I found this on the Bridge to Understanding web site.
>>THE CRISIS BEFORE US
The Crisis Before Us
By: Thomas J. Croke
Publisher
A small but reasonably well organized group of people is intent on securing legislation and court decisions to eliminate all programming where teenagers are away from home against their wishes - except by court review - and they want to make it very hard to get court approval. I am not suggesting that this group of people is anywhere close to broad success right now, but they are making very clever use of the Internet, mass media, and the courts to focus sympathetic attention on what they want to do. Actions with which we are all familiar are giving them considerable ammunition. There have been programs closing, apparently based on their actions.
The timing of this is based on the problems at the Samoa programs. But the issue is real, and not new. It would be of concern with or without the current issues in Samoa. We intend to do three things:
Provide some history of the impetus toward closer regulation.
Describe activities that Bridge to Understanding believes add credibility to those who promote these ?reforms.? We hope this will lead to serious soul searching, and hopefully to changes that will benefit the children being placed and their families, as well as removing some of the arguments for restriction.
Guide readers to other articles on this theme, to give readers a guide through this material. Included will be pro and con discussion of several controversial issues, and a set of standards we think should guide the industry.
HISTORY OF THE CONTROVERSY
Historically, virtually all programs that served behavioral issues forty or fifty years ago were either psychiatric or corrections based. Neither was terribly effective for dealing with youth with behavioral issues. This is true for corrections facilities for the same reasons why corrections based programs do not have great success rates today. It is true for psychiatric facilities because psychiatry then really had no clue as to how to deal with anything except severe psychosis and the kinds of things which lent themselves to psychoanalysis - not a modality which anyone would suggest is suitable for oppositional teens.
During the seventies and eighties, emphasis on patient rights led to stricter laws on civil commitments, but sometimes applied to minors differently from adults. At the same time, more emphasis was put on community mental health and on treating families rather than individuals.
Simultaneously, emotional growth schools were developing, which created an alternative to traditional mental health services, which was clearly more effective than any of the mental health alternatives for many young people. Neither traditional mental health, nor revised community mental health systems were reaching certain populations nearly as well. Because these facilities were not traditional mental health facilities, the civil commitment laws did not clearly apply, especially where minors were concerned.
Those advocating for patient rights and for community mental health systems attempted to ban all crossing of state lines by minors for treatment purposes. The effort was not successful, but the present Interstate Compact Laws are remnants of that effort. Much of the early controversy was clearly motivated by ?turf? issues. But there were genuine concerns by proponents of each discipline that the other disciplines were not doing the job properly. In addition, there were incidents of children being transported to out-of-state locations and abandoned.
For a variety of reasons, some personal growth schools with genuine therapeutic content have been licensed only as schools, avoiding regulations and safeguards applicable to services intended to affect behavior and emotional health. This has aroused the suspicion of some people in two different areas: Civil libertarians and credentialled professionals. The credentialled professionals would have us believe that only they and the mental health establishment should be helping kids. Is the motivation concern for the kids or self-promotion? I can only speculate. It is clear that without the innovations which the credentialled mental health profession have fought for tooth and nail, we would not have the range of services we now have to help kids.
In the late nineties, a proliferation of these programs, escort services to transport children to these services involuntarily, and consulting services to direct private placements have sprung up. This has energized the opposition groups who understand such services to be kidnapping, imprisonment, and abuse.
I first became aware of the opposition when Bridge to Understanding devoted an issue theme to the Van Blarigan case, and the opposition descended on the Discussion Forum on our web site. It was obvious that some of the opposition was targeting the Teen Help programs, especially those offshore, and some were targeting the industry as a whole. The two groups made common cause. Jeff Berryman, author of ?Ninety-Nine Stitches? in this issue, first came to our attention during this period. The defenders of Teen Help struck back, and before long the Discussion Forum was dominated by very unpleasant debate between these two groups. To allow room for the original purpose of the Discussion Forum and to be fair to our sponsors, who did not want to sponsor a Discussion Forum exclusively about a different program, we had to ban that topic. But the debate raged on, on other web sites.
We strongly suspect that this group was responsible for the events leading to the closure of the Teen Help program in the Czech Republic.
Meanwhile, another program, New Hope, (see ?What Happened in Samoa?) opened, with most of the parents of kids in that program strongly linked by Internet. Although this group seemed to be completely independent of the events described two paragraphs above, it appears that the communication among the parents regarding this program was instrumental in its demise. Bridge to Understanding has obtained copies of much of the relevant correspondence, but has frankly not yet had the time to read all of it. If appropriate, and if our source grants permission we will post all of that on the Internet.
The offshore programs have been criticized for avoiding American regulation. That is on the surface. Sorry folks, it is not just the offshore programs. There is at best minimal regulation of any of these services. There are no regulations we know of governing escort or transport services. Many of the most restrictive and intense therapeutic programs manage to be licensed only as schools although they keep kids in very confining programs against their will. In many cases this is a clear case of dodging the spirit of regulations intending to ensure that people in therapeutic environments are safe. There is no regulation of the consultants and other referral sources.
Whether or not there should be regulation is a matter on which conscientious people may hold differing views. We here at Bridge to Understanding oppose an increase in such regulation from government sources. But the fact is, the industry is largely unregulated and unsupervised in any meaningful way.
Those of my friends and colleagues who want to maintain the status quo need to wake up and smell the coffee. If our present run of economic prosperity continues, this industry will continue to grow. As the industry grows the problems will grow and draw more and more attention, unless we, from the inside, take strong action to keep the entire industry operating in a defensible manner. As the problems grow, the opposition to our industry will strengthen. We must not destroy ourselves by allowing the nonsense to be challenged only by those who want to use these incidents to shut us down.
The simple fact is the status quo is not an option. The opposition will strengthen and use any point at which our house is not in order to shut us down. If we do not take action to reduce abuses and appearances of abuses from within, it will be imposed on us in ways that are quite destructive.
The opposition has found the Internet a useful tool. Go to
http://www.bridgetounderstanding.com/links on your web browser to see the activity. Although I can't prove it, I believe it was these web sites which brought focus on the Samoa situation and caused close scrutiny to occur, leading to the parent rebellion at A Better Way.
We know for sure that the parents of New Hope in Samoa were linked via the Internet. We have yet to see, but I believe the Internet will greatly increase the political impact of the opposition. If we believe there is merit in how we are trying to help these kids, we must continually review our accepted standards, and calling ourselves and each other to the most sensitive concerns for the welfare of the children, and be willing to blow the whistle on rogue programs.
The article by Jeffrey Berryman in this issue of Bridge to Understanding is wrong on two points: I did not invent the term ?rogue program? (although I like the term) and I do not believe the ?rogue programs? have a monopoly on practices which bring discredit to our industry. Many programs the industry considers mainstream engage in practices that give fuel to the opposition and need to be reconsidered.
GUIDE TO THIS ISSUE AND ITS THEME
The following articles will help to demonstrate where our concerns lie:
?Ninety-Nine Stitches? by Jeffrey Berryman is a solicited and articulate expression of the opposition point of view. My first acquaintance with Jeff was when he became a burr under the saddle with his posts on our Discussion Forum on our web site, as he expressed views that seemed designed primarily to raise my blood pressure. Then I noticed that Jeff was not trying to advance or destroy any particular program and seemed motivated primarily by a concern for kids. We approached Jeff to contribute the lead ?opposition? article, not knowing he is a professional writer, among other things he does. While his views certainly do not represent those of the publisher, we appreciate his bringing his point of view into focus. Our only surprise was that he was not more highly critical of us (i.e. Thomas J. Croke and Associates, Inc. and Bridge to Understanding) and that he did not call for abolition of our industry.
I want to repeat that while we do not agree overall with Jeff's point of view, his proposal for a set of voluntary standards industry wide, with reputable consultants, programs, escort services, etc., embracing these standards sounds like a good start, provided there are real teeth in the standards. Our concern about that is that we do not believe that the self-policing procedures of regional accrediting bodies and even the IECA are working well. There appears, in both to be a higher emphasis placed on protecting the established interests of members than in enforcing serious standards of qualification, conduct, and consumer safety. See ?The House We Need to Clean,? page 9. Based on the failures of other self-policing groups, I hope this is enough.
?The House We Need To Clean? by Tom Croke. Frank talk about questionable practices in the industry.
?What Happened in Samoa? by Tom Croke. A short narrative on the events we know about in the Samoa programs.
?Parents Corner, LifeSaver? by the mother of a young man who went to A Better Way in Samoa and found that it saved his life. The quality of A Better Way has been such that we are very concerned that present events may prevent the continuation of this program as it was intended to be operated. We need to name that program to tell the story. We feel it is critical to communicate at least one story from a parent in strong support of this program. We know of many other parents and referral professionals who would strongly back this mother's point of view.
?Abuse of Residents In Treatment Programs and Schools? by Tim Snyder. Tim, former director of New Dominion (Maryland) is now working with us.
For those who believe I am exaggerating the situation here, let me remind the readers once again, that this group has already succeeded in getting the Teen Help program in the Czech Republic shut down, and has had a major impact on the events in Samoa, which may yet lead to further program closures. An apparently separate group on the Internet appears to have been responsible for the demise of New Hope program. Many of the practices for which these groups have criticized the offshore programs also occur in domestic programs, including some of those which we would almost universally agree are mainstream programs. This includes some of the programs IECA member consultants have most highly valued as special purpose schools, and fully credentialled and accredited psychiatric facilities. In many cases, we do no agree with the critics that these programs are in any way inappropriate and would oppose change. At the other extreme we know of practices which would be universally condemned as abuses in some of these facilities. Toward the middle, we oppose some practices openly embraced by most facilities, and strongly respect those who disagree with us.
With two programs down and two under fire, the opposition will not be appeased, but energized. We will be criticized by some for publicizing the activities of the opposition and therefore encouraging and perhaps validating them. We will be criticized by others for not naming names. But if we do not prepare for the impact the opposition folks are very likely to have, we will lose control, to the detriment of the industry, and I believe to the detriment of thousands of young people whose lives are being saved. If we want to survive and prosper - help these young people - we must act to keep our house clean, then stand united in defending what we know is right. Jeff Berryman, clearly one of the opposition, tells us the winning strategy for our side. I do not agree with the particular standards that he would have us follow. But an industry-wide self-policing group - which takes genuine accountability (as opposed to providing cover for questionable practices of its establishment members) far more seriously than any existing accrediting group or professional association in education or health care - seems to me to be the only constructive solution. We fail to do it at our own peril
Source:
http://64.71.146.119/articles/topics/ca ... efore.html© 2001 Bridge to Understanding
used by permission
