STOP HR911 Already

[blombrowski]

Every situation is different.  I know of situations that most of you are familiar with, that a bill such as H.R. 911 would be the difference between a particular program closing and staying open.  But by in large the dirty little secret of this industry is that even most of the private programs do in fact have a license to operate.  The States of Oregon, Arizona, Utah, and Georgia (save for some stronger language about access to a phone) just to name a few, require all programs to be licensed.

Ultimately it's people who are the regulators and the licensors.  If you get someone who values and understands that say, making girls dress up in french maid outfits is in fact abusive and they have the authority to pull a license, then the State can work (i.e. Oregon).  If you have someone with the values, but they don't have the authority, then maybe they'll care and can apply public pressure, but they can't actually legally do anything towards the facility (i.e. New York, North Carolina).  If you have someone with the authority but not the values, then you have the facade of regulation (i.e. Utah) (if regulation was working, than there would be at least one program in the last few years that's had their license revoked).  

The devil of H.R. 911 is in the details.  Who will be responsible for the oversight is just as important as the language that is in the bill.

For the record, I'm in favor of the bill, but not because I think it will solve the problem, it'll be just one more tool in the toolbox for how to solve the problem, which right now includes the Internet, the network of Protection and Advocacy organizations, Child Protective Services in very small pockets, other forms of public awareness, and licensing agencies that are cooperative, among other things that I'm sure I didn't think of.

[BuzzKill]

Every situation is different.  I know of situations that most of you are familiar with, that a bill such as H.R. 911 would be the difference between a particular program closing and staying open.  But by in large the dirty little secret of this industry is that even most of the private programs do in fact have a license to operate.  The States of Oregon, Arizona, Utah, and Georgia (save for some stronger language about access to a phone) just to name a few, require all programs to be licensed.

Ultimately it's people who are the regulators and the licensors.  If you get someone who values and understands that say, making girls dress up in french maid outfits is in fact abusive and they have the authority to pull a license, then the State can work (i.e. Oregon).  If you have someone with the values, but they don't have the authority, then maybe they'll care and can apply public pressure, but they can't actually legally do anything towards the facility (i.e. New York, North Carolina).  If you have someone with the authority but not the values, then you have the facade of regulation (i.e. Utah) (if regulation was working, than there would be at least one program in the last few years that's had their license revoked).  

The devil of H.R. 911 is in the details.  Who will be responsible for the oversight is just as important as the language that is in the bill.

For the record, I'm in favor of the bill, but not because I think it will solve the problem, it'll be just one more tool in the toolbox for how to solve the problem, which right now includes the Internet, the network of Protection and Advocacy organizations, Child Protective Services in very small pockets, other forms of public awareness, and licensing agencies that are cooperative, among other things that I'm sure I didn't think of.

This pretty much sums up my feeling on the situation.

I know it won't cure the problem. But I disagree with those who say it will make things worse. From my perspective, I believe the parents (whom some say will be made to feel more secure that the places are safe when they aren't) have no idea they aren't regulated - that there is no one with any authority over them - that when abuse and or neglect occurs there is no one with jurisdiction to investigate.  It is assumed that any place that houses kids on site and provides education and health care of any sort would be seriously watched and regulated - After all, this is most everyone's experience with schools and health care facilities. It's shocking to realize this is not the case when you try and report problems.

One of the common defenses used by program parents is that if the allegations were true the place would be closed down. They really do believe this b/c this is what any reasonable person would expect. It is always difficult to get them to realize this is not the case with these private, for profit programs - that the sate they are in has no meaningful regulatory agency with jurisdiction; that local-yokel law enforcement is often on the pay role; and that state officials who might like to investigate, have no authority to do so with out the request of the local yokels; that the feds have no jurisdiction what so ever. . .

So, I say, give the feds jurisdiction. This way, it deprives the program industry of the benefit of avoiding regulations by clustering in states that have none. I feel confident they see it the same way - why else would they so strongly oppose this bill?

[psy]

I think it could go either way.  It could help shut some bad programs down but it could also give the industry legitimacy and provide parent with a false sense of security.  Like RG, i'm not sure I trust the government with doing an adequate or even passable job of regulating this industry.

[BuzzKill]

I think it could go either way.  It could help shut some bad programs down but it could also give the industry legitimacy and provide parent with a false sense of security.  Like RG, i'm not sure I trust the government with doing an adequate or even passable job of regulating this industry.

I'm sure your right. I've never argued the feds would do a good job. But at least it would be their job - and as such, people could raise cain with them and demand they do their job and once in awhile actually get something useful accomplished.
As it is now, it is no ones job so that even if they want to do something to help they can't.

[Rusty Goat]

Parents will still put their kids in harms way, regardless of the proposed bill and its rotting pork stench! Have you ever wondered why thousands of drivers challenge the power of trains when they cross the tracks, expecting the state funded RR gate to function properly? That's what's wrong with this country... it's "not my job" mentality. Why subscribe? Spread the awareness, government support only makes the job harder!

[BuzzKill]

You're right - they will - for a lot of reasons.

If they later learn their child's education is worthless; that their child was a victim or witness to assault and battery, emotional black mail, sexual intimidation and abuse and medically neglected when ill or injured - there should be a governing/regulatory body that can take the complaint, do an investigation, and appropriately charge the perpetrators.
Because so many states refuse to provide this, we have no choice but to turn to the feds.

I'm all for the rampant talking - educating the public - getting this issue "out there" in every way possible Bill. We've had limited success with this method, but this is no reason to abandon it. Nor is it a reason to ignore or hold in disdain other efforts to do whatever else can be done.

[Rusty Goat]

I called the subcommittee handling HR911 a couple weeks ago, they asked what state I was calling from... What the hell difference does it make? Don't they work for all Americans? If someone from the committee that has the bill in hand won't talk about it due to state residency issues, then how do you expect parents will EVER get anything accomplished?  Why would anyone support this bill even though it does not include offshore programs? So Johnny goes to Costa Rica or Samoa and OH WELL.. :beat:  :beat:  :beat:  :beat:  :beat: . It's time to kill HR911!!!  ::unhappy::

[BuzzKill]

I called the subcommittee handling HR911 a couple weeks ago, they asked what state I was calling from... What the hell difference does it make? Don't they work for all Americans? If someone from the committee that has the bill in hand won't talk about it due to state residency issues, then how do you expect parents will EVER get anything accomplished?  Why would anyone support this bill even though it does not include offshore programs? So Johnny goes to Costa Rica or Samoa and OH WELL.. :beat:  :beat:  :beat:  :beat:  :beat: . It's time to kill HR911!!!  ::unhappy::

D.C. always wants to know what state your in. Makes no difference who or why your calling.

As to off shore programs - with one notable exception I can think of, they were all eventually closed down by the governments of the nations they located in. Why can't we demand as much from the USofA?

[Rusty Goat]

out of over 300 MILLION people in the USA, there's maybe what... 20 who have gone out in public to make it known that program abuse should stop. Demand all you want... while yer waitin for results, try sinking an aircraft carrier with a BB gun. :wall:

[BuzzKill]

How many statements from students, parents and ex-staff did ISAC have Bill? I honestly don't know and am sincerely asking - How many?

How many names are on the Turley plaintiffs list?

How many wrote one or more members of congress and or the White House on this issue?

I'm sure even accounting for duplication the list comes to more than 20. That said, I will concede we've never had the ground swell of outrage that this issue deserves and never will.  I don't see how this translates to hopeless defeat. I continue to believe much can be done to improve a kid's chances of avoiding the trauma these programs will inflict by continuing business as usual.

[Che Gookin]

People need to be willing to respond to the kids as individuals when the opportunity presents itself. It happened alot back in the day, be nice to see it happening again.

[anythinganyone]

Why not a bill with new, concrete requirements, such as, say, not allowing it to be a privilege to contact parents, a limitation on the length of stays in isolation (I remember hearing Spring Creek only kept students for three days in isolation for the highest punishment because that was the most legally permissible), permission for students to speak with attorneys or child abuse hotlines unmonitored &c.

[BuzzKill]

If you heard that about Spring Creek you heard a load of bull. There is one case on record of a young man spending 9 months in SCL's "hobbit" and Montana has no regulations over these private, for profit facilities at all. There was some talk of legislation some time back but the people they set up to over-see it where the people who operate the programs!

HR 911 does insist students have contact with family and access to a phone. How this will be enforced is the concern.  The fear is it will increase parental confidence while in reality the kids will be just as isolated as ever.

[Rusty Goat]

How many statements from students, parents and ex-staff did ISAC have Bill? I honestly don't know and am sincerely asking - How many?

How many names are on the Turley plaintiffs list?

How many wrote one or more members of congress and or the White House on this issue?

I'm sure even accounting for duplication the list comes to more than 20. That said, I will concede we've never had the ground swell of outrage that this issue deserves and never will.  I don't see how this translates to hopeless defeat. I continue to believe much can be done to improve a kid's chances of avoiding the trauma these programs will inflict by continuing business as usual.

Ok Buzzkill, I'll revise the number to 35. My post said "WHO HAVE GONE OUT IN PUBLIC", like holding a sign or going on camera for a local news story... Not private emails, letters, etc... Sure, there's lots more than 35 folks who have contributed to exposing the industry "under the radar" and even more who support what exposing folks do, but overt public outcry, only about 35 out of hundreds of millions. I've often likened this "movement" to a treasure hunt. Every clue leads to another clue but the treasure is never found. People oblige themselves to alert others about harmful treatment, that's a natural human thing to do. If let's say, 1,000 people showed up to protest somewhere, or that many folks at once were to jam a street, parking lot, park, landmark, whatever, then people would start to listen participate even more. Meanwhile, just keep plinkin away at that carrier.... :wall:

BTW, when is the vote for this bill? Nobody in that office on Cap Hill or in Richmond has responded to my inquiries.

[BuzzKill]

Well, I suspect no one has responded b/c the bill is dead and not likely to be resurrected so you're probably safe and can stop with the banging of your head against "some mad bugger's wall".

We see going public differently. I see it as a public statement. You see it as bodily involvement. We're both right enuff I think.  



All alone, or in two's,
The ones who really love you
Walk up and down outside the wall.
Some hand in hand
And some gathered together in bands.
The bleeding hearts and artists
Make their stand.

And when they've given you their all
Some stagger and fall, after all, it's not easy
Banging your heart against some mad bugger's wall.