Medical Whistleblower
Abuse and Neglect in U.S.A. Residential Treatment Centers:A Systemic Problem
Summary: Medical Whistleblower provides this preliminary report on the abuse and neglect of persons in residential treatment for “substance abuse” in the U.S.A. There have been violations of human rights, lack of investigation, prosecution and punishment of the offenders. This prevailing permissive environment has given de jure or de facto amnesty to those who violate human rights. Starting in the 1970’s there were residential treatment facilities for teens that were found to be abusive. The SEED, Straight Inc. and its derivatives, Roloff Homes, WWASPS and, more recently, Teen Challenge were adjudicated “guilty” of human rights abuses. This report explores the ways these perpetrators of abuse have used the political system to protect themselves and exploit loopholes in the law to expand their network of abusive residential treatment facilities for youth.
US Congressional investigations don’t stop abusive rehab centers A recent report by the US Congress revealed that there are significant problems in the “teen rehabilitation” industry, including a general lack of oversight and accountability. In 2009 there were Capitol Hill briefings related to abuse of teens in facilities run by WWASPS and other programs. The US House, led by Congressman George Miller, conducted investigations by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) during the 110th Congress (2008). These uncovered thousands of cases alleging child abuse and neglect since the early 1990’s at teen residential programs. Further, the investigation revealed that currently these programs are governed only by a weak patchwork of state and federal standards. A separate GAO report, conducted at the committee’s request, found major gaps in the licensing and oversight of residential programs, including some programs not covered by any state licensing standards. GAO concluded that, without adequate oversight, “the well-being and civil rights of youth in some facilities will remain at risk.” State-reported data to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System in 2005 found that 34 states in the United States of America (USA) reported 1503 incidents of youth maltreatment by residential facility staff. Of the states surveyed by GAO, 28 reported at least one youth fatality in a residential facility in 2006. GAO concluded that both of these statistics understate the incidents of maltreatment and death. They emphasized that many facilities are outside the scope of this limited study and many still remain unregulated and uninspected.
In 1971, the US Senate Judiciary Committee convened a sub-committee on constitutional rights under Senator Sam Ervin to investigate government's role in behavior modification. Senator Ervin's 650-page report was published in November 1974 under the title “Individual Rights and the Federal Role in Behavior Modification.”
The US Congress previously examined problems in The SEED and then in later residential treatment programs. These later substance abuse treatment programs were modeled on the Synanon program, the SEED and Straight Inc. Each time, the offending substance abuse treatment program was shut down. However, new programs rapidly emerged with new legal identities to start the same kind of operation. There are now even more programs reported to be abusive, despite numerous local, state and federal investigations. Those who have been victimized in one of these facilities are frustrated and dismayed to realize that not even several US Congressional investigations can prevent the recurrence of the same kind of abuse. Although Straight Inc. programs were closed, the governing principles remain a model for drug rehabilitation. It is a national disgrace that the abuse of children in residential centers has not stopped. Rather, governmental sanction hides its true nature from law enforcement and regulators. Abusive teen rehabilitation centers are now more numerous and the industry remains unregulated by state or federal law.
The list includes:
Synanon, The SEED,Straight Inc. and its derivatives, WWASPS Rebekah /Roloff Homes,Straight Inc. program at Morgan Yacht
KIDS, Sea Org Refuge, CEDU Brown Schools and derivatives, Aspen Education Group, Elan School, Ridge Creek School/Hidden Lake
Wilderness Programs, Weight Loss Programs, Mission Mountain School, Public Sector Gulags, SAFE, Vision Quest,
Daytop Village, Lighthouse of Northwest Florida, Growing Together/L.I.F.E., Kids Helping Kids, Straight Inc. by the Sea, Hyde Schools
There are no adequate means to monitor these facilities for human rights abuses. They have used political influence and power to prevent effective regulation and inspection of their facilities. They deny Child Protective Services (CPS) access to investigate child abuse complaints.
To understand the background, it is useful to trace development of public policy related to these residential treatment programs in order to recognize how they managed to evade public scrutiny and government control.
On October 10-11, 2007, the U.S. House Committee on Education and Labor heard testimony about cases of child neglect and abuse. Among cases investigated were the Catherine Freer Wilderness Therapy Programs, a private residential treatment facility in the Pacific Northwest.
This problem is not limited to the United States of America. These abusive methods have been exported to many countries in the world. The Bergen KIDS program has been transplanted to Alberta, Canada as The Alberta Adolescent Recovery Centre (AARC). The Alberta Adolescent Recovery Centre is a drug abuse rehabilitation clinic for teenagers and adolescents in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. AARC has been the subject of controversy in Canada over allegations of physical, emotional, and sexual abuse made by former patients. This has led to widespread protests against AARC, and calls for a government inquiry by Alberta's provincial New Democratic Party.
US citizens had been transported over international boundaries and taken to facilities in Mexico such as Abundant Life. The children were found to be abused there. Mexican immigration officials of the Instituto National de Migracion (INM) raided the facilities and deported the children back to the U.S.A. Mexican authorities cited immigration violations for the clients, and also immigration violations related to the staff of these facilities. There was lack of proper municipal licensure of these facilities. They had not obtained the requisite approval of health and education authorities in Mexico. In addition, the teen “clients” of these facilities described habitual mistreatment during their illegal detention. They were denied access to communication with persons outside the facilities. In 2004, the Mexican government rounded up 590 US teenagers, who had been placed in institutions throughout Mexico, without proper immigration paperwork. These children were considered “troubled teens” by their American parents. They were sent to these locked facilities in a foreign country for treatment of problems with behavior and parental authority.
Teen Challenge has had numerous complaints and multiple investigations regarding abuse in their facilities. Although Teen Challenge is directly connected with Assemblies of God church through both management and financial connections, they attempt to hide this association when recruiting clients for their centers. Teen Challenge USA International is headquartered in Springfield, Missouri. It has grown to include 231 locations in the United States, including residential programs and evangelical outreach centers. Teen Challenge, run by the Assemblies of God church, operates its own credit union located in Missouri. Teen Challenge operates two organizations with international scope: Teen Challenge USA International and Teen Challenge Global. The Assemblies of God church operates Teen Challenge as an outreach program within its own centers in numerous countries. Teen Challenge Global operates in 87 countries with over 1,100 centers. Its headquarters are in Columbus, GA.
Hon. George Miller, Chair of the Committee on Education and Labor in the U.S. House of Representatives initiated the legislation, Stop Child Abuse in Residential Programs for Teens Act of 2009 H.R. 911 (formerly H.R. 6358, H.R. 5876). U.S. Representative Miller had received a shocking report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) regarding abusive and neglectful treatment of children in residential programs. The report also contained information about fraudulent practices of these institutions. Subsequent investigations and GAO reports indicate that there is a widespread problem of abuse in the residential treatment industry which has flourished due to a lack of government regulation, inspection and accountability.
There was very disturbing testimony provided to the US Congress about the pervasiveness of the abuse and the failure to curb it by Health and Human Services or the Department of Justice. Video tapes of those testimonies can be seen here. After much discussion and deliberation The House of Representatives approved legislation to Stop Child Abuse in Teen Residential Programs. The bill was intended to ensure that parents have information they need to keep their children safe.
The U.S. Senate has not moved to act on the bill or to draft suitable legislation to stop further abusive practices in the teen residential treatment industry.
Human Rights Defenders and Mandated Reporters – No protections Abuse of children and teens within residential treatment facilities, located in both the US and in other countries that are run by non-profit organizations legally based in the U.S.A., has occurred for more than four decades. In spite of numerous reports from human rights defenders and mandated reporters, there have been no significant changes to stop the practice. There are no protections for witnesses/victims/survivors or for their human rights defenders. Mandated reporters of such human rights violations are more likely to lose their employment or be demoted, suffer personal and professional retaliation.
There is an entrenched unwillingness within the US government to expose the root cause of the political tolerance for the deregulation, lack of inspection, lack of financial transparency and accountability, lack of law enforcement action to investigate these crimes, lack of appropriate prosecution of perpetrators, and lack of any punishment for the offenses. The moral, ethical, and legal obligations to uphold human rights by US legislators, US Department of Justice officials, and even judges have not been fulfilled. When they have permitted this course of conduct to continue for four decades, they are culpable for the egregious human rights violations that have occurred.
Victims/Survivors are left with no access to redress or reparations. This systemic failure to protect children and young adults is a “crime against humanity” about which the US government has been fully informed, yet refused to prevent. Criminal acts that have occurred in these treatment facilities include:
• Murder (homicide)
• Enslavement
• Deportation or forcible transfer
• Imprisonment or severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law
• Torture
• Rape, forced pregnancy, forced abortions
• Persecution against persons not of Christian faith, especially those of Jewish faith
• Persecution of persons who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered
• Enforced disappearance of persons
• Other inhumane acts that intentionally cause great suffering, or serious injury to body, to mental or physical health
• Psychological, emotional, and sexual trauma leading to suicide.
These acts are crimes of serious concern to the international community as a whole. The number of suicides secondary to psychological and emotional trauma as well as sexual abuse of young teens trapped in these rehabilitation centers came to the attention of public health officials who monitor suicide rates. Licensed medical professionals, psychologists, therapists, child protective services personnel, and other mandated reporters were obligated to report this sudden rise in suicide which was linked to a particular type of residential substance abuse treatment program.
Licensed medical professionals are morally and ethically obligated by their Hippocratic Oath to protect their patients’ safety. Under US law and international standards of proper professional conduct, they are also Mandated Reporters of torture and abuse. Licensed medical professionals are Defenders of Human Rights, the watchdogs for vulnerable patients in need of care. The reality in many residential treatment centers is that “the fox is in charge of the hen house.”
Government oversight and the role of mandated reportersThe U.S. Department of Health and Human Services or state or local department of social and rehabilitation services is often the agency doing the child abuse investigation, but their investigative officers do not have law enforcement powers and thus do not have experience nor authority to protect mandated reporters or whistleblowers from retaliation.
There is in the U.S.A. no governmental agency or organization empowered, mandated and authorized to defend mandated reporters from witness intimidation and retaliation directed against them personally and professionally. The closest governmental office to possibly protecting mandated reporters – at least within federal service – is the Office of Special Counsel within the Department of Justice.
In the United States mandated reporters are professionals who, in the ordinary course of their work and because they have regular contact with children, disabled persons, senior citizens, or other identified vulnerable populations, are required to report (or cause a report to be made) whenever financial, physical, sexual or other types of abuse has been observed or is suspected, or when there is evidence of neglect, knowledge of an incident, or an imminent risk of serious harm. These persons are by statute defenders of human rights. When reported abuse cases move forward into the investigation phase, perpetrators of abuse can usually readily determine the identity of the mandated reporter. Thus mandated reporters, who are human rights defenders, may immediately experience retaliation. In addition, because these abusive residential treatment centers are not licensed or regulated they do not abide by state standards regarding mandated reporting, they do not train staff about mandated reporting laws and the need to report abusive treatment and neglect.
RAINN maintains a database of mandatory reporting regulations regarding children and the elderly by state, including who is required to report, standards of knowledge, definitions of a victim, to whom the report must be made, information required in the report, and regulations regarding timing and other procedures. RAINN applied for funding through Charitable Choice during the former President Bush’s Administration only to be turned down for federal funding for their very important program that serves sexual assault and abuse survivors/victims.
The Office of Special Counsel and Scott BlochThe OSC is an independent federal agency charged with safeguarding the merit-based employment system by protecting federal employees and applicants from prohibited personnel practices. A critical role is protection of federal whistleblowers, whose efforts safeguard American citizens and taxpayers. Bloch headed the OSC from 2004 through 2008.
In theory, as the Chief Counsel for the OSC, Bloch was responsible to investigate complaints related to waste, fraud and abuse, and to protect whistleblowers. Government employees, who report violations of the public trust, as well as illegal or dangerous activities, are known as whistleblowers.
Whistleblowers and Mandated Reporters (persons legally required to report certain violations by virtue of their employment and/or licensure) constitute our national alert system against serious threats to public safety and trust. Unfortunately, there has developed a tolerance for retaliation against a whistleblower by his or her management. Retaliation has occurred in the form of forced transfers, demotions, revocation of security clearances, and employment termination.
Whistleblowers who experience retaliation expect to be able to go to the OSC to seek redress. The U.S. Office of Special Counsel is chartered to act independently. The OSC can force investigations into retaliation and/or misconduct that is reported by whistleblowers. Under Scott Bloch, the officially-designated safe harbor at the OSC became a very unfriendly place to whistleblowers. In fact, Bloch intentionally caused hundreds of whistleblower cases to be permanently destroyed without an investigation.
All whistleblower appeals of reported medical fraud, labor violations, prison abuse and child abuse cases handled directly by federal agencies would ultimately be placed (according to the established chain of command) in front of the Office of Special Counsel. Scott Bloch came under criticism for alleged retaliation against his own employees and for closure of whistleblower cases without investigation. Bloch summarily dismissed hundreds of whistleblower complaints, including any complaints about Teen Challenge and any other private NGO residential treatment centers. The whistleblowers were in agencies such as Health and Human Services (HHS), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration (SAMSHA), National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), Department of Labor, Federal Bureau of Prisons and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Bloch closed cases that involved valid complaints by human rights defenders who were federal employees or whose complaints identified errant federal employees or contractors getting federal tax money.
The OSC is charged to enforce the Hatch Act, which prohibits government employees from use of federal resources for political ends. The Special Counsel reports directly to the White House. When staff expressed concerns for how Bloch handled cases, Bloch retaliated.
Bloch eventually came under investigation himself for a variety of violations, including prohibited personnel practices and discrimination against the employees in his office. Bloch purged more than 20% of his staff, many of whom were experienced career professionals with years of work with whistleblowers.
The survivors/victims of these abusive centers were concerned that Bloch, in his former Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives (OFBCI) position, was responsible for failure to protect the human rights of U.S.A. citizens in the programs such as Teen Challenge that were funded by the OFBCI. The safety of persons within these centers (which were exempt from government oversight and accountability) was not addressed by him during his tenure in the OSC. The residential treatment centers were known to hire ex-convicts with convictions for sexual abuse of children, drug dealing, domestic violence and money laundering. There had already been criminal investigations of labor abuse, credit card fraud, affinity fraud, TANF fraud as well as investigations into physical and sexual child abuse.
During his leadership of the Task Force on Faith-based and Community Initiatives, Bloch turned a blind eye when Teen Challenge staff were accused of abuse of minors and young adults, often based on discrimination against their religious beliefs or their sexual orientations.
Attorney Bloch disrespected both U.S.A. federal and international law when he dismissed whistleblowers’ complaints about child abuse and other serious concerns for the public health and welfare without investigation, thus enabling human rights violations to continue. Bloch showed a troubling disregard for international laws against torture, for the legal rights of children and adults, and for the long term adverse consequences to the victims/survivors, whistleblowers, and human rights defenders.
When the individual whistleblowers and mandated reporters (who form the only tangible defense against human rights violations) are betrayed by the system they must report to, we cannot protect civil rights or human rights. When retaliation is the reward for meeting one’s legal duty and there is no valid entity to receive reports, there is an erosion of constitutional protections for every American’s human rights.
On April 27, 2010 Bloch pled guilty to criminal contempt of Congress for, according to the U.S. Attorney, "willfully and unlawfully withholding pertinent information from a House committee investigating his decision to have several government computers wiped ...." Bloch pled guilty and faced a minimal jail sentence of one month. Bloch admitted as part of his guilty plea that he withheld information from the congressional staff; that before he ordered the wipe of the computers, he understood the procedure would make it virtually impossible to recover deleted files or e-mails. Bloch was informed he would serve jail time and asked the judge to withdraw his guilty plea to avoid mandatory jail time. Bloch stated in a court filing that he did not know when he pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge of criminal contempt of Congress that he would face a minimum of a month behind bars. This would seem to indicate that he views himself above the law, while his neglect of duty resulted in critical violations of human rights for vulnerable children and adults.
Many felt that the 30-day prison sentence imposed by United States Magistrate Judge, Judge Deborah A. Robinson, was too light of a punishment and that prosecutors had failed to properly charge him. Bloch was prosecuted only for one count of criminal contempt of Congress - a misdemeanor. Whistleblowers felt he should have been charged with perjury, obstruction of justice and destruction of evidence. However, aided and abetted by government prosecutors and a federal judge, Bloch managed to avoid serving any part of that sentence. On August 3, 2011, Chief U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth allowed Bloch to withdraw his guilty plea.
Scott Bloch’s Plea Agreement
Judge denies Scott Bloch’s right to appeal sentencing verdict 3-29-11
Judges order is stayed pending appeal in Scott Bloch case March 10, 2011
Bloch’s DOJ press release 4-27-10
Whistleblowers request special prosecutor in Scott Bloch case
Due process & constitutional concerns
These abusive residential treatment facilities are being in part federally funded through The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) “Charitable Choice” legislation and the use of subcontracting. These private residential treatment centers use federal funds as contractors under block grants such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and also sometimes utilize Medicaid/Medicare funds. Exempt from local, state and federal inspections and licensing requirements, these facilities do not train staff to report abuse and neglect to governmental authorities. They do not submit to governmental inspection. These residential treatment facilities do not protect constitutional civil liberties and instead insist that they have religious exemption from constitutional restrictions on their conduct.
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 repealed Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), the federal cash assistance program, and replaced it with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), a cash assistance program primarily operated by the individual states. Prior to PRWORA, determination of which applicants qualified for federal benefits was performed by a public agency staff in civil service. (Title I, Section 104) President George W. Bush’s “Charitable Choice” Faith-based initiative was intended to reduce the size of government, but not necessarily the amount spent. His applied method shifted the responsibility for delivery of numerous social services from government agencies to newly-recognized, Faith-based organizations.
Privatization of social services by delegation to contractors and subcontractors for service provision raises due process and accountability issues. Social service programs involve provision of adequate food, adequate clothing, adequate shelter, and minimal preventive public health care. Although the government has been viewed as the most obvious provider of these programs, faith-based programs have also frequently provided services to those in need including residential treatment.
The use of subcontractors or outsourcing has often been used to abdicate social and moral responsibility. There are significant legal, political and economic advantages to the perpetrator of human rights abuses, of using subcontractors, because it ultimately helps obscure the relationship between the perpetrator and the actual act. It is a politically valuable device, because even if abuses are exposed, it will frequently look as if someone else (the contractor) was responsible. This ultimately makes it difficult to hold a violator legally accountable and to be able to apply appropriate sanctions. Thus the very effective human rights tactic of public shaming, in these circumstances, often becomes ineffective. Outsourcing to contractors permits the perpetrators to ignore the societal norms and to conceal the perpetrators breach of those norms. In addition, it legally protects perpetrators from both legal prosecution and embarrassment. Subcontracting to corporations providing services such as prisons, healthcare and the military are particularly problematic, as in these settings there is reduced transparency to the public and less scrutiny by law enforcement. When operated as a for profit business, cost reductions can lead to inadequate care, lack of adequate programming and abuse. Outsourcing allows the perpetrator to not just abdicate responsibility but also assists the aggressor in maintaining a respectable public persona in the public eye. This often amounts to abuse of state-sanctioned power and authority. Often outsourcing is presented to the public as necessary to cut costs. The use of subcontractors makes it more difficult to determine who is responsible for abuses and these cases are very complex.
Although the government can contract out services, it cannot contract out the function of governing or the responsibility for doing so. Providing the safety net is a core public function which should remain responsive to democratic principles and accountable to elected officials. The government, which is elected and accountable to the citizenry, still is responsible and accountable to see that social justice prevails and a decent chance at a reasonably healthy and active life can be provided for all citizens.
In concert with diminished regulation over federally funded programs, the social safety net is vulnerable to exploitation. The privatization of social services such as residential treatment can lead to a lack of adequate financial or service-quality oversight for contractors. In theory, the contractors should police themselves and their subcontractors, but there is little profit incentive to do proper oversight.
Private entities which provide services paid by the federal or state government are not governed by constitutional constraints. In other words, if a private contract provider of social services commits a wrongful action, the wronged person cannot invoke constitutional protections. The legal doctrine that defines “State Action” determines that a person who is a government actor and commits a wrongful act is subject to constitutional constraints. State government and federal employees are clearly government actors, but private entities usually are not. With government privatization contracts, authorization is transferred to private entities, but not “state actor” obligations. Liability for actions is effectively diminished. Privatization of contracts for welfare services permits autonomy without supervision or legal accountability. Although there may be statutes in state or federal law that give the wronged person the opportunity to receive notice and obtain a hearing, these laws are generally not enforceable. The courts have held that, unless there is a specific provision for enforcement, there will be no enforcement of these procedural rights. The wronged person can sue under the third-party beneficiary principle - to compel compliance with the terms of the contract between the government and the private entity, but this is rarely successful.
Contracts are often drawn up with the simple insertion of a provision in the contract that bars third-part lawsuits. Social service recipients are largely at the mercy of the political process to grant legal protection entitlements and due process rights. They are also at the mercy of contracted parties to define and/or grant them contractual rights.
Despite these constitutional and due process concerns, an increased number of government services are now contracted out to private providers, which leaves clients with little or no recourse if their constitutional rights are violated. Privatization may, in reality, simply replace a government bureaucracy with a private monopoly.
Critical decisions that affect our society’s most vulnerable citizens can become based on short-term private incentives rather than long-term public interests. Government authority may be unable to scrutinize the work of private entities adequately because of budgetary restrictions or unfamiliarity with contract management. The lack of oversight could mean that the public is not assured that tax dollars awarded to government contractors will yield a privatized service that performs adequately or that contractors do not abuse clients human rights.
Privatization can be undermined by corruption if lucrative contracts are awarded to political allies, relatives or friends of public officials. Many of these contractors are not qualified for the work or may cut corners to expand profits, especially when oversight is limited. Contractors have been found to commit fraudulent and illegal practices. These practices are difficult to prove, to monitor for and to investigate. Freedom of information and open records acts do not apply to private contractors. This makes it difficult to determine how public funds were spent. It also makes it nearly impossible to track human rights violators and hold them accountable for their actions.
We must stop client abuse in residential treatmentThe survivor/victims of residential treatment center abuse need to feel that the government of the U.S.A. will create effective measures to stop the violations, to verify facts, and to provide public disclosure of the full truth. This abuse still occurs in worldwide in violation of international treaty obligations, international law, the Helsinki Declaration and the Nuremberg Code. There has been no cogent effort to reduce the risk or address the harm caused. Effective regulatory control over residential treatment centers and wilderness camps is immediately required. The infractions identified are gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law, which need guarantees of non-repetition.
There must be denial of de jure or de facto amnesty to the human rights violators and they should be required to make effective and adequate reparations to the survivors/victims of this institutional child abuse. Many victims, including but not limited to those abused in Straight Inc., Roloff Homes, Teen Challenge and WWASPS programs, desire a public apology that includes acknowledgment of the facts and acceptance of responsibility because the U.S. government knew of the abuse but failed to protect the children.
To stop further abuse of children and teens in residential programs, the U.S.A. must identify the persons and practices that enable this activity to flourish. We must deny the perpetrators’ access to grant money and political power.
The federal government must retain legislative powers that permit regulation and inspection of all residential treatment facilities, regardless of whether they are private NGO facilities, federal or state subcontractors. This is necessary to assure protection of the human rights of persons inside such facilities. It is a national obligation under international human rights law.
Much information is already available through several U.S. Congressional investigations. The most recent exposure was done by the House Education and Labor Committee, chaired by Rep. George Miller. Important legislation like H.R. 911: “Stop Child Abuse in Residential Programs for Teens Act of 2009” passed the U.S. House of Representatives on Feb 23, 2009; it has not yet received any real action in the U.S. Senate. This act was “To require certain standards and enforcement provisions to prevent child abuse and neglect in residential programs, and for other purposes.” The U.S. Senate should be strongly encouraged to pass this legislation.
The United States must look carefully at provisions in federal and state laws that perpetuate a lack of transparency and accountability for residential facilities. The Charitable Choice program must be carefully scrutinized to see that it does not fund programs that violate civil rights and human rights. Non-government organizations (NGOs) and corporations must be supervised to prevent use of government contractor status for unwarranted immunity if legal transgressions are committed. Lack of accountability permits abuse.
These aberrant NGOs and other corporations constitute a “black hole” into which government funds are poured with ineffective outcomes, yet little transparency and accountability have been required of them.
Careful attention should be paid to ways in which a criminal element can invade religious non-profits and become able to compromise the safety of children, and exploit service provision and financial assets. Persons with criminal records of sexual assault or sexual abuse should not have access to children or young people held in locked facilities. Those with criminal records for substance abuse, violent crimes, or financial crimes should not have their records “expunged,” so that they qualify for unrestricted access to victims in new positions of authority over vulnerable persons. White collar criminals capable of affinity fraud have been able exploit the naiveté and inexperience of church elders; thus, they are not a lesser risk as “restored” ex-convicts. It is necessary to have government oversight to prevent and address abuse, especially in programs funded by taxpayers.
The United States, as part of the international community, should keep faith and human solidarity with victims, survivors and future human generations. Also, the U.S.A. must reaffirm the international legal principles of accountability, justice and the rule of law, Human Rights Law International and U.S. Law.
In ConclusionThe United States government cannot, at the present time, guarantee the protection of human rights for persons in private residential treatment centers funded through federal tax dollars. Persons abused or neglected in such facilities do not have constitutional protections or access to due process for reparations and redress for human rights violations. The lack of governmental regulation, licensing and inspection has led to multiple incidents of human rights violations, as well as lack of civil rights protections. Torture and degrading humiliating abuse is illegal under both United States and international law. The Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, and it states that treaties signed by the U.S. are the “supreme Law of the Land” under Article Six. The Geneva Convention and The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment both prohibit torture and have been signed by the United States. Thus the United States of America has both a duty and a legal obligation to stop further abuse in these private residential treatment facilities and to properly investigate and provide redress and reparations to the survivors/victims of this abuse.
See our website:
http://medicalwhistleblowernetwork.jigsy.comSign our petitions:
http://change.org/medicalwhistleblower/References and citations: Washington, D.C., U.S.A., Capitol Hill Briefing - February 2009, Abuse of Youth in Residential Placements: A Call to Action, sponsored by the Alliance for the Safe, Therapeutic, and Appropriate Use of Residential Treatment on (ASTART) and co-sponsored by the Community Alliance for the Ethical Treatment of Youth (CAFETY), on Capitol Hill.
http://astart.fmhi.usf.edu/.
http://www.cafety.org/testimonies/732-u ... estimonieshttp://www.cafety.org/testimonies/733-u ... estimonieshttp://www.cafety.org/events/archives-c ... ry-19-2009.
Final GAO Report on Residential Facilities (Full Report) (May 2008) Residential Facilities: Improved data and enhanced oversight would help safeguard the well-being of youth with behavioral and emotional challenges, Report to Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives [PDF, 95 pages] GAO.gov,
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08346.pdf.
Final GAO Report on Residential Facilities (Highlights) (May 2008) Residential Facilities: Improved data and enhanced oversight would help safeguard the well-being of youth with behavioral and emotional challenges, Report to Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives [PDF, 1 pages] GAO.com,
http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d08346high.pdf.
GAO Report: Concerns Regarding Abuse and Death in Certain Programs for Troubled Youth (Full Report) (October 10, 2007) Full report of testimony before the Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives. [PDF, 38 pages] GAO.gov,
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08146t.pdf.
Residential Facilities: State & Federal Oversight Gaps May Increase Risk to Youth (Highlights) (April 24, 2008) Highlights of the report by Government Accountability Office of testimony before the Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives [PDF, 1 pages], GAO.gov,
http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d08696thigh.pdf.
Residential Facilities: State & Federal Oversight Gaps May Increase Risk to Youth Well-Being (April 24, 2008) Full report by the Government Accountability Office of testimony before the Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives [PDF, 21 pages], GAO.gov,
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08696t.pdf.
Residential Programs: Selected Cases of Death, Abuse, and Deceptive Marketing (Full Report) (April 24, 2008) Full report of testimony before the Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives. [PDF, 24 pages].
Individual Rights and the Federal Role in Behavior Modification – A Study Prepared by the Staff of the Subcommittee, Scribd.com,
http://www.scribd.com/.../Individual-Ri ... bcommittee,
or obtained at NCJRS.gov
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/A ... ?id=142690.
TheStraights.com, Synanon Story,
http://thestraights.com/theprogram/syna ... tm#theseed.
The Seed, Inc. was founded in 1970 in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Seed received a $1.8 million U.S. government grant from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) soon after it opened. And the grant had been administered by the founding director of NIDA who also happened to be the second White House Drug Czar-Robert DuPont.
http://thestraights.com/images/seed-funding.gif http://thestraights.com/images/seed-Ervin-brainwash.htm.
Surviving Straight Inc.,
http://www.survivingstraightinc.com/Flo ... ombine.pdfhttp://www.thestraights.com/articles/ru ... report.htm.
Szalavitz, Maia “The Cult That Spawned the Tough-Love Teen Industry,” Mother Jones, August 20, 2007,
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature ... ustry.html.
CEDU Sued for Abuse and Fraud, International Survivors Action Committee, was at
http://www.isaccorp.org/cedu/ceduabuse.pdf but now see website SurvivingStraightInc.com,
http://www.survivingstraightinc.com.
Morgan, Fiona, “One big dysfunctional family: A former member of the Synanon cult recalls the ‘alternative lifestyle’ that shaped her, for better and worse,” Salon Magazine, March 29, 1999,
http://www.rickross.com/reference/synanon/synanon2.html.
Clark, Michael D., Her life with "One Big Brother,” San Jose Mercury News, March 19, 1999,
http://www.rickross.com/reference/synanon/synanon4.html.
Fager, Wesley, Where did it come from?, Synanon Church and the medical basis for the $traights, or Hoopla in Lake Havasu, by Wes Fager (c) 2000,
http://thestraights.com/theprogram/synanon-story2.htm Wes Fager, “Has Operation PAR become the new treatment arm of Drug Free America Foundation? Or: 3 strikes and the 6th Circuit is out!,” TheStraights.net,
http://thestraights.net/articles/op-par-and-dfaf.htm.
Szalavitz, Maia, “Why Jesus Is Not a Regulator,” American Prospect, April 8, 2001, Prospect.org,
http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article ... _regulator.
Catherine Freer Wilderness Therapy Program, 420 Southwest 3rd Avenue, Albany, OR 97321-2261.
Catherine Freer Wilderness Therapy Programs responds to Congressional Hearings 11 OCT 2007 — Catherine Freer Wilderness Therapy Programs responds to the testimony before the U.S. House Committee on Education and Labor on "Cases of Child Neglect and Abuse at Private Residential Treatment Facilities."
CBC News Canada. “Alberta drug rehab centre abused us, former teen patients allege. Executive director calls them 'liars',” February 13, 2009, CBC News, The Fifth Estate CBC.Ca,
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/200 ... abuse.html The Alberta Adolescent Recovery Center, 303 Forge Road S.E. Calgary, AB T2H0S9.
CBC, Canada,
http://www.cbc.calcanada/story/2009/032/la1b use.html.
Guadalajara Reporter, Immigration Busts Lakeside Area Boarding School for Troubled Teens, Friday December 17, 2004, GuadalajaraReporter.com Guadalajara Reporter +52 (33) 3615-2177 and+ 52 (33) 3615-0606.
Teen Challenge Global Website,
http://www.globaltc.org/.
October 10, 2007 (first) GAO Report on Residential Treatment Programs, GAO.gov,
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08146t.pdf.
May 14, 2008 – GAO Report Shows Need for Minimum Standards to Protect Teens in Residential Programs, Says Chairman Miller—Education & Labor Committee Will Vote Tomorrow on Legislation to Stop Child Abuse in Residential Programs, House.gov,
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/speech/e ... eport.html.
May, 2008 – Residential Facilities – Improved Data and Enhanced Oversight Would Help Safeguard the Well-Being of Youth with Behavioral and Emotional Challenges, GAO.gov,
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08346.pdf.
May, 2008 – Residential Facilities – Improved Data and Enhanced Oversight Would Help Safeguard the Well-Being of Youth with Behavioral and Emotional Challenges, GAO.gov,
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08346.pdf.
October 10, 2007 – Also Residential Treatment Programs: Concerns Regarding Abuse and Death in Certain Programs for Troubled Youth GAO-08-146T, GAO.gov,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-146T.
April 24, 2008 text of the day’s testimonies, GAO.gov,
http://www.gao.gov/htext/d08713t.html.
HR 5876 – “Stop Child Abuse in Residential Programs for Teens Act of 2008?, Several Videos regarding this legislation on You Tube, YouTube.com,
http://youtu.be/YkmGgH11Dmkhttp://youtu.be/z7PJBxwd7kchttp://youtu.be/dr47O5OjC_A .
2008 Congressional Vote, Govtrack.us/congress,
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-459.
April, 2008 – 110th Congress – Growing and Strengthening America’s Middle Class (more info on this act), House.gov,
http://www.house.gov/ed_workforce/publi ... et0408.pdf.
Legislation H.R. 6358 (formerly H.R. 5876) The Bill, Thomas.loc.gov,
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.06358: Bill Passed, GovTrack.us/congress,
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-459, govtrack.us,
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-459 Vote on HR 6358: GovTrack.us/congress,
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-459.
June 25, 2008 – House Approves Legislation to Stop Child Abuse in Residential Programs, House.gov,
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/speech/e ... 2508c.html.
May 13, 2008 – The Gavel, Speaker.gov/blog,
http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=1334.
Smith, Angela, H.E.A.L., Provo Canyon School and similar programs use a harmful and ineffective program of behavior modification or "thought reform"/"brainwashing" to violate children in their "care".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSjW2gh2 ... re=related.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Mandatory Reporters of Child Abuse and Neglect: Summary of State Laws, Child Welfare Information Gateway, April 2010,
http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/ ... /manda.cfm.
RAINN - (Rape Abuse and Incest National Network) RAINN, 2000 L Street NW, Suite 406, Washington, DC 20036, phone: +1- 202-544-1034,
[email protected].
http://www.rainn.org/public-policy/lega ... g-database.
United States v. Bloch, No. 10-0215M-01, 2011 WL 833641, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, US Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson
Davis, Julia, “Former head of OSC Scott Bloch gets off scott free,” Examiner, Aug. 3, 2011, Examiner.com, Former head of OSC Scott Bloch gets off scott-free - Los Angeles Homeland Security | Examiner.com
http://www.examiner.com/homeland-securi ... z1U5SeXnxE.
“Scott Bloch” Legal Times Typepad, LegalTimes.Typepad.com,
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/dqu29000.pdf.
Talking Points Memo “Judge denies Scott Bloch’s Request to Appeal Sentencing in Geek on Call Case”. Talkingpointsmemo.com,
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docume ... php?page=1.
Legal Times Typepad - Judge Deborah A. Robinson’s Order, LegalTimes.Typepad.com,
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/robinson_order.pdf.
“Bloch Press Release 4-27-10,” Legal Times Typepad, LegalTimes.Typepad.com,
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/blo ... -27-10.pdf.
TP Muckracker, “Open Letter from Community of Whistleblowers to Attorney Eric Holder,” February 2010, TalkingPointsMemo.com,
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docume ... php?page=1.
Freeman, Jody, 116 Harv. L. Rev. 1285, 1304-05 (2003).
Estrin Gilman, Michele, “Legal Accountability in an Era of Privatized Welfare,” 81 Cal. L. Rev. 569, 611-12 (2001).
Freeman, Jody, “Extending Public Law Norms Through Privatization,” 116 Harv. L. Rev. 1285, 1300 (2003).
Jody Freeman, “The Contracting State,” 28 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 155, 170 (2000). Persons concerned about the potential negative results associated with privatization are called “consequentialists.”
Diller, Matthew, Form and Substance in the Privatization of Poverty Programs, 49 UCLA L. Rev. 1739, 1740 (2002).
Shue, Henry, Basic Rights: Subsistence, Influence, and U.S. Foreign Policy,p. 23, Princeton University Press (1996).
Stevenson, Dru, “Privatization of Welfare Services: Delegation by Commercial Contract:, 45 Ariz. L. Rev. 83, 88 (2003).
“Safety Net for Sale: Dangers of Privatizing Social Services,” American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, 1625 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036-5687, Web site:www.afscme.org,
Privatization Section,
http://www.afscme.org/private/index.html?
