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.