Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Troubled Teen Industry => Topic started by: MightyAardvark on April 23, 2006, 08:11:00 AM
-
There appears to be no generalised consensus here about what is wrong with the Troubled Teen industry. What is it that we all object to, now I have a fairly comprehensive list of things that would need to be changed in order to satisfy me which includes (but is not limited to)
Ending the use of the Skinner model
Ending the use of LGAT
Ending the use of peer reviewed advancement
Ending the use of peer defined consequences
Ending the use of coercive isolation
Ending the practice of indefinite involuntary stays
Ending the practice of communications blackouts
Ending the use of physical punishments
Ending the practice of comission based referrals
Enforce the use of a diagnosis based admissions (by which i mean you don't get placed in an RTC without a diagnosis from a competant independant psychiatrist)
Enforce the use of appropriately qualified and background checked staff
Ending the use of punitive restraint
Are there any others that people would like ot add to the list here?
-
You're focusing on symptoms, Aardvark. The only people who open places like that are sadists with- how better to put this?- evil thoughts about teenagers. That's the problem. Put an end to their careers and you end everything else.
-
Both of you are missing the point entirely.
Read up on the Greek legend of the Hydra.
-
I believe both of those poits are beign addressed at length elsewhere on these boards. Let's try to stay on topic if we can.
-
There is no point to your topic. What your assuming is that a few fundamental changes will fix the problems with theraputic schools in America. I am pointing out to you that even with changes the same old problems will pop up again and again in the form of new guises.
Surely a person who hails from the UK can appreciate the difficulties in dealing with a perasive problem like TBS schools and their abuses in comparison with your own government's inability to stamp out the IRA.
-
I see where both of you are going with this. In my opinion, if you had a program following Mighty Aardvark's model (and I'm assuming the facilities are still locked and guarded as that wasn't on the list), the students would completely revolt, riot and/or leave.
These programs could not exist as we know them now if their leaders did not rule with fear. Furthermore, these programs would be legal in all states, so there would be no need to hide them in small towns and remote third-world villages.
-
Do none of you make a distinction between a behaviour modification facility, which is inherently cruel and amoral and a secure facility for the treatment of psychologically ill young people, which while it may be worrisome, could actually be good for the child if it was run properly?
-
Aardvark has not suggested any new paradigm nor has he layed out some new sort of model. He merely asks the question what would you like to see done away with inside the framework of the old model of fear based cohercion treatment.
You simply will not be able to kill the WWASP model no matter how hard you try. It is to much of a money maker for it to go away. Far to much political interest, finacial investment, and ego has been expended for the WWASP type schools to go quietly away.
-
On 2006-04-23 08:59:00, MightyAardvark wrote:
"Do none of you make a distinction between a behaviour modification facility, which is inherently cruel and amoral and a secure facility for the treatment of psychologically ill young people, which while it may be worrisome, could actually be good for the child if it was run properly?
"
Not in the slightest as the same problems are inherent to both styles. Reference the Stanford Study for institutional abuse to clarify my point. All of these so called properly run facilities all start with the best of intentions, and given time slide right down the crapper.
-
There already are facilities for the mentally ill, Aardvark. They're called "mental hospitals".
-
Bottom line -- these programs don't exist to help teens, they exist to help their parents control their kids.
-
On 2006-04-23 05:11:00, MightyAardvark wrote:
"There appears to be no generalised consensus here about what is wrong with the Troubled Teen industry. What is it that we all object to, now I have a fairly comprehensive list of things that would need to be changed in order to satisfy me which includes (but is not limited to)
Ending the use of the Skinner model
Ending the use of LGAT
Ending the use of peer reviewed advancement
Ending the use of peer defined consequences
Ending the use of coercive isolation
Ending the practice of indefinite involuntary stays
Ending the practice of communications blackouts
Ending the use of physical punishments
Ending the practice of comission based referrals
Enforce the use of a diagnosis based admissions (by which i mean you don't get placed in an RTC without a diagnosis from a competant independant psychiatrist)
Enforce the use of appropriately qualified and background checked staff
Ending the use of punitive restraint
Are there any others that people would like ot add to the list here?
"
MA-
I agree with you. They need to do most of these things you have listed. Will they? I don't know? Only if they are forced to. I don't know how they would make these changes with out closing for a couple months? WWASPS ways are so old school!!! They need to be updated.
But, will they be able to let the money go? I don't know? Most people who just care about their business generating money, very rarely care about how it's done. It's always about the bottom line.
As far as coming up with a new structure for their schools? Well, I could come up with a much better program. But, I haven't gotten that call??? What I mean, is that it would take many trips to facilities, and sitting down with the higher ups, as well as the employees, to make sure it is done right.
I can't make parents keep their kids at home, and do it themselves! In this country unfortunately how it works is.....if you have the pesos you have the saysos. People outsource things in their lives on a daily basis. But, when it comes to outsourcing you parental responsibilities.....it needs to be to people who care about your childs emotional health, and not the almighty dollar.
-
CCM...
I agree absolutely with your final point.
I should like to hear to expand upon that slightly if you have time.
I think it's very clear that the Teenhelp industry has no interest in cleaning up it's act ay time soon and why should they. They're making more money now than they have ever before.
At the same time I remain convinced of the need for limited, small scale, competantly and compassionately run facilities to address the rare cases that would benefit from treatment in a residential setting. However I believe the operation of these facilities needs to be overseen strictly and aggressively by an entirely independant body of monitors.
I think we need to make a distinction between "Behaviour modification centres" which in my opinion are intrinsically cruel and unethical and "residential treatment facilities"
The former in my opinion ought to be banned. Full stop. Anyone using the Skinner model on human beings, especially juveniles wants to be in the Dock at the Hague facing charges of crime against humanity. It's cruel, it's degrading and quite simply it does not work.
At the other end of the scale we have facilities (I could give examples) using the Dialectic model to help apprpriately diagnosed children who have been removed from their homes for various compelling reasons. I see no good reason why we should deny much needed treatment to genuinely distressed children and teenagers on the grounds that unscrupulous men like Lichfield exist.
-
These rules would be a good start.
http://www.teenliberty.org/ACAPN.htm (http://www.teenliberty.org/ACAPN.htm)
-
-ending the overinsitutionalization of youth, reserving institutionalization exclusively for when youth are a danger to themselves and others
Since that is unlikely and RTC's will continue to exist (for now)- until community care is widely available we advocate
-regulation
-ending the use of non-evidence based practices
-affording youth the right to contest placement and acess to advocactes
-protection of basic human rights of youth
From:
http://www.cafety.org (http://www.cafety.org)
-
What about training parents to be parents so they don't feel the need to abdicated their responsibilities and ship their kids off for some stranger to "fix"?
-
On 2006-04-23 09:52:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Bottom line -- these programs don't exist to help teens, they exist to help their parents control their kids.
"
-
On 2006-04-23 09:22:00, Anonymous wrote:
"There already are facilities for the mentally ill, Aardvark. They're called "mental hospitals"."
Or in SCL's case, the hobbit.
-
My list is long, but the short version is that these facilities ought to be at least as regulated as meat packing plants or airlines are--which is a lot.
People take consumer protection laws for granted. When there are virtually none, as in this industry, people get taken. In this case, often with severe harm or even death of the child.
Least Restrictive Setting required for teens like it is for adults, as determined by the initial independent psychiatrist (chosen by child welfare authorities, not parent selected).
Review monthly at minimum by independent psychiatrist, chosen by child welfare authorities, to ensure teen is in Least Restrictive Setting.
Facilities required to have accredited high school services. Solicit the reputable national accreditation boards to develop standards for these temporary settings, and standards for credits being transferable.
Teen's ability to attend classes made by child welfare's independent psychiatrist, not facility.
Teen must be provided with a set amount of time, daily, minimum, for doing homework.
Teen must be provided with a set amount of sleep time daily, minimum.
Kitchen must be regularly inspected with random, unannounced visits by the same health authorities that inspect restaurants. Facilities must submit menus meeting balanced diet requirements as defined by nutritionist selected by child welfare.
Child welfare must have full access to facility on demand, including all areas, 24/7.
Blue, official postal drop box and working stamp vending machine must be placed in an area all students have free access to every day, students may not be in any way sanctioned for writing letters. Students must have paper, pens and envelopes made freely available, and must have a specified postage allowance given to them weekly, in vending-maching-acceptable cash.
Child welfare will show up on teen's 18th birthday and offer ride to nearest Greyhound station. Facility must allow new adult to take all clothes and personal effects, a minimum of 30 days worth of any medications the child is currently taking, and a cash amount to be specified by law and indexed to cover a bus ticket anywhere in the continental US, or a ticket to the continental US, plus two months' rent based on national median apartment rental costs. Parents must escrow this amount upon admission to facility, but kid is paid at whatever it amounts to when he leaves. Minimum.
For every teen that stays, child welfare offers the ride and such not more than once a week, if they happen to visit the facility for something else, nor less than once a month is they don't. Between visits, if child welfare gets a letter from the 18 year old requesting to leave, they pick him up for his ride, etc., immediately.
If an independent psychiatrist determines that the teen is capable of being helped or otherwise functioning effectively in a less restrictive setting, child welfare should conduct an evaluation, in conjunction with the local authorities at the child's permanent residence, to determine if the child needs a safety plan to be returned to the home, or needs to be removed from the home and placed in foster care. Reason: placement of a child is prima facie evidence that at that time, the home is not meeting the child's needs--evaluation needs to be done to determine whether that is still the situation, but in no case should the child be denied that least restrictive setting.
No US citizen minor, of any age, should ever be sent out of the US, against his will, into the care of persons who are not his parents. Any US citizen minor, of any age, who is outside of the US and living not in the care of his parents should be entitled to repatriation, at government expense (which may be recovered from the parents) and delivered to the custody of child welfare authorities in his previous home state. If there is no previous home state or it cannot be determined, the minor shall be given his choice of cities/states.
Facilities may be fined $1,000 per infraction, or $1,000 per day per child, for requiring children to engage in activity in excess of doctor's orders, or for failing to provide the child with medication or medical treatment according to doctor's orders, or for neglecting to provide timely, appropriate, medical attention to a child.
All staff who interact with minors must be trained in conflict de-escalation techniques and the dangers of improper restraints. All facilities must have a conflict de-escalation process and may not use restraints to protect property but *may* bill parents for property damage caused by their child, if the damage is in excess of $100 for that incident. All staff who are authorized to apply restraints must be trained in applying them safely. All training must be provided by an independent, accredited provider.
Parents should have the right to relinquish custody for a teen to child welfare if they feel unable to cope with being legally responsible for that teen's actions. If they do so, a family court judge shall assess child support to be paid by the parents to the child welfare agency on the child's behalf. A family court judge shall also assess appropriate child support costs for the teen's post-secondary education or job training.
An appropriate federal agency (TBD) shall have the authority, upon recommendation from the child welfare authorities with jurisdiction, to ban a person, for life, from owning, owning an interest in, operating, or holding employment in, any residential facility that serves minors. Child welfare's recommendation should first be presented at a hearing before a family court judge, who shall use a preponderance of the evidence standard in determining whether the person should not be entrusted with the care of teens in a setting that inherently renders those teens vulnerable to abuse. Any citizen may make a complaint against an employee, owner, or operator of a facility, which child welfare must investigate (this is the same standard we currently have for complaints against the child's parents, iirc). State attorneys' general should also be able to make a complaint to that federal agency against owners or operators if they believe that they defrauded parents or engaged in deceptive marketing.
One of the biggest things is getting the bad apples out of the industry. All the survivors here should be able to complain, with no statute of limitations, about people who work in the industry and have child welfare be required to investigate and file their findings. Those ought to be available for FOIA requests.
Yes, I know child welfare where the facility is a major employer are going to look the other way---but not as much as if they *didn't* have to actually put their findings and reasons down in writing where it can come back to bite them in the ass if the employee seriously harms a kid later.
It also means there's a file on accused employees to make sure child welfare is aware of an accused's "rap sheet." If one boy accuses a guy of rape and you aren't sure it happened, that's one thing. If five of them accuse him, and give substantially similar details of his pattern of behavior, that's a whole different kettle of fish.
Julie
-
Those are some really good rules.
I'd be fascinated to read the longer version or possibly get a one to one dialogue going.
-
On 2006-04-23 09:52:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Bottom line -- these programs don't exist to help teens, they exist to help their parents control their kids.
"
In the substance abuse field they exist because they are more profitable. I've seen adolescent contracts that programs are paid 3 times higher the amount for adult programs.He who laughs lasts
--Crazy Mac
-
Really...by looking at the website for Provo canyon School, one would believe that they are a facility which provides the support needed for an adolescent to grow in a healthy and productive way.
However, I think this is just the result of a lot of marketing research. Until the foundation of these programs are changed, *really* changed, they remain the same, just with a different approach towards advertising.
I WOULD BET MY NURSING LISCENSE ON IT.
-
I agree with your basic premise there Bandit and I would like to discuss it more with you. I have sent you a PM. However that's not the purpose of this thread.
I am trying to find out what in practical terms people want to change about the troubled teen industry and what if anything we want to salvage from the wreakage.