Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => Aspen Education Group => Topic started by: Anne Bonney on March 31, 2010, 04:29:05 PM
-
Does anyone have a body count?
Does anyone know how many Aspen Ed programs have been closed due to either abuse or deaths?
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
From our victim list pages (http://http://wiki.fornits.com/index.php?title=Victims):
1980's: 1 (SUWS - However before Aspen ownership)
2000-2004: 2 (Island View and Lonestar Expeditions)
2005-2009: 4 (SUWS, Aspen Achievement Academy, Youth care and Sagewalk)
They are not among the most deadly programs, but who is setting the numbers determing what kind of number it takes before the entire operation is judged as a failure.
-
From our victim list pages (http://http://wiki.fornits.com/index.php?title=Victims):
1980's: 1 (SUWS - However before Aspen ownership)
2000-2004: 2 (Island View and Lonestar Expeditions)
2005-2009: 4 (SUWS, Aspen Achievement Academy, Youth care and Sagewalk)
They are not among the most deadly programs, but who is setting the numbers determing what kind of number it takes before the entire operation is judged as a failure.
Thanks Oscar, So it looks like less than a child per year is lost. Although, I feel one child is too many, we need to take a look at how this compares to other industries to see if the risk for children is high in this industry. I think the numbers would show that programs are a safe alternative for children at risk.
Based on these numbers it is also easy to see that the effort should be placed on improvement of the industry and their procedures to continue to reduce the number to Zero and not on closing facilities unless they show a disregard for children safety.
...
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
Whooter we are discussing innocent children dying at Aspen programs. You attempted to move the focus on Aspen to comparisons within the TTI industry. Your response is indicative you failed to acknowledge there are serious problems at Aspen. Are you willing to admit there are serious problems at Aspen programs?
Everytime a child dies we need to treat it as a serious problem. We had an innocent child die in a public school system in our state just last month. We are seeing them die in programs and private institutions around the country. We are seeing them die at home.
Aspen programs are not immune to this problem but are among the safest based on Oscars data.
I think the main question is where is the best place to put the resources which would have the biggest effect in reducing our children’s risk of dying? And how do we determine this and measure the outcome?
…
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
Are there serious problems at Aspen programs? It is a simple question to answer Whooter. I understand you sent your child there and are reluctant to expose negligence at Aspen programs. This old game isn't funny anymore Whooter.
With Aspen Programs in General? No I don’t believe there is. Sagewalk is presently experiencing serious problems due to a death they had there last year. Until root cause is determined then there will be uncertainty as to whether that program should move forward or not and I would suggest stopping operations until it is understood so that the proper procedural changes can be put into place or basic safety changes are made. I think this should apply to any program, Aspen or otherwise, who experience a safety issue with the children.
I believe Aspen has one of the safest records if I am not mistaken. Do you feel Aspen programs are among the safest or deadliest? Do you base your belief on data?
...
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
2005-2009: 4 (SUWS, Aspen Achievement Academy, Youth care and Sagewalk) > Sounds like Aspen programs are safe to me Whooter. How ya' gonna spin it this time Whooter?
There are Aspen programs which are having serious problems, but taken all together Aspen facilities are among the most safe. Thousands of kids die every year who are enrolled in the public school system which is many orders of magnitude larger than the TT industry as a whole.
So from a safety standpoint programs are much safer than the Public school system and Aspen (as a subset of the industry) is among the safest based on Oscars data.
...
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
Thanks Oscar, So it looks like less than a child per year is lost. Although, I feel one child is too many, we need to take a look at how this compares to other industries to see if the risk for children is high in this industry. I think the numbers would show that programs are a safe alternative for children at risk.
Based on these numbers it is also easy to see that the effort should be placed on improvement of the industry and their procedures to continue to reduce the number to Zero and not on closing facilities unless they show a disregard for children safety.
...
You are somehow right. Children dies even when they are working or going to school.
However we have to look if a death can be prevented. When a school laboratory explode as it has happened or if a worker has an arm or head chopped off then the police is quickly replaced with people from our The Danish Working Environment Authority (http://http://synkron.at.dk/sw7737.asp?sc_lang=en). Their only purpose in life are to investigate how the accident took place and to decide whether they have investigated such a death before and if it could have been prevented. They visit firms and schools unannounced to see if their guidelines are followed and huge fines are given to firms or schools, which fail to follow their guidelines.
In Denmark we have a goal which is zero deaths in relation with either work or school. Since we started to chart every death accidents in schools and workplaces have been reduced to 25% of the original number.
I believe that your country should have such a federal agency also. Why should a kid die in the field when his death is an exact copy of previous deaths? Should the medical staff not be able to stop sending a kid out in the desert without looking at if possible loss of income could put their job at risk?
It took most states about 20 years and a lot of death kids to learn what kind of restraints that kills. Some states have not learned the lesson yet and it is just a matter of time before we learn what kind of name which should be written on the gravestone.
I urge that some learn from each death. Once this death at Sagewalk is finished in the court system then who will take all the knowledge the sheriff office has learned and make it into a kind of law so the next death based on the same circumstances can be prevented in Oregon or all the other States? I don't understand why such agency has not been created already, if not by the state but then by the insurance companies. They end up paying big time everytime some school, program or firm cause a death by simple neglect.
Personally I believe that most deaths in Aspen's program could have been prevented the last 10 years. They were not sudden deaths. There were warning signs hours before, which were ignored.
-
Involuntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought. It is distinguished from voluntary manslaughter by the absence of intention. It is normally divided into two categories; constructive manslaughter and criminally negligent manslaughter.
Criminally negligent manslaughter: It occurs where death results from serious negligence, or, in some jurisdictions, serious recklessness. A high degree of negligence is required to warrant criminal liability. A related concept is that of wilful blindness, which is where a defendant intentionally puts himself in a position where he will be unaware of facts which would render him liable.
Wilful blindness? Putting yourself in a position where he will be unaware of facts which would render him liable?..... whoever wrote that must have dealt with these programs in the past because that is probably an unwritten qualification of the TTI "program director"!
Also, having knowledge that kids die in these programs and still sending them out into the wild without properly trained staff and protocols seems to be a strong argument for "criminal negligence" by the program administration, aka whoever is in charge and getting paid.
Punishments for manslaughter vary from state to state but usually include several years of prison time. I would say this is a fair estimation "in general' of what crimes have been committed within this industry and prison time should curb the rate of deaths in programs.
-
Thanks Oscar, So it looks like less than a child per year is lost. Although, I feel one child is too many, we need to take a look at how this compares to other industries to see if the risk for children is high in this industry. I think the numbers would show that programs are a safe alternative for children at risk.
Based on these numbers it is also easy to see that the effort should be placed on improvement of the industry and their procedures to continue to reduce the number to Zero and not on closing facilities unless they show a disregard for children safety.
...
You are somehow right. Children dies even when they are working or going to school.
However we have to look if a death can be prevented. When a school laboratory explode as it has happened or if a worker has an arm or head chopped off then the police is quickly replaced with people from our The Danish Working Environment Authority (http://http://synkron.at.dk/sw7737.asp?sc_lang=en). Their only purpose in life are to investigate how the accident took place and to decide whether they have investigated such a death before and if it could have been prevented. They visit firms and schools unannounced to see if their guidelines are followed and huge fines are given to firms or schools, which fail to follow their guidelines.
In Denmark we have a goal which is zero deaths in relation with either work or school. Since we started to chart every death accidents in schools and workplaces have been reduced to 25% of the original number.
I believe that your country should have such a federal agency also. Why should a kid die in the field when his death is an exact copy of previous deaths? Should the medical staff not be able to stop sending a kid out in the desert without looking at if possible loss of income could put their job at risk?
It took most states about 20 years and a lot of death kids to learn what kind of restraints that kills. Some states have not learned the lesson yet and it is just a matter of time before we learn what kind of name which should be written on the gravestone.
I urge that some learn from each death. Once this death at Sagewalk is finished in the court system then who will take all the knowledge the sheriff office has learned and make it into a kind of law so the next death based on the same circumstances can be prevented in Oregon or all the other States? I don't understand why such agency has not been created already, if not by the state but then by the insurance companies. They end up paying big time everytime some school, program or firm cause a death by simple neglect.
Personally I believe that most deaths in Aspen's program could have been prevented the last 10 years. They were not sudden deaths. There were warning signs hours before, which were ignored.
I agree with you 100%, prevention is the key. The best thing we can do is try to determine root cause and learn from it. We go thru this everytime on fornits. No one ever seems to be interested in determining cause. The Anne Bonneys and auntieEms of the world who just want to stand on the sidelines, point the finger of blame and put someone in jail does nothing to help the next child. They are merely trying to satisfy their selfish agenda and personal feelings.
If people like myself push for answers it pisses people off here and they perceive my actions as being proprogram or defending the programs point of view. Its like no one wants to know how this happened to this child. Many focus on “homicide” vs "Man Slaughter" or calling people liars vs. learning the cause of the childs death, gaining understanding and helping others. If we can determine "one" change in the procedure as a result of this boys death, which we could implement in the other existing programs that would save a life, then that would be worth fighting for and worth discussing. But each time a child dies fornits, unfortunately, takes on a mob mentality and I am not sure why they do this versus trying to help the next child.
Should field operators be trained differently? Should there be supplemental or special training off site which will help them to differentiate between behavior issues and medical issues? Should home base be called prior to 911 in every case? At what point could have this childs life been saved? What was missed? These are some of the questions we should be seeking answers to. Let the police determine which person was negligent and prosecute them if needed. We should be focused on the children.
If people can put a little bit more effort into trying to find out how this happens, listening to the investigation results all the kids would be much better off, in my opinion.
...
-
What's interesting to me is that Aspen programs are experiencing more deaths now than in previous years. This invalidates the argument that "programs are evolving, becoming more safe and becoming more clinical." That's nonsense and marketing spin.
Two Aspen Ed programs were shuttered last year in Oregon alone for "systematic child abuse and neglect."So, the abuse is systemic at Aspen Ed. This systemic abuse discovered by authorities in Oregon explains the sharp increase in the death rate at Aspen Ed. The more the kids are abused and neglected, the more will die. This is pretty obvious from the upward trend of child deaths at Aspen Ed.
Program shills would love readers to believe "programs are improving" but the data shows they are actually worsening at Aspen Ed as staff cutbacks, salary reductions and lowered standards fill the payroll with dangerous, uneducated, untrained staff. No, Aspen Ed is on the skids, not on the rise.
-
What was missed?
The most obvious thing that was "missed" is that there is zero evidence that these programs, even when working as designed and no abuse occurs (which hasn't happened yet), help anyone, ever, with anything. Until such a time that clinical trials are run on the spurious methods used by these programs and those trials prove without doubt that these programs are effective at treating x, y and z, they should be simply legally barred from operating.
Why should any kid, ever, be subjected to this obvious quackery in the absence of a single shred of scientific evidence that any good may come from from it?
-
Not to be deliberately beligerent but I sometimes think death counts miss the point. You never see normal schools boast "Here at St marthas of the worthless miracle we have been educating for 50 years and we still don't have a single fatality".
As far as I am concerned programs could offer lollypops and pony rides and lashings of fairy floss on a daily basis. But if they deny the right to go home for normal holidays, do creepy shit like reading mail and censoring contact with the outside world, or just generally expect parents to blindly support every single aspect of the school's philosophy then they cease to be a rehab or a school and start becoming a jail or a cult. Parents need to be shown how dangerous this is.
-
Not to be deliberately beligerent but I sometimes think death counts miss the point. You never see normal schools boast "Here at St marthas of the worthless miracle we have been educating for 50 years and we still don't have a single fatality".
I agree, I don’t think that is a program thing. Fornits posters tend to focus on how many died. I think if safety was an issue and lots of kids were dying in programs then the safer programs would boast of how they haven’t had a fatality in 2 years etc. or how much more safe they are than the other programs. But there is no need for that because they are all basically safe or safer than our public institution of learning.
As far as I am concerned programs could offer lollypops and pony rides and lashings of fairy floss on a daily basis. But if they deny the right to go home for normal holidays, do creepy shit like reading mail and censoring contact with the outside world, or just generally expect parents to blindly support every single aspect of the school's philosophy then they cease to be a rehab or a school and start becoming a jail or a cult. Parents need to be shown how dangerous this is.
I don’t believe anyone should read another person’s mail and parents should be allowed to speak up and suggest changes to the program model. If these types of programs still exist then parents need to be aware and try to force change upon them. In order for anything to continuously grow and improve they need the ability to change and accept input from others.
...
-
But there is no need for that because they are all basically safe or safer than our public institution of learning.
Link? Source? Another fact-free post brought to you by Aspen Education Shillpiece, Whooter.
"All basically safe"? What about for the two kids recently murdered by Aspen Ed? What about for the hundreds of kids found to have been "systematically abused and neglected" by Mount Bachelor Academy (Aspen Ed)?
Whooter, you're "basically" an asshole.
-
I agree with you 100%, prevention is the key. The best thing we can do is try to determine root cause and learn from it. We go thru this everytime on fornits. No one ever seems to be interested in determining cause. The Anne Bonneys and auntieEms of the world who just want to stand on the sidelines, point the finger of blame and put someone in jail does nothing to help the next child. They are merely trying to satisfy their selfish agenda and personal feelings.
If people like myself push for answers it pisses people off here and they perceive my actions as being proprogram or defending the programs point of view. Its like no one wants to know how this happened to this child. Many focus on “homicide” vs "Man Slaughter" or calling people liars vs. learning the cause of the childs death, gaining understanding and helping others. If we can determine "one" change in the procedure as a result of this boys death, which we could implement in the other existing programs that would save a life, then that would be worth fighting for and worth discussing. But each time a child dies fornits, unfortunately, takes on a mob mentality and I am not sure why they do this versus trying to help the next child.
Should field operators be trained differently? Should there be supplemental or special training off site which will help them to differentiate between behavior issues and medical issues? Should home base be called prior to 911 in every case? At what point could have this childs life been saved? What was missed? These are some of the questions we should be seeking answers to. Let the police determine which person was negligent and prosecute them if needed. We should be focused on the children.
If people can put a little bit more effort into trying to find out how this happens, listening to the investigation results all the kids would be much better off, in my opinion.
...
How can they do other than choosing this approach to a situation?
We have a number of parties who could make a difference and save lives.
First the program owners: They should have an interest in setting up programs, which not only cures the special problem they have specialized in but also say no to parents showing up with a kid who will be at risk in the program or delay the entry in the program until risk factor has been eliminated. In cases where a kid has been measure to have taken certain drugs, they must keep the kid in the office or a hotel into the drug is out of the system. If a kid cooks to death out in the desert and the staff ensures that the kid has gotten both food and water, it must be the medical staff, who has failed or there must be a wrong policy which prevents the medical staff from stopping these kids before they are put in a potential dangerous situation.
One way of forcing the programs to create the right set of policies is to make them hurt until they learn. It seems that the amount they settle with the parents is not high enough. Where are the Insurance firms in this game? Are they not tired of paying up? In Denmark where In Germany they have removed some of the most extreme speeding. As you properly know there is no speed limit on most part of the German high ways, but the German Insurance firms have decided that the owners must pay for their own car if they crash while going faster than 87 mph, so most drivers choose not to exceed this limit. In Denmark young drivers can get a huge discount by some firms if they install a satellite box in their car, so they are warned if they exceed the speed limit and the Insurance firms can learn of the last movements of the car and the choices the driver did up to an accident.
So much for the Insurance firms: If you have seen the victim list the number of kids dying is not dropping if you compare the numbers to the 1980's and the 1990's. Of course we have to look at the number of programs and kids in programs. Where are the statistic showing how many kids who are in programs, so we all can learn if the percentage of kids dying in programs is the same or it has changed? Every death is unacceptable but in this case none seems to collect the statistic material which can prove if the industry is on the right path.
Where is NATSAP in this issue? Why are they not out there pointing fingers at programs which set aside all of the too few guidelines which exist? They must realize that people cannot differ between a program operated by a NATSAP member and a program operated by a non-member if there is no difference. Have they at any point in their history kicked a member out if the member did not live up to their guidelines?
If the insurance firms won't stop the dangerous procedures, if the industry show no interest in so, then we normally turn to our politicians so they can make laws which ensure guidelines. But here we have a problem we also battle in Denmark. Politicians also want jobs in their area so sometime they choose to forget safety at firms operating in their area. It is certainly the case in many areas. In Denmark we have taken all work about taxes away from the towns and made it a job for the tax department only to check if the firms pay their taxes and we did find firms where they were not doing a good job in the old days. I believe that it shouldn't be up to the single state to set standards for wilderness programs. It shouldn't be up to the single state to decide if they want to abolish checking up on boarding schools just because the school is a religious boarding school as it is the case in Missouri. It should be a federal matter.
For now the more unserious program owners can state shop looking for the state with the poorest level of regulation. Parents can read a warning about foreign programs. Where are the warnings against states choosing not to do their job in a proper manner?
I can understand why Anne Bonney and AuntieEm are out there criticizing the programs. You can say all about their methods but at least they are out there speaking out against repetition of these tragedies and I will continue to support them as the death kids in the programs were failed by the Insurance firms, the programs owners and our politicians. Who else are out there ensuring the safety of kids in the programs?
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
First the program owners: They should have an interest in setting up programs, which not only cures the special problem they have specialized in but also say no to parents showing up with a kid who will be at risk in the program or delay the entry in the program until risk factor has been eliminated. In cases where a kid has been measure to have taken certain drugs, they must keep the kid in the office or a hotel into the drug is out of the system. If a kid cooks to death out in the desert and the staff ensures that the kid has gotten both food and water, it must be the medical staff, who has failed or there must be a wrong policy which prevents the medical staff from stopping these kids before they are put in a potential dangerous situation.
I am in favor of a third party independent sign off prior to any child entering a program. this should include a medical screening.
One way of forcing the programs to create the right set of policies is to make them hurt until they learn. It seems that the amount they settle with the parents is not high enough. Where are the Insurance firms in this game? Are they not tired of paying up? In Denmark where In Germany they have removed some of the most extreme speeding. As you properly know there is no speed limit on most part of the German high ways, but the German Insurance firms have decided that the owners must pay for their own car if they crash while going faster than 87 mph, so most drivers choose not to exceed this limit. In Denmark young drivers can get a huge discount by some firms if they install a satellite box in their car, so they are warned if they exceed the speed limit and the Insurance firms can learn of the last movements of the car and the choices the driver did up to an accident.
Insurance companies do presently award great sums of money to the victims in this country. This puts a lot of hurt on these corporations if they are negligent.
So much for the Insurance firms: If you have seen the victim list the number of kids dying is not dropping if you compare the numbers to the 1980's and the 1990's. Of course we have to look at the number of programs and kids in programs. Where are the statistic showing how many kids who are in programs, so we all can learn if the percentage of kids dying in programs is the same or it has changed? Every death is unacceptable but in this case none seems to collect the statistic material which can prove if the industry is on the right path.
Like you mentioned the number of programs and kids attending them has exploded over the past decades. So the relative percentage of kids dying has probably dropped significantly since the 1980’s and 1990’s
Where is NATSAP in this issue? Why are they not out there pointing fingers at programs which set aside all of the too few guidelines which exist? They must realize that people cannot differ between a program operated by a NATSAP member and a program operated by a non-member if there is no difference. Have they at any point in their history kicked a member out if the member did not live up to their guidelines?
NATSAP doesn’t really have any power. They had a chance to step up to the bar but they failed in my opinion. Hopefully they pull together and create an oversight agency that can make a difference in this industry.
If the insurance firms won't stop the dangerous procedures, if the industry show no interest in so, then we normally turn to our politicians so they can make laws which ensure guidelines. But here we have a problem we also battle in Denmark. Politicians also want jobs in their area so sometime they choose to forget safety at firms operating in their area. It is certainly the case in many areas. In Denmark we have taken all work about taxes away from the towns and made it a job for the tax department only to check if the firms pay their taxes and we did find firms where they were not doing a good job in the old days. I believe that it shouldn't be up to the single state to set standards for wilderness programs. It shouldn't be up to the single state to decide if they want to abolish checking up on boarding schools just because the school is a religious boarding school as it is the case in Missouri. It should be a federal matter.
For now the more unserious program owners can state shop looking for the state with the poorest level of regulation. Parents can read a warning about foreign programs. Where are the warnings against states choosing not to do their job in a proper manner?
The politicians in this country are useless when it comes to regulation. They basically pass laws and set rules in place and then walk away and allow the corruption to seep in. It becomes worse than when it started. It is best to keep the programs independent and competitive. At least for now.
I can understand why Anne Bonney and AuntieEm are out there criticizing the programs. You can say all about their methods but at least they are out there speaking out against repetition of these tragedies and I will continue to support them as the death kids in the programs were failed by the Insurance firms, the programs owners and our politicians. Who else are out there ensuring the safety of kids in the programs?
I think they put in the effort but their hearts are not in the right place imo. Instead of carrying a torch and looking for someone to hang and dump personal built up anger we should be looking for solutions and thinking about the kids instead. They should put aside their personal failings and try to work towards helping others and give the next generation a leg up.
...
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
Whooter avoiding the question again.
Whooter wrote: There are Aspen programs which are having serious problems
Can you be more specific Whooter? Please elaborate on the problems Aspen programs are having.
Hint: The answer is in the OP... Check with Oscar.
...
-
Whooter avoiding the question again.
Whooter wrote: There are Aspen programs which are having serious problems
Can you be more specific Whooter? Please elaborate on the problems Aspen programs are having.
Hint: The answer is in the OP... Check with Oscar.
...
Well, this is the OP...
Does anyone have a body count?
Does anyone know how many Aspen Ed programs have been closed due to either abuse or deaths?
That doesn't answer his question to you though.
-
Whoops: Here ya go Joel:
From our victim list pages (http://http://wiki.fornits.com/index.php?title=Victims):
1980's: 1 (SUWS - However before Aspen ownership)
2000-2004: 2 (Island View and Lonestar Expeditions)
2005-2009: 4 (SUWS, Aspen Achievement Academy, Youth care and Sagewalk)
They are not among the most deadly programs, but who is setting the numbers determing what kind of number it takes before the entire operation is judged as a failure.
-
Whoops: Here ya go Joel:
From our victim list pages (http://http://wiki.fornits.com/index.php?title=Victims):
1980's: 1 (SUWS - However before Aspen ownership)
2000-2004: 2 (Island View and Lonestar Expeditions)
2005-2009: 4 (SUWS, Aspen Achievement Academy, Youth care and Sagewalk)
They are not among the most deadly programs, but who is setting the numbers determing what kind of number it takes before the entire operation is judged as a failure.
That's not what he asked. He asked what problems, specifically, Aspen programs are having.
-
Whoops: Here ya go Joel:
From our victim list pages (http://http://wiki.fornits.com/index.php?title=Victims):
1980's: 1 (SUWS - However before Aspen ownership)
2000-2004: 2 (Island View and Lonestar Expeditions)
2005-2009: 4 (SUWS, Aspen Achievement Academy, Youth care and Sagewalk)
They are not among the most deadly programs, but who is setting the numbers determing what kind of number it takes before the entire operation is judged as a failure.
That's not what he asked. He asked what problems, specifically, Aspen programs are having.
Other than what Oscar has I really dont know. I rely on him for the details. Shoot him a quick PM or email and he will point you in the right direction.
...
-
Other than what Oscar has I really dont know. I rely on him for the details. Shoot him a quick PM or email and he will point you in the right direction.
No, you said that some Aspen programs are having problems. What did you mean by that?
-
2005-2009: 4 (SUWS, Aspen Achievement Academy, Youth care and Sagewalk) > Sounds like Aspen programs are safe to me Whooter. How ya' gonna spin it this time Whooter?
There are Aspen programs which are having serious problems, but taken all together Aspen facilities are among the most safe.
Which ones and what are the problems?
-
2005-2009: 4 (SUWS, Aspen Achievement Academy, Youth care and Sagewalk) > Sounds like Aspen programs are safe to me Whooter. How ya' gonna spin it this time Whooter?
There are Aspen programs which are having serious problems, but taken all together Aspen facilities are among the most safe.
Which ones and what are the problems?
Sagewalk, which just had a child die last year and then there was another program under Aspen which lost a child a year or two ago. I think anytime a program loses a child within their care it would be considered a problem. Until root cause is identified and they put appropriate changes in place I would still consider the program has having problems.
But, also, if you look at the Aspen facilities as a group they are doing well. Thousands of at-risk children are getting the help they need and are being turned around. so they need to keep chipping away at the problem areas and reducing the risk to zero.
...
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
Whooter wrote: There are Aspen programs which are having serious problems
Can you be more specific Whooter? Please elaborate on the problems Aspen programs are having.
[/i]
The end result of the problems were deaths of innocent victims Whooter. Please elaborate on the problems which lead to loss of life at Aspen Education programs.
Go look the info up yourself. All the info you need is right here in the fornits database or over at caferty. Have fun!
...
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
2005-2009: 4 (SUWS, Aspen Achievement Academy, Youth care and Sagewalk) > Sounds like Aspen programs are safe to me Whooter. How ya' gonna spin it this time Whooter?
There are Aspen programs which are having serious problems, but taken all together Aspen facilities are among the most safe.
Which ones and what are the problems?
Sagewalk, which just had a child die last year and then there was another program under Aspen which lost a child a year or two ago. I think anytime a program loses a child within their care it would be considered a problem. Until root cause is identified and they put appropriate changes in place I would still consider the program has having problems.
But, also, if you look at the Aspen facilities as a group they are doing well. Thousands of at-risk children are getting the help they need and are being turned around. so they need to keep chipping away at the problem areas and reducing the risk to zero.
...
I don't think it is appropriate to call it "a loss of a child" or write "when a child is lost" when these kids have been killed due to what appears to be criminal negligence. These kids weren't "lost" they were basically murdered. There is a loss of life whenever anyone is killed or murdered but you don't hear the news anchor say, "there was a loss of life today when police shot a man during a drug bust". They say, "a man was killed". Your language is detracting from the importance of the problem and dismissive.
-
2005-2009: 4 (SUWS, Aspen Achievement Academy, Youth care and Sagewalk) > Sounds like Aspen programs are safe to me Whooter. How ya' gonna spin it this time Whooter?
There are Aspen programs which are having serious problems, but taken all together Aspen facilities are among the most safe.
Which ones and what are the problems?
Sagewalk, which just had a child die last year and then there was another program under Aspen which lost a child a year or two ago. I think anytime a program loses a child within their care it would be considered a problem. Until root cause is identified and they put appropriate changes in place I would still consider the program has having problems.
But, also, if you look at the Aspen facilities as a group they are doing well. Thousands of at-risk children are getting the help they need and are being turned around. so they need to keep chipping away at the problem areas and reducing the risk to zero.
...
I don't think it is appropriate to call it "a loss of a child" or write "when a child is lost" when these kids have been killed due to what appears to be criminal negligence. These kids weren't "lost" they were basically murdered. There is a loss of life whenever anyone is killed or murdered but you don't hear the news anchor say, "there was a loss of life today when police shot a man during a drug bust". They say, "a man was killed". Your language is detracting from the importance of the problem and dismissive.
I often here it stated this way on the news "We lost one of our own today in the war on terror......". ... "A child died this afternoon on a hike in the wilderness". News reporters would never state the child was murdered unless there had been a conviction or the case was closed.
I think you are so use to listening to the posts here on fornits that you get use to your own way of speaking. How often do you hear "a young boy, who was kidnapped and held incarcerated at one of our local Gulags, was murdered today"..... "stay tuned for the weather". See what I am saying. Gulag, kidnapping etc. are mostly terms used here on fornits. The words I use are more main stream and indicative of what people outside fornits would use.
Dont take offense to this. Its just the way I see it.
...
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
Whooter evading again:
Joel wrote:
Whooter wrote: There are Aspen programs which are having serious problems
Joel wrote:
Can you be more specific Whooter? Please elaborate on the problems Aspen programs are having.
The end result of the problems were deaths of innocent victims Whooter. Please elaborate on the problems which lead to loss of life at Aspen Education programs.
[/i][/b]
Evading is allowed here on fornits. I encounter it everyday myself. If people want to have an honest conversation then I will too. It needs to be a two way street. I have been very open with my thoughts on this thread and the death at Sagewalk. I dont think we can say that about yourself and others.
I have given you the information I have. If you need more Oscar has tons of detail as well as Ursus. If you are honest about your pursuit of information you will ask them.
...
...
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
Oscar's post, unless I'm mistaken, doesn't clarify the problems that lead to the death of innocent victims Whooter.
What I typically do is do (if oscar doesnt have the info) is a google search on the childs name and see what comes up. Most sites keep articles up for several years. Thats the best I can offer you, unless you can think of something else.
...
-
But, also, if you look at the Aspen facilities as a group they are doing well. Thousands of at-risk children are getting the help they need and are being turned around. so they need to keep chipping away at the problem areas and reducing the risk to zero.
...
I would consider it to be a rather thankful phrase to claim that they are going well.
I can see that they have recognized that they had a problem with running facilities which were "we cure all problems here" facilities.
The boarding school in Texas (http://http://wiki.fornits.com/index.php?title=Excel_Academy) was hit by a change in local government when the new sheriff not only disallowed years of practice - the scared straight tour in the local jail. He arrested the employee who managed them. Their version of the scared straight method was rather extreme, but it had been going on since year 2000. They were forced to change the program but were then hit with another problem running a substance treatment facility when you are a for-profit program. They didn't make profit, so they closed it down. They have changed the target group for Sunhawk Academy (http://http://wiki.fornits.com/index.php?title=Sunhawk_Academy) properly based on what they learned in Texas. I don't know if they are able to make a profit, time will show.
Cedars Academy closed (http://http://wiki.fornits.com/index.php?title=Cedars_Academy). Aspen did properly discover what they had bought as it had a long history including problems with the license.
Over the years Academy at Swift River (http://http://wiki.fornits.com/index.php?title=Academy_at_Swift_River) had more managers than most of us have underwear. Somehow the many changes in therapy approach has turned out to be what saved them from closure because they started out as a Mount Bachelor copy, but the downside is that every peer group has been a kind of testing ground.
I guess that it is a question of time before the weight division will be changed from a residential approach to a kind of consultant based activity. Independent research has shown that in order to achieve a lasting weight loss the clients have to make the changes back at home, so the mixed results we see today where the students gain all the weight they have lost once they return home will result in a reduced enrollment over time. Taking a kid away to a residential program in order to achieve weight loss does not work unless the child take over the entire cooking process back home. It can work with adults because adults make their own food. Kids eat what is served by the parents. The school they planned in the New York region has been abandoned and now they plan to open a school in Europe properly having underestimated how far we are in Europe on this area. However I can see a golden egg in their Wellspring Fit Clubs, unless the sport shops in the United States are very behind ours as almost every shop here have a running club where some of the employees run with customers one time per week after business hours.
Finally of course they have the wilderness division. Even without the deaths it should be clear for them that they lack a component. A competitor in Colorado is working with a German television station and they seem to have developed a version of a wilderness program which works way better than more traditionel wilderness program. Basically the kids are in the wilderness for 6 to 7 weeks and the parents entire 4 to 5 weeks where there are therapeutic breaks with shopping etc. The Germans did try Turn-about Ranch, but did choose to customize Monarch with European knowledge instead. If Aspen don't develop their programs they could end up loosing out to more modern programs. Tough love was a 1990's thing. Generally we now know better.
-
Finally of course they have the wilderness division. Even without the deaths it should be clear for them that they lack a component. A competitor in Colorado is working with a German television station and they seem to have developed a version of a wilderness program which works way better than more traditionel wilderness program. Basically the kids are in the wilderness for 6 to 7 weeks and the parents entire 4 to 5 weeks where there are therapeutic breaks with shopping etc. The Germans did try Turn-about Ranch, but did choose to customize Monarch with European knowledge instead. If Aspen don't develop their programs they could end up loosing out to more modern programs. Tough love was a 1990's thing. Generally we now know better.
Great info, Oscar, thanks. I am just responding to this small piece for now:
Its great to see other perspectives being considered. I believe that programs will continue to evolve and improve as they have been since the beginning. Any changes to the present models which will increase the effectiveness and success rates (of the kids) above what we are seeing here in the US will probably be implemented and tried out on at least a Beta scale. So I am sure companies like Aspen have their eyes on the way Europe is handling their at-Risk children. do you know if they have posted any success rates?
...
-
Over the years Academy at Swift River had more managers than most of us have underwear. Somehow the many changes in therapy approach has turned out to be what saved them from closure because they started out as a Mount Bachelor copy, but the downside is that every peer group has been a kind of testing ground.
From what I have seen and read, Swift River is a data driven program and they look hard at the results they are getting and are ever evolving and dedicated to improving the percentage of kids that do well each and every year. They have changed their entrance requirements more times than they have their underwear also!! They initially accepted kids who were violent and ended up having problems with some of their students pulling knives on each other. Now you have to have your child evaluated at a local hospital or have a psych evaluation done (third party) prior to being even considered for admittance. They don’t accept kids via escort and the child has to buy into the program (at least on some level) during the interview process. This way they have kids who are willing to work on getting straightened out.
It will be interesting when they complete a study on their current model. If they can exceed the 80% success rate that some, of their sister programs have seen, it would be a big feather in their cap. But until the economy turns around and they resolve their problems with programs like Sagewalk I dont expect any study results to be released.
...
-
I don't think it is appropriate to call it "a loss of a child" or write "when a child is lost" when these kids have been killed due to what appears to be criminal negligence. These kids weren't "lost" they were basically murdered. There is a loss of life whenever anyone is killed or murdered but you don't hear the news anchor say, "there was a loss of life today when police shot a man during a drug bust". They say, "a man was killed". Your language is detracting from the importance of the problem and dismissive.
Yep. It's not like the kids are missing. They're fucking DEAD. Killed by the very people entrusted with their safety.
-
viewtopic.php?f=37&t=21315 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=21315)
a long while ago i posted about the brief few months I worked at a brat camp called sagewalk when it was pretty new and I now read a kid died there. This is sad but it is not surprising it took so long to happen. They just didn't believe any kid when they said they were not well. This kind of place is not like outward bound, it is not like army cadets or duke of edinborough or any other normal thing.
It takes kids with issues and punishes them and bullies them and doesn't build them up. They say everyone is trained in emergency first aid and we were but what is the point of having that training if you don't practice it?? you are also trained to second guess kids when they are first sick. I saw a kid go from a little unwell to emergency level sick before they helped him. That was the end of the worst 2 months of my employed life and the day i quit. The fact that there are even forums that talk about death counts makes my blood run cold.
Parents even if your kid is running wild do something else to sort them out. Dont risk their health and safety or let adults they dont know or trust bully them.
-
Wow. Thanks for posting that. Can you enlighten us on why the kids aren't helped when they need it? Does the admin direct staff not to help children in distress? Please tell us the thinking behind this cruel behavior. Thanks in advance...
-
well I admit I dont work with kids now or even as some kind of dr or social worker so dont want to come off as an expert in what kids need. Also it was a long time ago now. But it is like i said before if a kid said they were not well they would usually have you tell them to just drink more water. It was usually only if they went really red or white in the face or maybe threw up or something that they would be beleived. I dont remember being explicitly told not to believe kids, it was less overt stuff like being reminded that kids were keen to go home and likely to try manipulative things. We were told to use our judgement with this in mind. The guy who owned the place said he was troubled as a teenager and knew how they thought.
Also some staff did shit that was just bad like being too heavy handed with kids. Like a kid would maybe be obnoxious but not a physical threat but they would restrain them, or if a kid was say having a tantrum one guy I worked with wouldn't actually try and talk them down he'd more say stuff that would make them more keyed up and then get physical. I understood when we learnt restraint technique it was supposed to be for emergencies only not as regular discipline.
On hikes kids werent allowed to know when the next rest stop was or anything. This was totally demotivational and made some kids worse, If you ever coached a sport you'd know the best way to get kids to push themselves is to remind them how close the finish line is not keep them in the dark. Also some kids would have to talk about deeply private stuff that they just didn't want to. Im sure this might be some technique that works with private Drs but it just freaked the kids out to have their friends listening. The kids kept diaries that we were supposed to read for progress. I never kept a diary so dont know what they are all about but anyone who has a sister knows how batshit crazy girls get if you read their diary so I think they should have just given kids privacy here if they really thought the damn thing was such good therapy.
Also some kids were pushed way too hard like one little guy was scared of heights and frankly i think borderline retarded. So we had to go across this bridge and I promised him I would be behind him the whole way and if he did it he wouldn't have to do anything high again (except maybe cross it on the way back). So he did it and we all clapped him and then the next day there is a trust exerciese where you climb up and fall into the other people and I tell him he just has to be a team player and catch the other guys and he is happy enough with that but my co worker later makes him go through with the high climb exercise and he is sheet fucking white and trembling and he eventually literally pisses his pants and is totally humiliated in front of the others. I just dont get how that builds a kid up.
-
I dont remember being explicitly told not to believe kids, it was less overt stuff like being reminded that kids were keen to go home and likely to try manipulative things. We were told to use our judgement with this in mind.
That's so they can maintain plausible deniability.
Also some staff did shit that was just bad like being too heavy handed with kids. Like a kid would maybe be obnoxious but not a physical threat but they would restrain them, or if a kid was say having a tantrum one guy I worked with wouldn't actually try and talk them down he'd more say stuff that would make them more keyed up and then get physical. I understood when we learnt restraint technique it was supposed to be for emergencies only not as regular discipline.
Yeah, again so they can maintain that deniability. It was standard operating procedure in Straight and, from what I've read and seen, in most other programs as well.
On hikes kids werent allowed to know when the next rest stop was or anything. This was totally demotivational and made some kids worse, If you ever coached a sport you'd know the best way to get kids to push themselves is to remind them how close the finish line is not keep them in the dark.
Because it's not about building kids up.....it's about tearing them down.
Also some kids would have to talk about deeply private stuff that they just didn't want to. Im sure this might be some technique that works with private Drs but it just freaked the kids out to have their friends listening. The kids kept diaries that we were supposed to read for progress. I never kept a diary so dont know what they are all about but anyone who has a sister knows how batshit crazy girls get if you read their diary so I think they should have just given kids privacy here if they really thought the damn thing was such good therapy.
But then that would deny them their ability to humiliate the kid. Another aspect of 'breaking their will'.
Also some kids were pushed way too hard like one little guy was scared of heights and frankly i think borderline retarded. So we had to go across this bridge and I promised him I would be behind him the whole way and if he did it he wouldn't have to do anything high again (except maybe cross it on the way back). So he did it and we all clapped him and then the next day there is a trust exerciese where you climb up and fall into the other people and I tell him he just has to be a team player and catch the other guys and he is happy enough with that but my co worker later makes him go through with the high climb exercise and he is sheet fucking white and trembling and he eventually literally pisses his pants and is totally humiliated in front of the others. I just dont get how that builds a kid up.
It doesn't but then again, it's not designed to. That's what they tell parents in the glossy, prettied up brochures but it's far from reality.
When you forcibly change someone against their will, you first have to break that will. That's never pretty and can do some serious and lasting damage.
-
I’ve just read through this and recent related threads; and I caught the overall theme of how the programs often ignore signs of distress ( all too often due to traumas inflicted and neglect incurred by those very programs) and how deadly the assumption of malingering can be.
The dismissal of physical symptoms as being a display of manipulation is pervasive throughout these programs and ultimately serves to undermine the individuals placed in their care.
In fact another example of such undermining can be seen in the mentality of program that insists on imposing a presumption of manipulation on the part of its charges into the parent or guardian’s minds. This serves to preemptively discredit what the child has to report about the program.
Island View (http://http://www.islandview-rtc.com/) (The facility where Brendan Blum died before that location was purchased by Aspen Education Group…who are known for the deaths of Sergey Blashchishen and Matthew Meyer (http://http://www.momlogic.com/2010/04/troubled_teens_death_possible_homicide_charges.php) )offers the following on the topic of commitment under FAQs:
• The parent is pressured by the child into coming home for a visit without the treatment team's approval and recommendation.
• A parent is persuaded by Mr. Manipulation to come home for good as soon as he achieves the ‘Impact’ status without consultation with the treatment team.
You can readily see the pattern. A parent, feeling guilty for the ‘pain’ the child has to go through as part of the treatment process, feels compelled to “throw the child a bone.’
It’s an Aspen program that they announce as “high impact”.In case you’re wondering…Yes, it is Lon Woodbury approved…and he says that (after a year or so) “most teens transfer from Island View to another facility…”
And … They call it Island View …and it’s in Utah? Remote viewing?
-
Even the deputy conducting the investigation indicated that there is difficulty differentiating between a behavior issue and real symptoms. I believe when they get down to the root cause that this is what they will find.
When you are dealing with kids who are on a hike voluntarily and a child is complaining of feeling ill and wanting to stop then I believe it would be reacted to more quickly than if a child in a program exhibited the same symptoms and asked to stop. This is because the staff needs to weigh the behavior issue and try to determine if the child is trying to manipulate the staff or is really sick. This ends up playing against the child’s chances of getting help more quickly.
Hiking groups outside of programs do not have to weigh these options.
...
-
Island View (The facility where Brendan Blum died before that location was purchased by Aspen Education Group…
Mmmm... You may be confusing particular deaths with their respective programs. Which is certainly easy to do, given their number!
Brendan Blum died of a bowel infarction on June 2007 at Youth Care Inc., now dba as Youth Care of Utah (http://http://www.youthcare.com/), and located in Draper, Utah. Then, and still, an Aspen Education Group program (http://http://www.aspeneducation.com/Res-schools.html). As a result of his death, Youth Care was put on probation (not even fined), but was completely free to take on new clients. Which they've continued to do.
For more information on Brendan Blum, please check out THIS link (http://http://brendanblum.blogspot.com/).
Island View RTC (http://http://www.islandview-rtc.com/) (previously known as Island View Academy) in Syracuse, Utah, is another Aspen Ed program. They did have a suicide in 2004, which allegedly occurred before Aspen purchased the facility.
-
Even the deputy conducting the investigation indicated that there is difficulty differentiating between a behavior issue and real symptoms. I believe when they get down to the root cause that this is what they will find.
When you are dealing with kids who are on a hike voluntarily and a child is complaining of feeling ill and wanting to stop then I believe it would be reacted to more quickly than if a child in a program exhibited the same symptoms and asked to stop. This is because the staff needs to weigh the behavior issue and try to determine if the child is trying to manipulate the staff or is really sick. This ends up playing against the child’s chances of getting help more quickly.
Hiking groups outside of programs do not have to weigh these options.
Why is it even necessary to differentiate between a behavioral issues and real symptoms? Isn't it supposed to be "Safety First?" I guess not!
Why, indeed, is it that programs and some otherwise well-meaning parents seem to think that the appropriate course of "remedy" for undesirable behavior is necessarily psychologically punitive? Sure, actions have their consequences, but wilderness is hardly the place to work those out, don't ya think? Especially when those "consequences" have ended up as being death all too many times!
My guess is that a lot of those parents, as well as, and especially as, those parents who are misled into believing the program experience to be one of some ill-defined therapeutic value, are not entirely aware of what actually goes on in the field, where the rubber meets the road.
There is a mindset at work in programs that is incredibly derisive of kids, ever so well spelled out by that excellent quote provided by Inculcated... What kind of "professionals," with children's best interests ostensibly at the fore, are so jaded and filled with cynicism that they refer to a kid as "Mr. Manipulation (http://http://www.islandview-rtc.com/faqs.html)" on their website, their marketing facade presented to the world at large?
-
Well said, Ursus. And clearly a window into the twisted thinking behind these programs.
-
Thank you Ursus.That clears up some confusion for me and helps me to
follow the title of the thread with the answer that thus far now I am aware of
three deaths that have occurred in Aspen education Group programs.
Sergey Blashchishen and Matthew Meyer (http://http://www.momlogic.com/2010/04/troubled_teens_death_possible_homicide_charges.php) andBrendan Blum (http://http://www.teenadvocatesusa.org/BrendanBlum.html)
-
Thank you Ursus.That clears up some confusion for me and helps me to
follow the title of the thread with the answer that thus far now I am aware of
three deaths that have occurred in Aspen education Group programs.
Sergey Blashchishen and Matthew Meyer (http://http://www.momlogic.com/2010/04/troubled_teens_death_possible_homicide_charges.php) andBrendan Blum (http://http://www.teenadvocatesusa.org/BrendanBlum.html)
There have been a total of 6 since 2000. See Oscars data below:
From our victim list pages (http://http://wiki.fornits.com/index.php?title=Victims):
1980's: 1 (SUWS - However before Aspen ownership)
2000-2004: 2 (Island View and Lonestar Expeditions)
2005-2009: 4 (SUWS, Aspen Achievement Academy, Youth care and Sagewalk)
They are not among the most deadly programs, but who is setting the numbers determing what kind of number it takes before the entire operation is judged as a failure.
...
-
Why is it even necessary to differentiate between a behavioral issues and real symptoms? Isn't it supposed to be "Safety First?" I guess not!
I agree it should be. The problem may occur when several kids say they are tired or want to rest and the staff give in and the rest of the kids see how easy it is to manipulate the staff into stopping that they ask for a break every 5 minutes and essentially sabotage the entire hike.
Or maybe calling in a medic helicopter 4 times a day just as a joke may put the pressure on trying to better differentiate between behavior and real symptoms. I am sure it is not an easy call in every case.
...
-
There have been a total of 6 since 2000. See Oscars data below:
From our victim list pages (http://http://wiki.fornits.com/index.php?title=Victims):
1980's: 1 (SUWS - However before Aspen ownership)
2000-2004: 2 (Island View and Lonestar Expeditions)
2005-2009: 4 (SUWS, Aspen Achievement Academy, Youth care and Sagewalk)
...
Who’, Thank you for quoting that for me. So, the number of children who have died in Aspen programs is six. Aspen Education Group could hardly be considered by anyone as one of the “safer programs” I suppose. There is a mindset at work in programs that is incredibly derisive of kids....... What kind of "professionals," with children's best interests ostensibly at the fore, are so jaded and filled with cynicism that they refer to a kid as "Mr. Manipulation (http://http://www.islandview-rtc.com/faqs.html)" on their website, their marketing facade presented to the world at large?
That’s an excellent question.
Who,
Do you think the mentality of a program that insists on imposing a presumption of manipulation on the part of its charges into the parent or guardian’s minds that serves to pre-emptively discredit what the child has to report about the program also reinforces a negative perspective by which staffers come to view their charges?
So for instance, when a staffer dismisses the physical signs of distress or self reported symptoms of distress as being malingering, do you believe that Aspen programs have some fault for fostering/perpetuating a dangerous invidious bias that impedes communication and safety?
-
Who’, Thank you for quoting that for me. So, the number of children who have died in Aspen programs is six. Aspen Education Group could hardly be considered by anyone as one of the “safer programs” I suppose.
Safer to me means better than some of the others or better than average. We would need to know if other programs average a little under one death per year.
That’s an excellent question.
Who,
Do you think the mentality of program that insists on imposing a presumption of manipulation on the part of its charges into the parent or guardian’s minds that serves to pre-emptively discredit what the child has to report about the program also reinforces a negative perspective by which staffers come to view their charges?
So for instance, when a staffer dismisses the physical signs of distress or self reported symptoms of distress as being malingering, do you believe that Aspen programs have some fault for fostering/perpetuating a dangerous invidious bias that impedes communication and safety?
Unfortunately it does tag an unsuspecting child entering the program and prejudge them. I t does show that these places do have a problem with manipulation if they have gone as far as assuming most or all kids are manipulative. But seasoned staff will not be swayed by what others say and will treat the kids according to their own experience.
I do know from experience that many kids are manipulative and that is how they get their way and get stuff. They don’t have any leverage of their own or rights or job or money so they are dependent on us parents so they learn how to manipulate their environment to get what they want and need.
I would advise caution in assuming that all programs take the same approach or attitude that the one posting “Mr. Manipulation” does.
...
-
I would advise caution in assuming that all programs take the same approach or attitude that the one posting "Mr. Manipulation" does.
Yep. That would be one of Aspen's programs, that is, Island View RTC in Syracuse, Utah, previously known as Island View Academy, same location.
I take it this would be one of those programs you describe as "safer ... means better than some of the others or better than average," eh, Whooter?
Their name change may or may not have had anything to do with the suicide that occurred there in 2004.
-
Yep. That would be one of Aspen's programs, that is, Island View RTC in Syracuse, Utah, previously known as Island View Academy, same location.
I take it this would be one of those programs you describe as "safer ... means better than some of the others or better than average," eh, Whooter?
Well it may be safer, but I was referring to Aspen as a whole not any one of the schools within the group. I do see the word “Safer” as defined “More safe” or "more secure from harm". If there were 100 programs I feel the description safer would mean better than 50 or more of them, if that helps.
Their name change may or may not have had anything to do with the suicide that occurred there in 2004.
I agree, its hard to tell why they changed their name. If the suicide caused them bad press or their activity dropped off because of it then it may have been due to the suicide. But I don’t think so because they maintained the words “Island View”. If Ford had changed the name of the Edsel to Edsel II I don’t think it would have been a good business decision. They just eliminated the name all together. Do you see what I mean?
...
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
Even the deputy conducting the investigation indicated that there is difficulty differentiating between a behavior issue and real symptoms. I believe when they get down to the root cause that this is what they will find.
When you are dealing with kids who are on a hike voluntarily and a child is complaining of feeling ill and wanting to stop then I believe it would be reacted to more quickly than if a child in a program exhibited the same symptoms and asked to stop. This is because the staff needs to weigh the behavior issue and try to determine if the child is trying to manipulate the staff or is really sick. This ends up playing against the child’s chances of getting help more quickly.
Hiking groups outside of programs do not have to weigh these options.
...
you know one thing that surprised me was how normally most kids acted compared to what Id been told they behaved like. Most of them arrived pretty compliant and tried to do what you asked them. Some were a little mouthy or tried to act tough at first but then dont most kids when they are new to a situation? Some had real issues like ADD or something but they were more likely to get in trouble for just playing stupid pranks or not paying attention than faking. The kids there for drugs or behaving badly at home were actually pretty well behaved most of the time. I can see why you'd imagine there would be lot of faking but you need to understand that the hikes are pretty tough for an adult in good shape. If you are a fat kid, or your lungs are in bad shape from smoking a lot of drugs or you are just out of shape then it is pretty uncomfortable. So maybe some kids just dont know what it is like to excercise strenuously when out of shape but even if this is the case when they say they feel lousy its not faking, the probably do. Some of those kids would genuinely feel better after rest and water, but occasionally a kid wouldnt. Isnt it more logical to give the kid the benefit of the doubt and use the radio to get help? if they are faking a dr would sort it out, if not their life has been saved.
-
you know one thing that surprised me was how normally most kids acted compared to what Id been told they behaved like. Most of them arrived pretty compliant and tried to do what you asked them. Some were a little mouthy or tried to act tough at first but then dont most kids when they are new to a situation? Some had real issues like ADD or something but they were more likely to get in trouble for just playing stupid pranks or not paying attention than faking. The kids there for drugs or behaving badly at home were actually pretty well behaved most of the time. I can see why you'd imagine there would be lot of faking but you need to understand that the hikes are pretty tough for an adult in good shape. If you are a fat kid, or your lungs are in bad shape from smoking a lot of drugs or you are just out of shape then it is pretty uncomfortable. So maybe some kids just dont know what it is like to excercise strenuously when out of shape but even if this is the case when they say they feel lousy its not faking, the probably do. Some of those kids would genuinely feel better after rest and water, but occasionally a kid wouldnt. Isnt it more logical to give the kid the benefit of the doubt and use the radio to get help? if they are faking a dr would sort it out, if not their life has been saved.
The struggle for staff, as I see it, is how to determine when there is a problem requiring medical help. If the staff aborted the hike and lead the kids down off the mountain every day to visit the doctors because a kid said he felt ill and it turned out he didn’t need a visit then even the doctor would probably ask the program to get the guy some training.
We all know that kids will quickly catch on if they say they don’t feel well and then get rewarded with a nice trip into town, with AC and a nap, versus hiking in 90 degree heat. If we assume that the staff didn’t want the kids to die then it goes back to training.
...
-
you know one thing that surprised me was how normally most kids acted compared to what Id been told they behaved like. Most of them arrived pretty compliant and tried to do what you asked them. Some were a little mouthy or tried to act tough at first but then dont most kids when they are new to a situation? Some had real issues like ADD or something but they were more likely to get in trouble for just playing stupid pranks or not paying attention than faking. The kids there for drugs or behaving badly at home were actually pretty well behaved most of the time. I can see why you'd imagine there would be lot of faking but you need to understand that the hikes are pretty tough for an adult in good shape. If you are a fat kid, or your lungs are in bad shape from smoking a lot of drugs or you are just out of shape then it is pretty uncomfortable. So maybe some kids just dont know what it is like to excercise strenuously when out of shape but even if this is the case when they say they feel lousy its not faking, the probably do. Some of those kids would genuinely feel better after rest and water, but occasionally a kid wouldnt. Isnt it more logical to give the kid the benefit of the doubt and use the radio to get help? if they are faking a dr would sort it out, if not their life has been saved.
The struggle for staff, as I see it, is how to determine when there is a problem requiring medical help. If the staff aborted the hike and lead the kids down off the mountain every day to visit the doctors because a kid said he felt ill and it turned out he didn’t need a visit then even the doctor would probably ask the program to get the guy some training.
We all know that kids will quickly catch on if they say they don’t feel well and then get rewarded with a nice trip into town, with AC and a nap, versus hiking in 90 degree heat. If we assume that the staff didn’t want the kids to die then it goes back to training.
The problem with your reasoning, Whooter, is that in real life the "we-all-know" scenario rarely happens. As 9403390 clearly pointed out to you, from the perspective of a former staff member, most kids simply do not behave that way. And *I* can tell you, from my own personal experience, that to behave in such a fashion would never have even occurred to me.
Despite your claim of advising "caution in assuming that all programs take the same approach or attitude that the one posting 'Mr. Manipulation' does," it would appear that you, in fact, embrace that philosophy and mindset wholeheartedly! Are you that jaded and filled with cynicism that you advocate throwing common sense and safety considerations out the window in favor of snuffing out the evil maneuvers of wayward youth?
When you said, "I do know from experience that many kids are manipulative and that is how they get their way and get stuff," were you perchance talking about yourself, once upon a time?
-
The problem with your reasoning, Whooter, is that in real life the "we-all-know" scenario rarely happens. As 9403390 clearly pointed out to you, from the perspective of a former staff member, most kids simply do not behave that way. And *I* can tell you, from my own personal experience, that to behave in such a fashion would never have even occurred to me.
I have seen things differently. Even in my own highschool kids would do anything to get out of class, go home sick etc. Its not all kids, but some do it more than others. If a highschool had a school nurse who handed out passes to go home every time you said you didn’t feel well there would be a line down the hall.
Despite your claim of advising "caution in assuming that all programs take the same approach or attitude that the one posting 'Mr. Manipulation' does," it would appear that you, in fact, embrace that philosophy and mindset wholeheartedly! Are you that jaded and filled with cynicism that you advocate throwing common sense and safety considerations out the window in favor of snuffing out the evil maneuvers of wayward youth?
I don’t see where I advocated throwing common sense and safety out the window. My point is if you have kids who would rather be someplace else than hiking in the mountains you will probably experience some of them trying to come up with ways to avoid the hike. A staff would need to be able to differentiate between a child who is sick and one who is not. Otherwise the hikes would be aborted every day in favor of a trip to the doctor to check out a stomach ache.
The challenge is making the right decision each and every time.
When you said, "I do know from experience that many kids are manipulative and that is how they get their way and get stuff," were you perchance talking about yourself, once upon a time?
Well, no, I was actually referring to teens that I have known throughout my lifetime. I never considered myself manipulative, but I guess I must have done my fair share while I was under my parents wing. Its part of the growing process for kids to try to see how much they can get away with and test the boundaries. If a kid sees a hole they will exploit it.
...
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
I think whooter you are anaware of what happens. If a kid got sick the procedure was not to stop the whole hike. We had radio systems and would call in help for that 1 kid. There were enough staff that the other kids would continue with normal activities. While all kids like to push a boundary or 2 you also forget that they are not idiots. They know that a qualified doctor can tell whether they are faking. With this in mind staff are not doctors, so if after giving a kid rest and water and in some occasional cases a pep talk about how great they have done today if they say they are not well, or worse have a high temperature from the outset then surely the common sense thing to would be to get professional help. Surely if you sent your kid away anywhere this is the level of care you would want for them? Afterall some parents sent their not too badly behaved kid to camp because they found drugs and felt it was better to be safe than sorry. So they expected that you cared about their kid. To me this means erring on the side of caution and looking out for the kid like a parent would. Most parents would call a doctor for their kid.
-
I think whooter you are anaware of what happens. If a kid got sick the procedure was not to stop the whole hike. We had radio systems and would call in help for that 1 kid. There were enough staff that the other kids would continue with normal activities. While all kids like to push a boundary or 2 you also forget that they are not idiots. They know that a qualified doctor can tell whether they are faking. With this in mind staff are not doctors, so if after giving a kid rest and water and in some occasional cases a pep talk about how great they have done today if they say they are not well, or worse have a high temperature from the outset then surely the common sense thing to would be to get professional help. Surely if you sent your kid away anywhere this is the level of care you would want for them? Afterall some parents sent their not too badly behaved kid to camp because they found drugs and felt it was better to be safe than sorry. So they expected that you cared about their kid. To me this means erring on the side of caution and looking out for the kid like a parent would. Most parents would call a doctor for their kid.
After the victims arrived at the gulag site by abduction (or by other means) what methods were you expected to use to force them to march?
Violent assault? (sometimes referred to as restraint) Please describe the methodology expected in the assault and how and when you were advised to use it.
Threats of longer imprisonment? Please describe the language you were expected to use when making these threats
Other threats? Please elaborate on other threats and other punishments you were expected to deliver if the victim refused to submit to forced march and forced imprisonment.
Further:
1) Contact the sheriffs office investigating Sergy’s death.
2) Contact the journalists investigating the abuse at the Aspen Education Group cult
In my next post I will link to these contacts. Thank you for coming forward. Your compassion, intelligence and bravery is all too rare.
-
I honestly dont recall having much to do with the intake process. I was a field guy. I think some kids were strip searched particularly the ones there for drug abuse. To be honest most did not have to be "forced" to hike. You watch things like brat camp and are lead to believe that they are non compliant and super rebellious but most went along pretty much did as they were told. Some were delivered by those escort guys but by the time they got to the camp were pretty calm. Im not saying i condone this practice but just that I cant tell you what the reaction was when they got there. I didnt ask because it seemed like rubbing it in a bit. they knew this wasnt going to be fun. They probably got the lecture from the folks. I saw my job as to try and help them get something out of this so id try to start on a positive note.
I
n terms of restraint I was only there 2 months. I did not ever do a full one although a couple of times I broke up a fight. Usually by the time I had pulled the other guy away he stopped swinging so there was no need to take him down to the ground. When i saw other colleagues do it they would get the kids arm behind his back and the kid would kind of fall to his knees and then be pushed to the ground. Once the kid stopped struggling they let him up. I can think of at least 3 occasions when it looked unnecessary and on one of these the kid was kept on the ground for far too long.
Usually if a kid misbehaved they would be reminded that the more progress they made the less long the stay. Sometimes they would be banned from talking to the other kids or not allowed to have herbs and spices on their food. If they really messed up they would have to do other parts of the program again which meant being there longer.
Sometimes kids would vomit in the first couple of days. in fairness they were not accused of faking but they didn't get the medical attention they needed either. I was told it was normal for kids acclimating. This made sense at the time because i had a nose bleed or 2 myself at first. Doctor friends now tell me that if your body vomits something it is it's way of telling you something is wrong. In hindsight taking any kid that may need to detox from a drug or who is likely to overheat is probably a terrible idea.
What i regret the most was that i mislead some kids. I didnt do it on purpose but still i did it. I was a foreign national that had worked the american summer in a summer camp. I did this twice at the same place I coached rugby and soccer and had a great time but didn't know about this side of the camping industry. Some kids got letters from their parents saying they would go onto boarding school. In the country I am from it is common for rural kids to go to boarding school and I am a country boy who had an awesome time as a boarder. It boosted my confidence a lot, I got to go on sporting exchange to england, and Im still friends with some of the guys years later.
So I told most kids that they would have a great time, be able to get their grades up fast, play lots of sports and if the school was coed be surrounded by girls 24/7. I also told them that the positive of going away to school was that if you wanted to reinvent yourself nobody would know that you were a nerd or a stoner or whatever in your previous life. I had no idea of what these boarding schools were like. I thought the kid would see some kind of therapist once a week, go home for holidays and pretty much have a standard boarding school experience. I remember one kid worked his ass off at camp and graduated pretty quickly. He was a great kid who smoked a lot of pot but apart from that was just a good guy. He was devistated when he got the letter saying he was going away to school. He just broke down and cried his eyes out and felt like the whole thing had been totally in vain. I remember telling him that boarding school would be great and that i would kill to go to school in prime skiing country and the kid saying he didnt think so. I guess the poor kid knew more than i did.
-
I think whooter you are anaware of what happens. If a kid got sick the procedure was not to stop the whole hike. We had radio systems and would call in help for that 1 kid. There were enough staff that the other kids would continue with normal activities. While all kids like to push a boundary or 2 you also forget that they are not idiots. They know that a qualified doctor can tell whether they are faking. With this in mind staff are not doctors, so if after giving a kid rest and water and in some occasional cases a pep talk about how great they have done today if they say they are not well, or worse have a high temperature from the outset then surely the common sense thing to would be to get professional help. Surely if you sent your kid away anywhere this is the level of care you would want for them? Afterall some parents sent their not too badly behaved kid to camp because they found drugs and felt it was better to be safe than sorry. So they expected that you cared about their kid. To me this means erring on the side of caution and looking out for the kid like a parent would. Most parents would call a doctor for their kid.
That is a great way to handle a sick child and also allow the hike to continue. There was a child who died last year who was kept together with the group. I wander if they had stopped him and allowed the rest of the group to continue if the outcome would have been different.
Sometimes kids would vomit in the first couple of days. in fairness they were not accused of faking but they didnt get the medical attention they needed either. I was told it was normal for kids acclimating. This made sense at the time because i had a nose bleed or 2 myself at first. Doctir friends now tell me that if your body vomits something it is it's way of telling you something is wrong. In hindsight taking any kid that may need to detox from a drug or who i likely to overheat is probably a terrible idea.
Typically a person detoxifies through their skin and urine. But if a person is not use to exercise, has been eating junk, smoking etc. and then moves quickly to a healthier lifestyle then their bodies will detox via vomiting at first. It sounds like this happens often in wilderness.
...
-
That's my point. It would have been a good precedure if it was adhered to enough. We had the resources but did not always use them. I am afraid you are just flat out wrong about the symptoms of detox for some drugs. Some drug detox particularly for harder drugs which a few kids were taking involves nausea, vomiting and cramping. If the person is taking it easy and getting plenty of rest and fluid it is like getting over a flu. But if your kid had a bad flu the last thing you would do is make them go hiking and camping. So it doesnt make sense for places like this to take kids who are beginning to withdraw from hard drugs. It is a recipe for disaster.
-
That's my point. It would have been a good precedure if it was adhered to enough. We had the resources but did not always use them.
I think consistency is always good. If there are procedures which are clearly laid out then they need to be followed every time.
I am afraid you are just flat out wrong about the symptoms of detox for some drugs. Some drug detox particularly for harder drugs which a few kids were taking involves nausea, vomiting and cramping. If the person is taking it easy and getting plenty of rest and fluid it is like getting over a flu. But if your kid had a bad flu the last thing you would do is make them go hiking and camping. So it doesnt make sense for places like this to take kids who are beginning to withdraw from hard drugs. It is a recipe for disaster.
I am not talking about detoxing someone from hard drugs. When a person detoxs from a unhealthy lifestyle the bodies handles this through the skin and urine and occasionally through vomiting. If a person is detoxing from an addiction to hard drugs then they need to do this under the supervision of a doctor in a controlled setting.
...
-
you know one thing that surprised me was how normally most kids acted compared to what Id been told they behaved like. Most of them arrived pretty compliant and tried to do what you asked them. Some were a little mouthy or tried to act tough at first but then dont most kids when they are new to a situation? Some had real issues like ADD or something but they were more likely to get in trouble for just playing stupid pranks or not paying attention than faking. The kids there for drugs or behaving badly at home were actually pretty well behaved most of the time. I can see why you'd imagine there would be lot of faking but you need to understand that the hikes are pretty tough for an adult in good shape. If you are a fat kid, or your lungs are in bad shape from smoking a lot of drugs or you are just out of shape then it is pretty uncomfortable. So maybe some kids just dont know what it is like to excercise strenuously when out of shape but even if this is the case when they say they feel lousy its not faking, the probably do. Some of those kids would genuinely feel better after rest and water, but occasionally a kid wouldnt. Isnt it more logical to give the kid the benefit of the doubt and use the radio to get help? if they are faking a dr would sort it out, if not their life has been saved.
The struggle for staff, as I see it, is how to determine when there is a problem requiring medical help. If the staff aborted the hike and lead the kids down off the mountain every day to visit the doctors because a kid said he felt ill and it turned out he didn’t need a visit then even the doctor would probably ask the program to get the guy some training.
We all know that kids will quickly catch on if they say they don’t feel well and then get rewarded with a nice trip into town, with AC and a nap, versus hiking in 90 degree heat. If we assume that the staff didn’t want the kids to die then it goes back to training.
The problem with your reasoning, Whooter, is that in real life the "we-all-know" scenario rarely happens. As 9403390 clearly pointed out to you, from the perspective of a former staff member, most kids simply do not behave that way. And *I* can tell you, from my own personal experience, that to behave in such a fashion would never have even occurred to me.
Despite your claim of advising "caution in assuming that all programs take the same approach or attitude that the one posting 'Mr. Manipulation' does," it would appear that you, in fact, embrace that philosophy and mindset wholeheartedly! Are you that jaded and filled with cynicism that you advocate throwing common sense and safety considerations out the window in favor of snuffing out the evil maneuvers of wayward youth?
When you said, "I do know from experience that many kids are manipulative and that is how they get their way and get stuff," were you perchance talking about yourself, once upon a time?
:shamrock: :shamrock:
Now just let me understand something here while all of you "mother hens" minimize this childs behavior like he just walked out of, "Sainthood Preparatory Divine Academy". Sergey was smoking pot, doing oxy cot, drinking, terrorizing his parents and pretty much doing whatever the hell he wanted to do, per the conversation with his parents. Now did this mean you had to kill him or in anyway abuse him, NO. I just saying lets talk about the right child here, 9403390 is talking about children you have to ask yourself why are they even there then if there so polite and gentile. Children that end up at these facilities are master manipulators and everyone knows that from our own experiences, "this does not mean they should be abused" yet you have to deal with it.
Danny
-
Now just let me understand something here while all of you "mother hens" minimize this childs behavior like he just walked out of, "Sainthood Preparatory Divine Academy". Sergey was smoking pot, doing oxy cot, drinking, terrorizing his parents and pretty much doing whatever the hell he wanted to do, per the conversation with his parents. Now did this mean you had to kill him or in anyway abuse him, NO. I just saying lets talk about the right child here, 9403390 is talking about children you have to ask yourself why are they even there then if there so polite and gentile. Children that end up at these facilities are master manipulators and everyone knows that from our own experiences, "this does not mean they should be abused" yet you have to deal with it.
Smells Like Staff......
-
Now just let me understand something here while all of you "mother hens" minimize this childs behavior like he just walked out of, "Sainthood Preparatory Divine Academy". Sergey was smoking pot, doing oxy cot, drinking, terrorizing his parents and pretty much doing whatever the hell he wanted to do, per the conversation with his parents. Now did this mean you had to kill him or in anyway abuse him, NO. I just saying lets talk about the right child here, 9403390 is talking about children you have to ask yourself why are they even there then if there so polite and gentile. Children that end up at these facilities are master manipulators and everyone knows that from our own experiences, "this does not mean they should be abused" yet you have to deal with it.
Smells Like Staff......
:shamrock: :shamrock:
Absolutely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks for noticing.
Danny
-
Danny Im not denying that some of the kids had problems and some were difficult. I say some because there were a few that really had maybe not made the smartest choices but who werent addicted to anything and were pretty decent kids. I would say this group had parents who thought this kind of thing would scare the kid into straightening up but who werent clear on how brutal the reality could be.
Some kids were also there because their parents thought this was a thing to try to help with stuff like depression. Some were a little bit of a handful. Even the kids with real drug issues were not necessarly badly behaved when we got them ie when they werent high. So maybe something less physically demanding and also more geared toward dealing with their specific issue in a less threatening way would be the better. At any rate I was answering a question about how the kids were forced to march and I admit i was there briefly but overall they were pretty compliant and it didnt require force. Kids are no different to the rest of the population. They are all unique and different. Don't believe what you see on tv the camera might only show 1/2 the story.
-
Danny Im not denying that some of the kids had problems and some were difficult. I say some because there were a few that really had maybe not made the smartest choices but who werent addicted to anything and were pretty decent kids. I would say this group had parents who thought this kind of thing would scare the kid into straightening up but who werent clear on how brutal the reality could be.
Some kids were also there because their parents thought this was a thing to try to help with stuff like depression. Some were a ittle bit of a handful. Even the kids with real drug issues were not necessarly badly behaved when we got them ie when they werent high. So maybe something less physically demanding and also more geared toward dealing with their specific issue in a less threatening way would be the better. At any rate I was answering a question about how the kids were forced to march and I admit i was there briefly but overall they were pretty compliant and it didnt require force. Kids are no different to the rest of the population. They are all unique and different. Don't believe what you see on tv the camera might only show 1/2 the story.
:shamrock: :shamrock:
Fair enough, I have been out of the business for a while where as you have been there recently. I will respectfully defer to you my friend. Your points are well taken.
Danny
-
Now just let me understand something here while all of you "mother hens" minimize this childs behavior like he just walked out of, "Sainthood Preparatory Divine Academy". Sergey was smoking pot, doing oxy cot, drinking, terrorizing his parents and pretty much doing whatever the hell he wanted to do, per the conversation with his parents. Now did this mean you had to kill him or in anyway abuse him, NO. I just saying lets talk about the right child here, 9403390 is talking about children you have to ask yourself why are they even there then if there so polite and gentile. Children that end up at these facilities are master manipulators and everyone knows that from our own experiences, "this does not mean they should be abused" yet you have to deal with it.
Smells Like Staff......
:shamrock: :shamrock:
Absolutely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks for noticing.
Danny
And goddamned proud of it, aren't ya?