Fornits

Fornits Home for Wayward Web Fora
An open discussion about the troubled parent industry

The major sticking point for NATSAP was provided by John Santos, which is the "reasonable right to a telephone".  This is a non-negotiable for us, and we will be the first ones advocating against the bill if this provision is gutted from the final version.

However, if you want to join Lon Woodbury in opposition to the bill on procedural grounds (what happens during the rule writing process) please go ahead.  I grant that the interpretation of that very legality could be anything from allowing a student his or her own cell phone on campus to only letting students call from a pre-approved list that's provided by parents.

When other residential providers are comfortable with the "reasonable access" provision and NATSAP isn't, it certainly makes me more comfortable that the bill has at least some teeth.

Not a perfect bill by any means.  But better than the current state of affairs.

But anonymous you are more than welcome to organize your own group of people in opposition to the bill to point out its deficiencies.  While not being hostile to the audience we made a vigorous stand for youth rights and ensuring due process and were thoroughly mocked by the audience.

In the words of Dennis Green, "They are who we thought they were", and more than anything that was the value of going in there.  It's one thing to read blogs, but it's another to actually meet someone face to face and see them in action.  Certainly not all of the educational consultants who were there, but as a group they left an impression that only confirmed our suspicions.

Bravo to you for having the integrity to stand up to these Flamers.

I am the parent of an MBA student. I am not going to engage the narrow-minded, so at the end of what I have to say, feel free to flame away.

First of all the term "substantiated" means nothing more than someone has put forth evidence of a claim. It is not a charge, it is not a fact and it is certainly not proven. To illustrate this point I substantiate that many of the posters to this thread are morons and I cite their posts as evidence. While some of the posters here are apparently intelligent they are misguided. Go ahead and quote the dictionary definition of the word, It doesn't take into account the context in which the word is used. In this case DHS is complaining and ordering corrections. This does not rise to the level of illegal charges. DHS may refer their findings to law enforcement to determine if there is a case, we'll see about that. Beyond that proving harm is another matter, remember defendants in a case have a right to a vigorous defense.

Secondly, just because there are experts who's professional opinion allows them to claim that the techniques used by the school are harmful doesn't make it so. What is missing in these charges is objective proof. There are just as many experts who, based on their expertise, can claim that there is validity in the therapeutic approach used. It boils down to the argument of clinical basis vs. evidence basis. The problem with doing clinical analysis on the effectiveness of these therapeutic techniques is the need for double blind studies. Can you imagine giving help to one group of troubled teens and withholding it from a control group to measure the techniques effectiveness? (maybe some of you flamers were actually in one of those control groups). The evidence for the effectiveness of the emotional growth workshops is clearly evident to anyone with an open mind. We as a society are going back to the dark ages when we can't believe what is right before our eyes.

Quote

Thirdly, there is no one-size-fits-all treatment. You flamers are objective evidence of that. You clearly were not saved by the programs you went through, I am truly sorry for that. Now, because you weren't helped you want bring down those institutions. You appear to be obsessed with being obsessed. One good thing that can be said on your behalf is that you have found a cause to believe in, too bad it's not a productive cause.

Fair enough, probably the best MBA defense I've seen so far except perhaps for the name calling.

What's not clear is

a. Whether you think that the substantiated claims against the school actually did happen, and you think that because these techniques that the school used that the state cited are actually effective that there shouldn't have been charges in the first place.

b.  Whether you think that the substantiated claims are untrue.

As the previous poster stated, from the Merriam-Webster's - to establish by proof or competent evidence (it's synonym is confirm).  Unless you think DHS is incompetent, then you should believe that the substantiated claims are true.

A rebuttal to two of your points that stand regardless of your answer to the a/b question.  "There is no one-size-fits-all treatment".  I agree.  I believe that was one the things that MBA was cited for.

"You clearly were not saved by the programs you went through".  It the goal of religious institutions, EMT teams, and hospitals to "save", it's the goal of treatment programs to "treat".  

Lastly, the question of effectiveness.  I would argue that having your child on the day of your discharge appearing better than when they left (This is the only finding of the Behrens study, so I don't want to hear it) is not in itself effective treatment.  Do the changes hold over the course of time, or are they just a product of the environment that they were just in, or are they a product of the extended environment of your home until they turn 18.

Fear is an effective tool.  If I fear my parents are going to beat me I will behave.  That is also considered emotional child abuse in most (if not all) states.  When the fear ends whatever changes have taken place also tend to end.

Anyway, before I blather on any further, I do want to hear your perspective on MBA itself.

The private jail in question that the $2.8 million figure was attached to was PA Child Care, owned by the aforementioned Mid-Atlantic Youth Services (MAYS)

http://www.midatlanticyouth.com/facilit ... erne.shtml

That's not to say that there were other programs in on the take.  MAYS apparently cooperated with investigators on the case, and hasn't been targeted yet for legal action.

The program side of the Luzerne County situation was primarily Mid-Atlantic Youth Services Corp.  No affiliation to ASPEN or to the "parent-choice" world of residential providers as far as I can tell.

It's a real stretch to try to implicate John Reuben or any of the ASPEN folks directly in this situation.  

There were some unidentified wilderness and residential programs as I recall in one of the articles, that the judges may have referred kids to that they may have also received kickbacks other than those owned by MAYSC, but again there were no names named.  As far as I know those programs that the judges referred kids to were in Pennyslvania, and ASPEN owns no programs in Pennsylvania.

If anyone has more info on the programs involved, please do tell.

Been following this story for awhile, I suggested to the lady who contacted me about a month ago to talk to Heal. They've made it an action alert whatever it is they call it at Heal. Has Cafety done anything like this to rally their supporters to assist this kid?

Primarily, we've been responding to requests for information from the organizers of the campaign.  It hasn't exactly been formal, but it seems that a lot of our supporters on facebook have joined their facebook group as well.  For my part, I provided info about the Utah licensing office, Ken Stettler's office is investigating complaints as we speak (we'll see how far that actually goes).  In addition, providing links to ISAC, HEAL, CAFETY and ASTART.

Frankly, we're thrilled that so many others have taken the initiative on this.  Kudos to HEAL.

As a New Yorker, everything that's been said about Riker's is true.  Teenagers have died at Rikers.  The conditions are brutal.  Sure there's a lot less mindfuckery, but as for which is worse, it's a bit of an apples and oranges comparison.

For some kids a program is worse and for some kids Rikers would be worse.  Depends on the state, and depends on what a person can tolerate physically and emotionally.  I can see where being 17 and in prison would actually be better than a program in New York State, but in reality our jails and juvenile detention facilities are worse that even our correctional system.  The DOJ report is evidence of that.

I'm surprised that the Department of Justice report of the four OCFS Facilities in New York State didn't get any play on this website.  But now would be as good a time as any to rectify that.  The short explanation is that Governor Pataki came in and put a former prison warden over our juvenile justice system, 12 years of horrific abuses ensued, a new commissioner has come in and tried to clean up the mess, but the employee unions have gotten used to enjoying free rein over their charges.  You want to talk about racist, how about a system that sends black and Latino kids hundreds of miles away from home to pay for the salaries of uneducated white rural folk.

You can read the report here:

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/document ... 4-2009.pdf