Kat. The IECA conference you speak of is a different event. The NATSAP event we are invited to takes place in late January of next year in southern California.
Thanks Mike! I didn't see any of the specs posted here, sorry for confused interjection - is this a general presentation? That's fantastic news. Would love to hear more details.
On to a quick brainstorm response to your question!
I suggest a significant change in policy as far as membership w/in NATSAP. Some policies I think make basic common sense are posted above. Those not posted above would be having members change program policy to ensure youth voice is heard, true individualized care is achieved (not a one size fits all program), maybe suggesting youth advocates as a rule for all programs, and that member programs accept youth only close to home (at least in the same state!)
I would explore other trade orgs that are considered youth friendly (AACRC) and find out what makes them so - (even if by my own standards, are still not youth friendly enough if not blanketly discriminatory, depending on your position on residential care) and see about adopting similar policies.
Ask them to become signatories of the Building Bridges Initiative.
Beyond abusive institutionalization, I think discussing over/Inappropriate institutionalization would be very important. Yes, you talk about consent I think, but beyond that is, even if a child wants to be locked up b/c they're 'encouraged' to be, the question is also whether or not they can be served in their community, and even, I would argue separate is not equal. So, in other words, institutionalization is to be avoided at all costs and NATSAP needs to get with the times and abide by what consumers of mental health tx have been arguing since the 1970's, if not earlier: integration, not segregation. At 13 I knew I needed help, I was very unstable, and for some time I thought I had to be taken away from my family and was crazy - as such, needed to be taken away from the community. I fully disagree with this now, and disagree with this approach for other youth in similar positions, particularly given what I now about community based services that exist (that not enough families use/know about now). My family was nuts, its clear I could have been helped at home. If my parents didn't get it together, doubtful they would have, it would have been useful to learn to cope and have some one help make sense of my home life and normalize my responses to such an environment and help cope/change my belief system/biological response. All this to say, NATSAP should be a org made up of community base programs, with very few res tx programs.
I think the BBI would be helpful as guiding principles and noting some points made (linked above) on Capitol Hill info re: continuum of care would help make this point. They could potentially change culture of the industry changing their membership criteria (and way they ensure these are met) by choosing to represent programs that subscribe to those principles and are carefully attuned (as in aware that its crazy) to the crazy speak of Rudy Bentz or Randall Hinton or willfully ignorant speak of Lon Woodbury (as in NATSAP would be aware that some stakeholder in the industry just like to talk out of their ...) of the industry - basically up their moral code, ethical standards and knowledge base expectations.
Beyond that, don't have much. Hard to have a discussion about residential care, when they so clearly represent programs that misuse it and its so deeply embedded in their culture. I think pitting some programs against other may be key, shame can be a powerful motivator for change. Much as the way the UN operates...
Finally, if you see John Mercer of MMS, can you tell him I said 'Yup, you were right. Accountability IS key!'
Show Posts