has always been my experience and those of just about everyone else is that Whooter is a boring, lame troll.

[SUCK IT]

Funny watching people spin to suit their agenda. Psy could have walked out at any time, as a legal adult who signed himself into a state-regulated rehab at the age of 18 he had that right. He could of walked to a payphone, called the cops or CPS (does child services help 18 year olds?) and told them he was being abused. But instead they focus on the lame excuse of peer pressure, oh no the staff and other kids would have got mad at me if I called anyone, so I just took it up the ass because I'm such a pussy! Sorry losers, that's not abuse , just proving the fact you are a bunch of passive, whining, cowards!

Ursus is the same, tell us Ursus how long ago were you in a program? Peer pressure ain't abuse no matter how you cut it. The hazing on sporting teams is worse than the "abuse" the people here claim to have endured. That's why when asked to prove they were abused, they write a long post talking about how it was "psychologically a prison" and shit like that, because they know it's not abuse by everyone else's definition of abuse. So they make a new fornits certified definition of abuse which includes staff telling you no, you can't do certain things. Boo-hoo! How sad that these people spend DECADES whining about this shit online to anyone gullible fool who will listen.

[Froderik]

^  :feedtrolls:  :soapbox:  :feedtrolls: ^

[DannyB II]

Look, psy, I have seen the phone banks. I made some calls using them. Unless the child is screaming on the phone there is little chance that anyone can hear what the kids are saying, especially with multiple conversations going on simultaneously. But I do understand that if there was that lone last child calling home and they were in the room alone with a staffer and the room was quiet for that period of time then his/her conversation could be overheard. So I see how some kids could say that their calls were being monitored.

From what I recall at Hyde, the phones were always located in areas that were relatively populated (e.g., in the hallways, near the central activity areas). In the dorms, it seemed like the higher up kids were housed in the rooms closest to the phones, but maybe that was just coincidence.

Given the way the peer culture is inculcated there, you'd have to be insane to complain or to convey too much negative information to your parents on the phone given that, in all likelihood, you'd be reamed a new asshole for your "bad attitude" during the next seminar if not that very evening by your dorm head (as well as during the next seminar). I can't speak for how things are now, but I can't imagine that they're much different.

The phones at Hyde may not have been physically monitored as in something analogous to a wiretap. But... that's because the psychological environment there created a self-censorship far more effective.

 :shamrock:  :shamrock:

Peer pressure @ 14,15 or 16 yrs of age is very persuasive, if not said to you verbally then in conjecture from others. Whooter lets not rule out that element, especially being insecure and confused at first being in a treatment center.
Now I will say this the programs I have visited along with a staff members, while they were on duty at night showed very little supervision concerning phone calls. Probably because there was nothing to whine about. I will not rule out peer pressure being used as a tool to silence descent.
While I was staff phone calls were aloud and were monitored not because of what one might say about the program but to make sure you were calling your parents and not your lovers, friends, someone to come get you out of there, or calling the pizza man, (like someone did while I was there and had ordered 20 pizzas), very funny at the time. The pizza guy showed up with the pizzas during group time, I think during a primal scream check this out, "I want my Pizzzzzzzaaaaaaaaa" boom it's there. Seriously this happened, our Director at the time used to always order pizza for staff and himself and of course it would come to the door and we would deliver it upstairs to his office. That smell of pizza as a kid was overwhelming, so much that one resident (never found out) tried to get us all pizza but our Director would not pay for them and refused the order. Damn Ed Freidman.  
Anyway so it is not always to make sure little Tommy is not bad-rapping the program it is for many reasons. I am sure Mom and Dad are expecting you to say bad things about a school/program they just hired to kidnap you, blindfold you and cart you off 1000 miles away.......DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What do you expect little Tommy to say, hey I am having a great time hauling rocks around and telling folks how I feel.

Danny

[Ursus]

It was my experience at Hyde that they drove a wedge of mistrust between kids and their parents, unless and until both parties drank the kool-aid sufficiently.

I have heard this in the past also, here on fornits.  It has always been my experience and those of just about everyone else is that programs bring families closer.  That is their main function.

I thought their main function was to make money. That's what they're expert at. It sure as hell isn't "behavioral health," or "character development," or, God forbid, "preparation for life!" Lol.

Sure, maybe these programs turn out to be "just the ticket" for a few families. Some people really do seem to have a real need for having a close, ideological identification with an organization, or cult, but that's not how they market themselves, is it? That dire prognosis of deadinsaneorinjail if not for the program doesn't really apply to 99% of the kids who get sucked into these joints, does it?

And when you consider that coercion always has its cost, these programs are not exactly a "benign remedy" for those families unfortunate enough to have been charmed by the glossy websites, the effusive YouTube clips, the marketing hard sell spun by Edcons. Buyer beware!  :twofinger: