Civil discussion: Troubled Teen Industry

[Awake]

Civil discussion about the Troubled Teen Industry

Weird huh? I just thought I’d see how it goes.

This thread is for holding discussions about the Troubled Teen Industry in a CIVIL manner, please only participate if you are willing to do so.



I’ll offer my thoughts ….   There are too few standards in the industry to ethically justify it’s operation.

[Samara]

I think one of my concerns is that a Program can say anything. Mine said the academic were solid, the accreditation was solid, the therapy was individualized, and that they promoted effective communication... the brochures looked promising... but were not only misleading, but false.  It's not even a matter of subjective thinking. It was fraud.

Programs can cross the t's and dot the i's but still be therapeutically abusive.  (Do everything right on paper to avoid scrutiny.)

Another issue is that teens simply don't have any credibility once they are labeled "troubled teen." They are not allowed to be critical consumers of their own care.  And many places are more concerned with compliance and suppression than respect.  Thus, how can teens advocate for themselves once placed? If they complain, the program will simply tell the parents the teen is manipulating them, and the parents end up doubting their child more than before.  

These are my problems with "programs." There is no way to really ascertain how it respects the child as an individual. Also - I'm not afan of criminalizing youths and making them feel they are "bad" order to get them to "go straight."  Even though there our tours and visits, I know firsthand how parents were manipulated and given phony experentials, and I also know how older students leading the tours promoted the program under pretenses. Everyone jokes about it now - some even feel bad about misleading prospects, but unless you wanted to be  beaten down, you complied.

Had I never been in a program, I too might look at the brochures convinced this place has genuine intentions. Or I might not realize, however genuine the intentions are, theory and practice are often contradictory.  Destructively so. That is why I am such a skeptic on a unilateral level.

There was a poster named Son of Serbia who went to CEDU. He did talk about a school (not a program) that worked very well for him after CEDU. But it wasn't a program - nor was it based on punitive, insular, or synanon practices. It was a real school geared for kids who think differetly, based on respect.  It didn't tear apart families etc. and it in no way resembled a program. (Serb is extremely independent minded and a staunch opponent of a program like CEDU. I wish I remembered the school. It was in Vermont.)

[Awake]

I certainly agree that  ‘Troubled Teen’ is a very ambiguous term yet its wide use effectively discredits the person that is labelled. This ability to overpower someone by labelling them seems to work because defiance of it further brands the victim. To deny the label you have to ‘not be troubled’ but the teen is denied the ability to apply his own definition, and so there is no option but to play into the others definition of him as ‘out of control of himself’.  In this way I think this  lack of definition represents a lack of ethics necessary to justify operating under this label, as it is the catalyst for further mislabelling such as ‘withdrawn’ , ‘defensive’ or any number of labels that will incur a prescription for the behaviour, all under the falsity of being  stamped, ‘Troubled Teen’.  

I also think there is a lack of definition in what can be prosecuted as abuse in the TTI.  Many times I hear that arguments concerning abuse need to concern themselves with overt situations, like violence, physically harmful situations, risk of death, sexual molestation, and other very obvious abuses. But causing psychological harm can easily occur in the TTI very covertly.  Anyone that is forced into therapy is going to be resistant of it, and so the general expectation of the ‘troubled ‘teen’ is that he will not be ‘accepting’ therapy as ‘help’.  So  a staff can act openly benevolent and outwardly helpful to assist in ‘helping’ and have it serve as a covert attack on the child that cannot be deflected, this could be intentional or proper staff conduct as suggested by the program. This is far worse than name calling because you can’t defend against it, you must play along. I think the illusion is that you learn to be sensitive to the reality of the staff, as they are the directors of the system, but your punishments and rewards are judged against how you act in the system.  It is in this way that the staff can always hide behind the system as the punishing agent and deny the reality of the interpersonal relationship.

Even more generally, as this system is working, even the most positive intent and fair practices constitute a potential for harm by lack of definition and misdiagnosis.

[Whooter]

I think the strength of the industry is providing a new setting for a child who is not doing well in their present setting and not responding to local services.  Without Therapeutic Boarding schools there would be no alternative for parents to turn to.

In the past troubled teens were met with strict remediation and now we are seeing that kids respond much better to education and a change in peer group in a highly structured enviornment.  They don’t stress competition and focus on getting the child to succeed so as to fuel their emotional growth.  This is almost impossible to do if the child is living at home in a toxic environment and seeing a counselor once a week.  The key to success is that the child needs to buy into the placement and wants to get help, otherwise they may not embrace the therapy or self help exercises that are available.  The kids need to do the work themselves, the staff is only there to assist them and help them stay on track.

The argument that the child should be kept at home at all costs is weak at best especially if the child is not thriving and clearly heading in a dangerous direction.  I think a quick look at the tally of 1,200 to 1,500 children who take their own lives each year along with the thousands of others who take to the streets lacking an education and survival skills.  Intervention would have clearly benefitted  the majority of these children.

If I could see a gaping hole I would say that parents can just chose to send their children away even if the child doesn’t need help or the program is not a good fit.  In this area I think regulation would help if there was a requirement that a third party sign off on all placements by a doctor, school counselor etc.



...

[Awake]

I think there is the potential for programs to be beneficial, but as it stands today there is not enough protection in place to make it safe. If they have not developed their practice enough to account for the types of harm inherent in the operation, should they be doing it?

One expectations that we need to remove is that success depends on the child ‘wanting’ it, or blaming failure on the attitude of the child. This blames the child for something he can’t control if it forces him to deny things he knows to be true of himself. If the end result is failure, the program needs to take responsibility for it.

[Ursus]

There was a poster named Son of Serbia who went to CEDU. He did talk about a school (not a program) that worked very well for him after CEDU. But it wasn't a program - nor was it based on punitive, insular, or synanon practices. It was a real school geared for kids who think differetly, based on respect. It didn't tear apart families etc. and it in no way resembled a program. (Serb is extremely independent minded and a staunch opponent of a program like CEDU. I wish I remembered the school. It was in Vermont.)

It's called Rock Point School. Son of Serbia mentioned it here, here, and here (and, in some cases, a subsequent post in addition to noted link).

I am aware of this place 'cuz there is a negative review of Hyde School on Lon's site, written by a couple who pulled their daughter from Hyde. They subsequently enrolled her at Rock Point School, and ended up also submitting a positive review for the latter.

As a qualifying comment on the latter, I should add that it doesn't sound like their daughter had yet completed the year ... at the time that said positive review was written, although I might be interpreting that incorrectly. I think the parents were just sooooo happy that Rock Point wasn't as punitively based, coercive, and dishonest as Hyde was, and felt compelled to point out that difference!

It's also mentioned on the Hyde forum a few times: here, and here, and some other conversation that I can't find right now.

Although I'm not really in a position to judge, I would say it's a bit of a concern to me that Lon Woodbury apparently thinks so highly of them. Just sayin' ... as a word of caution.

[Samara]

I'm not too concerned that woodbury wrote it up positively. I don't trust him at all based on his past alliances, but even a total schmuck hits a bull's eye every now and again.   What I like about RPS is it doesn't stifle individual expression and does not use lifespring experentials or abusive group raps. It doesn't appear to rely on therapeutic coersion at all. It is not a TBS.

Also, Serb is oppositional, opinionated, and discretionary in his endorsements, and I trust his judgment.

I think key for me besides proper accreditation and transparency is no EST, Lifespring, Stepcraft or Synanon type expernetials, and I'm not big on "rap" therapy, which is one big anxiety inducing clusterfuck of dysfunction.  I also think if a kid needs therapy it shoudl be discretonary, third party, and voluntary. But truthfully, I think good therapists are in short supply, and much can be acomplished by modeling, rewards, and respecting the individual.

Any school that restricts contact with family is a no-go.  

I eventually went to an alternative private school as well that was staffed by college professors (a day school). I wish more students could afford this - it valued mutual respect and intellectual curiosity over compliance.  I ended up getting into 2nd tier schools and one Ivy. Not that it matters.

[Awake]

I definitely understand that we need to eliminate the Lifespring, Est, Synanon etc type elements, but it seems difficult to measure them enough to create an ethical standard for protecting against their techniques. Simple modifications to them can make it so they can’t be considered related. I think it would be worth breaking down the organizations tactics and defining which of those techniques are abusive, or abusive in conjunction. Then it might be possible to put preventative measures in place.


I think any program that uses group therapy has the potential to carry  elements of those organizations and coerce interaction, and more, a group therapy situation that is unmonitored or not mediated correctly is likely to result in ‘therapeutic’ interaction that perpetuates falsities and misperceptions of one another.

[DannyB II]

I like where this is going, I think I'm reading that there is a need for treatment and a specialized school/program for some of these children in need. I have always been disillusioned by the idealism here that no child ever needed special assistance, that staying home and using local therapeutic remedies would be the optimum solution. Well this is not only wrong but reckless for the child and the family, there are certain behaviors if left alone without treatment or basic care that only grow worse, these mental/emotional issues are inherent with the child, ei: 1)born with- bi-poplar, severe personality disorder, ect.... 2) developed do to family dysfunction- incest, drug addicted parents, violence within family or parents/guardian suffering from mental issues themselves which are untreated, or their parents just don't give a shit have a lot of money and want someone else to deal with problem.
@ Samara you talked about Son Of Serbia, going to this special school after he left treatment, well then there was still a need for Serbia to receive a type of assistance/treatment to deal with a out of character problem. Out of character to normal social settings for teens ei: public schools, catholic schools, regular private schools.
Why is it difficult for us to accept we may have been different at the time, (not that it is wrong and we need to be punished for it)that we had issues that compromised our existence in the home and at school. That we may not of had the social skills needed to adapt to life at that time. (ya know sometimes we have to be careful when we analyze are condition at 14-15-16 yrs.old through the brain of a 45-50 year old, we are much more experienced. We need to try to remember our adolescence experiences with the  emotions and mental state of that time, just thinking.) What was going on, why did our parents or authorities make this decision. Not just the staple answer but what was really going on with us. Did these programs we were in help in any way and if they did how can that be expanded on.
I agree with what has been said so far about group therapy, it was handled irresponsibly while I was a resident at Elan. I believe that most of the staff that I was involved with were trying to help me, were just ill-advised and overwhelmed with the complexities of group therapy.
Do I think this problem was inherent yes I do, especially at Elan because the owner was maladjusted himself and the co-owner could not stand up to him.
This here I believe is a "isolated incident" insofar that I don't believe every owner was sick like Joe nor did they have a co-owner who could not stand up.

Just some thoughts for now.....

[Awake]

I like where this is going too.  First I would say that, in regard for a ‘need’ for programs and treatment, I don’t think one can validate the other yet, not as it currently operates.  As it stands today I see that the only reliable function of the TTI is for intervention and detention purposes, therapeutic results I don’t think can be accounted for very well.

To purely identify these programs as a vessel for individual therapy would not be realistic, it functions as a social cure, and that is something we need to keep a close eye on.  These facilities detain people outside the scrutiny of our legal system, and an industry of this size, that is even outsourced at this point, can grow out of control if we don’t challenge them, like we didn’t with the shady lending on wall street.  It seems so obvious after the fact, but we got lost in fulfilling a ‘need’ before we understood the hows and whys of the solution, it is something we should not do.

Second In that there are children in ‘need’ of special services, and in some cases an actual program environment may be for the better, I don’t think that the child’s ‘need’ is the sole driver of the industry. I think more considerable elements are ‘desire’ and ‘demand’. The ‘desire’ for parents to do what’s best for their children, or do what’s best for the other members of the family, or to just have some free time and still look good, or any combination of those, is certainly a motivational factor. I  think the industry creates demand by playing on parents emotions, candy coating appearances and using their professional stature to create a definition of  a ‘child in need’ FOR them.  Creating guides that teach parents to identify when their teen is going down a bad road, that cite instances such as ‘change in appearance’ ‘different friends’ ‘change in normal activities’, is just stating what we can  expect from normal teenage development, and then advertising to them the well behaved child they are failures for not having creates an illusion of ‘need’ when it is a simple is a misperception of normal teenage growth in a constantly evolving world.  

So the demand fulfilled by programs is separable into peices as I see it. Need (by child or family, society), Desire (by parents), and the service is also divisible into therapy for the individual and/or the family.  The overall success of the TTI is a sum of these, and it is indeterminable how much a part ‘need’ (or any other part) plays in that.  It would be interesting if we could evaluate the profits of the industry through those different streams of motivation from the buyer to really get a handle on how much ‘need’ plays in the overall demand.

It may sound nitpicky, but we are talking about particular services that are being attempted.  If the industry becomes something that profits by servicing the ‘desire’ of the parent  by mislabelling it as a ‘need’ of the child, that is a major context for inappropriate use of therapy.

[DannyB II]

"Awake" wrote:
I like where this is going too.  First I would say that, in regard for a ‘need’ for programs and treatment, I don’t think one can validate the other yet, not as it currently operates.  As it stands today I see that the only reliable function of the TTI is for intervention and detention purposes, therapeutic results I don’t think can be accounted for very well.

No one can argue that for most of the programs.

To purely identify these programs as a vessel for individual therapy would not be realistic, it functions as a social cure, and that is something we need to keep a close eye on.  These facilities detain people outside the scrutiny of our legal system, and an industry of this size, that is even outsourced at this point, can grow out of control if we don’t challenge them, like we didn’t with the shady lending on wall street.  It seems so obvious after the fact, but we got lost in fulfilling a ‘need’ before we understood the hows and whys of the solution, it is something we should not do.

Well that is not necessarily the TTI's fault, that there is not scrutiny but I'm sure they take advantage of it. Some programs more then others.

Second In that there are children in ‘need’ of special services, and in some cases an actual program environment may be for the better, I don’t think that the child’s ‘need’ is the sole driver of the industry. I think more considerable elements are ‘desire’ and ‘demand’. The ‘desire’ for parents to do what’s best for their children, or do what’s best for the other members of the family, or to just have some free time and still look good, or any combination of those, is certainly a motivational factor. I  think the industry creates demand by playing on parents emotions, candy coating appearances and using their professional stature to create a definition of  a ‘child in need’ FOR them.  Creating guides that teach parents to identify when their teen is going down a bad road, that cite instances such as ‘change in appearance’ ‘different friends’ ‘change in normal activities’, is just stating what we can  expect from normal teenage development, and then advertising to them the well behaved child they are failures for not having creates an illusion of ‘need’ when it is a simple is a misperception of normal teenage growth in a constantly evolving world.

Awake all of this is the obvious, what more is going on here? Some folks on these web sites sound as if there is this country wide conspiracy going on to capitalize on children and their parents weaknesses to make money.
I just don't see this or can believe it, what I do see is programs that allocate their money within their organization in a piss pore way. Their priorities are screwed up, instead of investing more money in qualified staff and Psychiatrists, they want a new jungle gym or better uniforms for sports, newer classrooms to impress parents, ect.....  

So the demand fulfilled by programs is separable into peices as I see it. Need (by child or family, society), Desire (by parents), and the service is also divisible into therapy for the individual and/or the family.  The overall success of the TTI is a sum of these, and it is indeterminable how much a part ‘need’ (or any other part) plays in that.  It would be interesting if we could evaluate the profits of the industry through those different streams of motivation from the buyer to really get a handle on how much ‘need’ plays in the overall demand.

I agree, how can we do it.

It may sound nitpicky, but we are talking about particular services that are being attempted.  If the industry becomes something that profits by servicing the ‘desire’ of the parent  by mislabelling it as a ‘need’ of the child, that is a major context for inappropriate use of therapy.

Well that is perception on your part, there are needs of the child.

[Ursus]

I'm not too concerned that woodbury wrote it up positively. I don't trust him at all based on his past alliances, but even a total schmuck hits a bull's eye every now and again. What I like about RPS is it doesn't stifle individual expression and does not use lifespring experentials or abusive group raps. It doesn't appear to rely on therapeutic coersion at all. It is not a TBS.

Perhaps Rock Point School could be best described as what Woodbury refers to as an "emotional growth school," which to *my* mind at least, DOES employ a fair amount of coercion.

At any rate, I've started a new thread to continue that side discussion:

viewtopic.php?f=52&t=30805

[Oz girl]

There was a poster named Son of Serbia who went to CEDU. He did talk about a school (not a program) that worked very well for him after CEDU. But it wasn't a program - nor was it based on punitive, insular, or synanon practices. It was a real school geared for kids who think differetly, based on respect. It didn't tear apart families etc. and it in no way resembled a program. (Serb is extremely independent minded and a staunch opponent of a program like CEDU. I wish I remembered the school. It was in Vermont.)

It's called Rock Point School. Son of Serbia mentioned it here, here, and here (and, in some cases, a subsequent post in addition to noted link).

I am aware of this place 'cuz there is a negative review of Hyde School on Lon's site, written by a couple who pulled their daughter from Hyde. They subsequently enrolled her at Rock Point School, and ended up also submitting a positive review for the latter.

As a qualifying comment on the latter, I should add that it doesn't sound like their daughter had yet completed the year ... at the time that said positive review was written, although I might be interpreting that incorrectly. I think the parents were just sooooo happy that Rock Point wasn't as punitively based, coercive, and dishonest as Hyde was, and felt compelled to point out that difference!

It's also mentioned on the Hyde forum a few times: here, and here, and some other conversation that I can't find right now.

Although I'm not really in a position to judge, I would say it's a bit of a concern to me that Lon Woodbury apparently thinks so highly of them. Just sayin' ... as a word of caution.

I think it needs to be remembered that woodbury will promote anything if there is a potential referral buck along the road. This in and of itself is not what makes a lace good or bad. I have read some criticisms of  rock point for being academically flaky, but none that would suggest any informed consent issues or concerning "therapies" being performed. I suspect the reason why it is promoted by Struggling teens is that it may attract a similar type of kid to many of those sent into the industry. Ie a kid who for whatever reason had trouble of some kind at their last school or in a standard public school setting. I would be asking more questions if it had staff with extensive industry expreince or any rules that appeared unreasonable or any reports of systemic abuse from ex students

[Awake]

Awake all of this is the obvious, what more is going on here? Some folks on these web sites sound as if there is this country wide conspiracy going on to capitalize on children and their parents weaknesses to make money.
I just don't see this or can believe it, what I do see is programs that allocate their money within their organization in a piss pore way. Their priorities are screwed up, instead of investing more money in qualified staff and Psychiatrists, they want a new jungle gym or better uniforms for sports, newer classrooms to impress parents, ect.....  
.

Well, I don’t think it is all that obvious to some families, and I think there may be some validity in a  ‘conspiracy’ of sorts underlying the success of the TTI. There is enough evidence for me to believe that the perception of therapy is illusory and a resulting phenomenon of their unique organizational structure. I may not have all the evidence to prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt, but in the early days of development there are some telling influences.


For now the very(very) short version is Synanon meets the Human Potential Movement and has a bunch of TTI program babies. Synanon is the model of the TC, and the Human Potential Movement that uses humanistic philosophy for the purpose of cultivating successful societal change. (If you want to know why Lifespring, Est, Esalen are relevant it is because of this). The founder of Cedu, Mel Wasserman,  actually used elements of Lifespring to create Cedu. This, to me, represents the difference between subjective growth and the spread of a shared pathology, in this case purposely misinterpreted as ‘growth’.  

Read this over on Lifespring, a Human Potential organization that was used to create Cedu. http://www.rickross.com/reference/lifes ... ring4.html

 
So this particular history goes:

 Abraham Maslow, founder of Humanistic Psychiatry,  stayed at Synanon (Daytop branch, NY) in 1965 and promoted a unity of humanism with Synanon.  

1967, Esalen, Santa Barbara Ca, becomes a center for studying humanism and ‘personal growth’ testing marathon groups, encounter, psychodrama, guided imagery, bioenergetics, gestalt, (pretty much anything under the sun! Extreme temperature variations, nude encounter, ‘eye gazing’, polarizing emotional experiences, heavy emphasis on bringing the subject to catharsis ( as catharsis is the point of being ‘de-programmed’ in ‘human potential work’), any experience that can be uniquely ‘human’ essentially. This place was an unprecedented meeting ground for many innovative and influential minds in new psychotherapeutic approaches.

1967, Synanon, undergoes a massive change to incorporate many of these new humanistic  styles, such as marathon group experiential, claims itself to be a Utopia. It  Opens up the Synanon ‘Game’s to any outsider that wants to play and grows centers In Santa Barbara  and Oakland CA.

1967 Mel Wasserman founds Cedu, a know affiliate of Synanon who hired from that organization, used tools from Lifespring (along with a whole variety of humanistic methods) to creat the first “Emotional Growth” school, that has been widely copied.

So yes, I think there is an art of manipulating subjective growth (and the perception of such) systemically in favour of the organization and it’s directors. And it has a direct connection with the earliest development of TTI programs.  I want to say there might be the possibility of something that could be called a conspiracy here.

[Ursus]

For now the very(very) short version is Synanon meets the Human Potential Movement and has a bunch of TTI program babies. Synanon is the model of the TC, and the Human Potential Movement that uses humanistic philosophy for the purpose of cultivating successful societal change.

The therapeutic community modality was introduced to the American public long before Synanon. It was introduced to treatment of malingering adolescents long before Synanon. I think you are making a big mistake to assume "it all began" there.