Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > The Troubled Teen Industry

Legislative Committee Investigates Use of Restraint- RTCs an

(1/3) > >>

Deborah:
Copyright 2003 The Austin American Statesman
Austin American-Statesman (Texas)
November 6, 2003, Thursday

SECTION: Metro/State; Pg. B1
HEADLINE: Lawmakers to examine wilderness programs
BYLINE: Mike Ward, AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
BODY:

A legislative committee will examine whether wilderness camps for troubled youths, such as the Hill Country camp [A Brown Schools facitlity with a terrible track record] where a Dallas-area teenager died a year ago, are properly regulated by the state, officials said Wednesday.

The use of physical restraints and their role in the deaths of 44 youths and adults in residential care settings since 1988 will be one focus of the Select Interim Committee on Child Welfare and Foster Care, according to state Rep. Suzanna Gratia Hupp, chosen Tuesday by House Speaker Tom Craddick to head the committee. The committee's charge overall is to study how well the Texas child welfare system is working.

"If you're hurting kids, we're going to be after you," said Hupp, R-Lampasas. "There have been a number of revelations in the media, not only cases in Texas but cases in the country, and that and complaints we've gotten, will be a part" of the committee's study.

In a series published this year, the Austin American-Statesman detailed how the use of improper physical restraints at centers for troubled teenagers had continued despite the deaths and how regulatory agencies in Texas and other states had done little to halt their use.

In citing the On Track program for multiple violations after the Oct. 14, 2002, death of Chase Moody of Richardson, Texas regulators alleged that an improper restraint was used, although a grand jury later concluded that no
criminal charges were warranted.

An example of the restraint occurs when a youth is held facedown on the ground, with pressure applied to the back.

The camp has since been closed.

According to Craddick's directive, the 11-member panel will examine Texas' child welfare and foster care system, with a focus on reviewing the licensure requirements and performance of "all types of foster care facilities, including
residential treatment facilities, wilderness camps and emergency treatment centers."

Part of that study will include how well state agencies communicate in overseeing foster care and other child protection issues.

Craddick specifically asked the committee to "explore other states' efforts that will promote 'best practices' and help identify program efficiencies with (the) Texas child welfare system." [Let's hope they don't use Utah!]

Rep. Elliott Naishtat, D-Austin, a committee member, said the study of restraints is important "so we can consider the application and administration of proper standards in this state." A bill to make the use of certain restraints a crime failed to pass in May.

Howard Falkenberg, Austin-based spokesman for the Brown Schools, owner of the On Track program, said the firm "supports the consideration of good licensing rules and strong standards that will improve our industry," even though it no longer operates residential treatment centers or the wilderness camp. [No longer operates RTCs? What do they consider their classification?]

He noted that the firm has supported tougher licensing standards in other states where it still operates programs.

Critics of physical restraints and lax regulations hailed the new inquiry.

"This investigation could lead to much better care and protection of the over 15,000 kids who are in the care of the state," said Jerry Boswell, president of the Citizens Commission on Human Rights of Texas, an advocacy group that has
campaigned to outlaw the use of the type of physical restraints involved in the deaths.

"We applaud the speaker's decision to address these very important issues."

In addition to licensing and regulation issues, Craddick asked the committee to study how to remove barriers to placing minority children in foster care and how to encourage more minority adults to become foster parents, among other
improvements in foster care.

Gratia Hupp said she hopes the committee will begin its work in the coming weeks.

mward@statesman.com; 445-1712



[ This Message was edited by: Deborah on 2003-11-07 16:37 ]

Anonymous:
i went to a wilderness program and was restrained i dont think this was a bad way but you said if you hurt kids we are after you and let me tell you it hurt so incredibly bad.....so what restraints are illegal??  i also think that some restraints shouldnt be illegal cause some kids at those programs (like me) are so bad and it would be alot better if they hurt me that way instead of me hurting myself in a more worse way

FaceKhan:
Restraint should be used with restraint. It is designed to be a defensive activity. You restrain someone to keep them from hurting themselves or others. If it hurts its not a restraint its torture. Handcuffs are a form of restraint, grabbing someones arms is a form of restraint and even tackling a person and holding them down is a form of restraint but twisting someones arms or poking at pressure points is just a form of torture and its illegal everywhere. Its called assualt.

Anonymous:
Your restraint that "hurt so bad" was torture, not restraint, unless you were actively struggling.

I studied the martial art Hapkido for several years, and that art includes joint locks, and includes most of the joint locks used for restraint by police agencies, etc.

A joint lock, done right, only hurts when pressure is being applied to it in the direction that locks up the joint, and is so finely controlled that pressure can be applied with a slight turn or twist, and is so finely conrolled that it is only necessary to apply that pressure and cause pain when the person restrained is actually actively struggling.

I had the various joint locks done to me over and over in the learning process, by classmates and instructors (and I did them on them)---they only hurt when pressure is being applied, and it only needs to be applied when the subject is actually actively struggling.

If you were restrained in a way that hurt when you were not actively struggling, it was done wrong---either through incompetence or sadism by the person applying the restraint.

Anonymous:
Oh, also, I don't care how "bad" you are.  My training is adequate to restrain you without either hurting you or harming you so long as you REALIZE from the initial pain that struggling WILL cause me to tear your joint or break your arm and WILL hurt---you stop actively struggling, and the restraint, while still there, stops actively hurting.

As long as you are not actively struggling, I can hold you in a joint lock without hurting you at all--a slight stretchy feeling, maybe a hint of an ache--maybe---but to actually have anyone say it hurts, no.

So if it hurt, it was either because the person applying it was a sadistic abusive bastard, or because you were actively struggling, or because the person applying it was ill-trained and incompetent.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page