Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Troubled Teen Industry => Topic started by: Deborah on September 20, 2006, 11:42:12 PM
-
I finally got back to what's happening in Montana. This has to be the most pressing issue in the industry. I hope this inspires some deep discussion and brainstorming. This is a horrible precedent to be set.
If there is anyone who opposed this reading, what, if anything, can we do to help stop this insanity?
Thread on SCL/Self-Regulation
http://wwf.fornits.com/viewtopic.php?p= ... ker#144053 (http://wwf.fornits.com/viewtopic.php?p=144053&highlight=brooker#144053)
Interview with Clark- how PAARP came to be- proactive to avoid DPHHS?s SB101 which would ask for regulation of programs
Clark- House of Reps, District 13, ?Galena Ridge Wilderness? and 20 Peaks
Collaborating with Sen Jim Elliot, Clark presented HB628 which would allow programs to self-regulate.
http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/p ... 5304.shtml (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/article_5304.shtml)
PAARP Board Members
Paul Clark (Trout Creek) small- Galena Ridge Wilderness and 20 Peaks
Michele Manning- large- Spring Creek Lodge
Mary Alexine- medium- Chrysalis, Inc
Carol Brooker- Sanders Co Commissioner
Dr Maureen Neichart- Licensed Clinical Child Psychologist- operated a Therapeutic Foster Home
SCL, a program that is alleged to be one the most abusive in the industry, has a member on the board? Would this have anything to do with the fact that they are the largest employer in the area and shelled out $30 something grand lobbying for this Bill?
Let?s have a look at Paul Clark.
Paul Clark, the therapist for both Galena Ridge Wilderness program and 20 Twenty Peaks Ranch
http://www.strugglingteens.com/archives ... sit01.html (http://www.strugglingteens.com/archives/2002/3/visit01.html)
?with Paul Clark providing individual and group counseling for the boys while they are at 20 Peaks.
http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/p ... 5176.shtml (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/article_5176.shtml)
State Rep Clark has a bachelor?s degree from Rutgers University.
http://www.whitefishfreepress.com/pdf/W ... -08-24.pdf (http://www.whitefishfreepress.com/pdf/WFP_2005-08-24.pdf)
Not listed as a Psychologist
Not listed as a Professional Counselor
Not listed as an Addictions Counselor
Not listed as a Social Worker
http://app.mt.gov/lookup/ (http://app.mt.gov/lookup/)
Unless his license is under a different name, it appears Clark is not licensed to provide ?counseling?. So, someone who has violated the law for over a decade claims that programs can regulate themselves better than the state. Would he be allowed to advertise himself as a counselor and provide individual and group counseling without a license under DPHHS?
Look at another glowing example: HLA, a NATSAP program that has been self-regulating in violation of the law for 11 years. Avoided licensure by claiming to be a private boarding school, yet advertising as a TBS. Claims to have certified teachers and master?s level counselors, neither true, and complaints in a Federal Class Action filed last week, amongst others.
http://wwf.fornits.com/viewtopic.php?t=17779 (http://wwf.fornits.com/viewtopic.php?t=17779)
These are just two of many examples of why no program in this industry should be allowed to self-regulate. We could go right down the list of NATSAP programs and find the same kind of situations with many, if not all, programs.
PAARP Website
http://mt.gov/dli/bsd/license/bsd_board ... d_page.asp (http://mt.gov/dli/bsd/license/bsd_boards/pap_board/board_page.asp)
General Provisions- Purpose
http://www.strugglingteens.com/news/mon ... r%2048.pdf (http://www.strugglingteens.com/news/montana_Legist_Chapter%2048.pdf)
NEW RULE III FEE SCHEDULE (1) The registration fee covers a two year period.
(2) Registration fees are calculated according to the program's average daily census:
(a) 0-10 participants $ 750
(b) 11-50 participants 1,750
(c) 51-100 participants 2,000
(d) 101 and more participants 3,000
(3) All existing programs must be registered within 30 days of the adoption of these rules.
(4) All fees provided for in this rule are nonrefundable and are not prorated for portions of the registration period.
http://www.strugglingteens.com/news/mon ... notice.pdf (http://www.strugglingteens.com/news/montana_Legist_notice.pdf)
For all intents and purposes, Montana programs will pay a fee to this board to operate regulation free. This board will very likely be no different that NATSAP, a membership club for program owners, providing the illusion that their members are operating ethically.
The Board found:
*No systemic problems- lack of transparency or excessive disciplinary measures.
*Most programs participate in one or more professional organizations and accrediting bodies.
*Found programs to be generally cooperative and open to ?collaborative governance?.
Does that surprise anyone?
Notice at NATSAP
HB 628 proposes a new prototype of regulation and launches Montana into a process not seen by any other state in the nation. The fundamental shift in this law versus other regulatory bodies nationwide is the establishment of a state board (Board of Private Alternative Adolescent Residential or Outdoor Programs) which will implement a registration process for programs and will further study current regulations, industry standards, and the quality of alternative adolescent residential and outdoor care in the state. The state board will then report to the legislature in 2007 regarding potential licensure requirements.
http://www.natsap.org/newsandmedia_news ... seBill.asp (http://www.natsap.org/newsandmedia_newspage_MontanaHouseBill.asp)
From NATSAP:
This board will fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor and Industry ? another break from the customary oversight seen in other states. Outside parties, including the state Department of Public Health and Human Services, stood in opposition to the bill favored by programs and stated a position that those who work in programs might not be able to provide the objectivity needed to insure quality of care. Montana is, in many ways, a perfect place for such ground-breaking legislation. It is a Montana tradition to support licensing and regulations which are monitored by those engaged in the field.
http://www.natsap.org/Newsletters/NATSA ... montana%22 (http://www.natsap.org/Newsletters/NATSAP%20Summer%20Newsletter.pdf#search=%22%22paul%20clark%22%20%2B%20montana%22)
Clark must have some powerful connections to pull this off. And what of the programs that aren?t voluntarily registering? Who will monitor them and might they be concerned about being scrutinized by their competitors who were appointed to the board?
This alternative bill would allow for self-regulation through a newly-formed board operating under the auspices of the Department of Labor and Industry. The providers proposed forming a board that would draft regulations and rules of self-regulation similar to those of physicians, nurses, social workers and professional counselors. [BIG DIFFERENCE- these professionals are licensed and can loose their license for unprofessional conduct.]
During both hearings, the provider groups cited a significant distrust of a large unwieldy organization that would squash their individuality [Experimentaion] and enforce a medical model upon them. They cited NATSAP as a model with guidelines and principles that would guide the provider group's efforts to provide oversight of its members. :rofl:
http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/p ... 5137.shtml (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/article_5137.shtml)
Clark defends that they shouldn?t be regulated by DPHHS?s ?medical model?. What does the Dept of Labor have to do with childcare? Nada. Many kids in programs are on some kind of psych drug, receive regular counseling (if it can be called that), ?treated? for disorders and substance abuse, and are warehoused 24/7/365, which would definitely put them in the ?medical model? category.
Keeping An Eye on the Kids
In the ongoing battle over who should provide governmental oversight of Montana?s teen behavior modification programs, the latest answer seems to be: the people who already run them.
?I?m still of the belief that oversight has to be done through the Department of Public Heath and Human Services,? says Great Falls Sen. Trudi Schmidt, who offered her own version of an oversight bill in the state Senate that was rejected. ?This is the first time that the Department of Labor is regulating a youth services program.?
Shelby Earnshaw, director of the International Survivors Action Committee, a teen program watchdog group based in Virginia, says having program representatives in the majority on the board could endanger the children in the care of the facilities, many of which are in remote locations in the western part of the state.
?I don?t think that running an unlicensed, unregulated program makes anyone an expert on how to do it. They?ve been running programs in Montana for years precisely because there is no regulation,? says Earnshaw. ?This looks to be a really half-hearted attempt by the state of Montana to look like they are doing something to regulate. If the folks that are running the schools are the ones making the rules, Montana won?t have any regulation with teeth.?
http://www.isaccorp.org/springcreek/spr ... 08.05.html (http://www.isaccorp.org/springcreek/spring-creek-lodge.09.08.05.html)
The Montana Business Example: Business Over Protection of Youth
http://cafety.org/index2.php?option=com ... montana%22 (http://cafety.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=130#search=%22%22paul%20clark%22%20%2B%20montana%22)
Spring Creek?s Short Leash
http://www.missoulanews.com/News/News.asp?no=4970 (http://www.missoulanews.com/News/News.asp?no=4970)
Panel to Begin Work on Regulating Youth Homes (Homes?)
The board was established by the 2005 Legislature as an alternative to a state Department of Health and Human Services measure that would have regulated the programs as health-care providers, as are similar facilities for youths confined by court order.
The push for regulation came about because of much-publicized concerns about the mistreatment or neglect of youths whose parents have enrolled them in behavior-modification programs in Montana, Utah, Arizona, the Caribbean, Mexico and even Central Europe.
Many of the programs operate without government registration or regulation, and abuses have occurred. In well-publicized cases from some ?wilderness experience? programs, youths attending by parental order have even died.
Government and private therapeutic treatment programs for youths committed because of delinquency or crimes are intensively regulated in Montana. Many states also regulate the nonjudicial alternative programs, where the youths in custody are turned over by their parents. But in Montana, these private-pay, private-enroll programs are called ?substitute-care providers? and are specifically exempted from state regulation.
In 2003, Montana's Department of Health and Human Services published a report, ?Unregulated Youth Residential Care Programs in Montana,? to provide background information on the need for regulations.
In 2005, the sought-for legislation - which would have registered and ultimately regulated the programs - was proposed by DPHHS and would have been administered by the department, said Mary Dalton, director of the DPHHS Quality Assurance Division.
The agency already regulates 380 residential facilities and 629 child day-care providers.
But the industry quickly mustered its forces - one program spent $34,000 on lobbying - and proposed its own bill.
?When it became evident that the state would be moving in this direction (toward regulation), the programs wanted to be willing participants and ahead of the curve rather than being dragged along on a leash,? said Rep. Paul Clark, D-Trout Creek, who sponsored the industry's bill and himself works for two smaller wilderness-based adolescent programs in western Sanders County.
The industry bill differed in a number of crucial ways from the DPHHS proposal.
First, it put the entire registration and regulatory proposal under the auspices of the state Department of Labor and Industry, through a board mainly composed of industry representatives, instead of the health-care professionals in DPHHS.
Second, it exempted any faith-based or religious private behavioral therapy programs; at least seven of the 30 programs in Montana are faith-based.
Third, it would be self-supporting through fees and not cost taxpayers any money, as the DPHHS regulation presumably would have.
The Legislature weighed its options and quickly favored Clark's bill, which passed both houses easily. The DPHHS bill died in committee.
Dalton said the fact that Clark, a respected legislator who works in the industry, sponsored the industry bill and helped secure its passage. Clark said the fact that his proposal cost taxpayers nothing was ?a big issue? to many legislators.
?The programs themselves, not the state, are paying for it. That was a big issue - $40,000 and $50,000 for the two years,? he said.
http://www.isaccorp.org/springcreek/spr ... 24.05.html (http://www.isaccorp.org/springcreek/spring-creek-lodge.10.24.05.html)
"Unregulated Youth Residential Care Programs in Montana" and a statement by Ralph E. Thayer, PhD. that cites lack of oversight.
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:pS3 ... =clnk&cd=7 (http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:pS3qtx3Uw9sJ:data.opi.state.mt.us/legbills/2005/minutes/House/050309EDH_Hm1.wpd+%E2%80%9CUnregulated+Youth+Residential+Care+Programs+in+Montana%E2%80%9D&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=7)
Ralph E. Thayer, PhD, AICP
Professor of Urban Planning and Public Administration
Coordinator, Urban Studies Program
College of Urban and Public Affairs
Academic Director, BGS Program
University of New Orleans
New Orleans, LA 70148
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:l8 ... tana&hl=en (http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:l8zF-GhxuDYJ:data.opi.state.mt.us/legbills/2005/minutes/House/050310APH_Hm1.wpd%2BChrysalis%2Badolescence%2B%2B%2Bmontana&hl=en)
March 05 Hearing on HB628- More at the link.
REP. KAUFMANN asked why these programs prefer to be licensed under DOL rather than DPHHS. REP. CLARK said that HB 628 would not have come forward if DPHHS had not initiated a bill to license and control these programs. Originally, the department had told REP. CLARK and SEN. ELLIOTT that they were not going to introduce a bill to require licensing of these schools. The schools feel that they do not fit under the model of the State-run programs. They believe they can hold themselves accountable and can achieve high standards with a board. :rofl:
Wow! Just wow. What the heck would Clark do if he didn't happen to be a State Rep with connections? The arrogance is breath taking.
Testimony: HB628 Approved
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:MjQI ... tana&hl=en (http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:MjQI6Ep_PXcJ:data.opi.state.mt.us/legbills/2005/minutes/House/050218EDH_Hm1.wpd%2BChrysalis%2Badolescence%2B%2B%2Bmontana&hl=en)
February 05 Hearing on HB628
HEARING ON HB 628
Sponsor: REPRESENTATIVE PAUL CLARK, HD 13, Trout Creek
Opening Statement by Sponsor:
REP. CLARK opened the hearing on HB 628, and reported that Northwestern Montana is the home for many alternative adolescent residential schools, programs and outdoor wilderness programs. He was the founder of his program, Galena Ridge, which is one of the outdoor wilderness programs. He worked with at-risk kids. The bill was really a business bill and did not pertain to education. The bill would create a board, and the board would develop rules for registration of alternative adolescent programs. The board would look into the possibility of licensure, should the program go in that direction. He was not in a business that takes any money from the state. They are in a business where the state taxes them, where they have employees, and they are in a growing business.
Many of the kids in his program came from out of state. He did not work with kids that had been referred to him by the State of Montana or payed for by the State. The estimated annual revenues coming into Montana from the out-of-state programs had increased to about $40 million.
Hmmm. From the Board's Report:
Annual salaries to employees $17,850,000
Parents traveling to see child spent $1,530,814.45
Programs spent on kids $3,372,408.00 GT $22,753,322.00
Does this really belong in a discussion about protecting kids?
They have programs serving between 800 and 1,000 students and most of them are from out of state and are voluntarily sent to the programs by their parents because their parents and the family system are in family crisis. He works with kids that are typically chemically dependent or at least have a long history of substance abuse. The kids may have had problems with the law or be on the verge of that kind of trouble. He would like to see a board established so that programs can proceed toward getting a better understanding of how they can work, some self-regulation (not to keep new programs from coming to Montana) and to make sure that the programs in Montana are of high quality. He would not have been before the committee if the programs were not being pursued for regulation by the Department of Public Health and Human Services(DPHHS). He felt they were functioning fine being unregulated. :rofl: He did not feel all the programs in Montana could be bunched together in a basket under the umbrella of DPHHS. He was before the committee asking for the opportunity to regulate their programs themselves in a responsible and accountable way and a way that would not cost the State money. He wanted it done in a way that would maintain the programs' independence, and where the programs pay their own expenses and pay the Department of Labor and Industry for their expenses that are directed toward their process. He walked the committee through the bill.
EXHIBIT(edh40a06)
Proponents' Testimony:
SEN. JIM ELLIOT rose in support of the bill because the schools were in his district and he had attended the meeting to attest to the character and the integrity of the people who run the programs addressed in the bill. The most important thing that he had seen as an outsider was the way the kids came to the program and the way they left it. What he had seen in the programs was, to the largest extent possible, good. He informed the committee that they were seeing a group of people with a willingness to come together as a profession with many facets and to work together to achieve a framework of regulation that is appropriate for the many facets of the profession and suitable to the profession.
John Santa, Co-founder of Montana Academy of Co-educational Therapeutic Boarding School in Lost Prairie, Montana, rose in support of the bill. They have 80 students and 65 well-trained members on their staff. The students need environments that are nurturing, structured, and will contain them and allow them to grow up and mature enough to become productive adults. He believed the leaders of the programs could come together and create appropriate standards that are far superior to being dictated to from outside sources.
Santa just issued a White Paper choke full of deceptive comments and generalities about the industry.
http://www.strugglingteens.com/news/ope ... tation.pdf (http://www.strugglingteens.com/news/open%20letter%20and%20invitation.pdf)
Christina Johnson rose in support of the bill and presented written testimony.
EXHIBIT(edh40a07)
{Tape: 2; Side: A; Approx. Time Counter: 0 - 25.7}
Matt Ihrig, enrolled in Spring Creek Lodge Academy, testified that the program had helped him earn his high school diploma, gain self confidence, morals, goals, and confidence and self-esteem.
Penny James, Trout Creek, testified that she and her husband own one of the programs being discussed. When she thought of being regulated by an outside entity, in an industry and profession such as theirs, it was difficult for her. :cry2: She desired to be part of a board and be able to speak to the things that they already had been researching and working on.
Brandee Dellasilva was enrolled at Spring Creek for twelve months. She graduated the program eight months ago and since then she has earned scholarships for college and has traveled around the state talking to students about drugs. Spring Creek program had changed her life around.
Randy Lovel, Physician, had been to treatment in 1993. He introduced his daughter who was a graduate of Spring Creek.
{Tape: 2; Side: A; Approx. Time Counter: 25.7 - 30}
{Tape: 2; Side: B}
Renel Hanson, Monarch School, reported that she represented about 65 students and 40 staff members. She informed the committee that she and her colleagues were very passionate about what they do.
That's a good justification for self-regulation!
Elizabeth Kleg, Chrysalis resident, testified that before arriving at Chrysalis her life was unmanageable from the time she was twelve years old and coming to Chrysalis was a rebirth for her and her family.
Rachel Berlin-Allaire reported that she had lived at Chrysalis for two years. Before arriving there, she had been making very poor decisions and her parents decided to send her to Chrysalis. She had learned to love herself and in doing so had gained values and morals.
Liz Gochnauer, Carroll College student, testified that she had graduated from the Chrysalis program about six months ago. At fifteen she had been expelled from high school and her parents sent her away. Her life is changed and she is earning A's in college. She never dreamed she could do that.
Time had run out for the proponents. They were asked to come to the podium and state their names.
Laurel Jones presented written testimony.
EXHIBIT(edh40a08)
Ramsey Riddell, Emily Lovell, Kenny Pannell, Jay Whitacre, Sara Bowles, Angele Anjaliplainfield , Mickey Manning, Ali Turner, Laurie Worth, Darya Brutoco, Mary Alexine, Rick Reed, James Kraus, Carol Santa, Ron Mendenhall, Jacqueline Rutzke, Jerry Bottorff
Jean Windham presented written testimony from Pinehaven Christian School as they were not able to attend the hearing.
EXHIBIT(edh40a09)
Dana Tash, Mike Chism, Wade Boteler, Charlie Speicher, Amanda Locket, Teran Adams, Alex Banker, Sarah Musante, Heather Pruett, Norman Kahn, Steffani White, Vickie Horton, Elizabeth Ebberhard, Kaitlan Lennen, Hillary Carter-liggett, Rick Wedell
EXHIBIT(edh40a10)
{Tape: 2; Side: B; Approx. Time Counter: 0 - 13.2}
Opponents' Testimony:
Kimberly Gardner, Administrator of Alternative Youth Adventures, Boulder, rose in opposition to the bill. She presented written testimony and written opposition testimony from Gerald Robert Byrd; M. Angela Johnson, LCPC, NCC, EAPI; John J. Madsen, MSW; and Linda Fowler, MSW, LCSW.
EXHIBIT(edh40a11)
EXHIBIT(edh40a12)
EXHIBIT(edh40a13)
EXHIBIT(edh40a14)
EXHIBIT(edh40a15)
EXHIBIT(edh40a16)
John Clymer testified that he had worked with children for a number of years and his greatest concern was the protection of children. He recognized that the bill addressed a very difficult issue in the state. He believed there were 36 programs across the state that would be part of the bill. He informed the committee that sometimes the children receive the promised help, but others don't receive it and may even receive harsh treatment. He believed it was the responsibility of the State of Montana to regulate the facilities. The bill recognized that there is a concern but he didn't believe the bill would meet the needs of the programs. He pointed out the weaknesses in the bill. He was very worried about how the facilities handle the mental health issues when they are not regulated. Another weakness he saw was no governmental involvement in the board that was to be created.
{Tape: 2; Side: B; Approx. Time Counter: 13.2 - 30}
{Tape: 3; Side: A}
SEN. TRUDY SCHMIDT, SD 11, Great Falls, testified that she had sponsored a bill in the Senate that addressed some of the same kinds of issues as the present house bill. She was sorry the committee would hear a bill of such magnitude so late in the session. She believed that the programs discussed in the house bill should be under the direction of DPHHS.
Mary Dalton, Department of Public Health and Human Services, Division of Quality Assurance, presented written testimony.
EXHIBIT(edh40a17)
Informational Testimony:
Bud Williams, Office of Public Instruction, presented his written testimony at the end of the hearing.
Lisa Addington, Health Care Chief of Department of Labor, offered information as to how SB 101 would be administered by DPHHS in comparison to the bill the committee was hearing which would be overseen by a board.
Questions from Committee Members and Responses:
REP. GALVIN-HALCRO explained to the committee why Education was hearing the bill instead of the Business and Labor Committee. That committee could not fit it into their schedule and it was felt that the Education Committee could make time to hear it.
REP. SALES informed the committee that he did not like regulation and wondered why the SPONSOR had brought the bill to the session.
[Uh, because he knows you don't like regulation?
REP. CLARK testified that they could see regulations coming and they wanted to be pro-active.
REP. WINDHAM asked SEN. ELLIOT if the issues in the two bills might be a subject for an interim study. The Senate bill was offered as an exhibit.
SEN. ELLIOT was in favor of HB 628 although he knew the Senate bill was at the request of DPHHS.
EXHIBIT(edh40a18)
REP. KOOPMAN requested information from the SPONSOR. He pondered how the programs could succeed the proposed regulation without state government regulations. He didn't understand why the bill was proposed when the programs had functioned so well without any government regulations. He also wondered if there was anything stopping the groups to do what the bill proposed without any legislation.
REP. CLARK testified that the programs desired to be self-policing and self-regulatory in nature. They brought the legislation because they knew there were individuals seeking legislation to regulate them under DPHHS.
REP. ANDERSEN asked the SPONSOR about Page 2, Section 3. She was curious about what the new board would do with all the requested information.
REP. CLARK reported that the authors of the bill were looking to get a sense of standards to regulate the programs and use the information to present to the legislature.
REP. ANDERSEN asked him if all of the schools or programs that he was aware of would be included in the gathering of the information requested in the bill.
REP. CLARK informed her that not all of the programs he knew of would fit in the definition of the programs in the bill.
What? they don't fit the "medical model" of the state and they don't fit his Bill? So, will the state regulate those that don't meet the definition of his Bill? How confusing will that be?
REP. GALVIN-HALCRO informed REP. CLARK that she did not see a definition in the bill for a wilderness program and wondered why it wasn't there.
REP. CLARK assured her that the definitions in the bill included wilderness programs.
REP. GALVIN-HALCRO asked the SPONSOR if any of the programs he knew of received Average Number Belonging (ANB) monies from OPI. REP. CLARK informed her that he did not know of a program that received state money.
REP. GALVIN-HALCRO asked the SPONSOR if he would keep records and report to the next session the information that had been discussed during the hearing. She asked that the information include any problems or accidents that occurred in the two years.
REP. CLARK assured her that he could do that.
REP. BUTCHER explained to the SPONSOR that he believed on Page 1, Line 13, where it discussed the board make-up, the programs involved should make up a list of nominees for the board positions just as other groups under the direction of boards make recommendations to the governor for his selection. REP. CLARK informed him the programs would be comfortable with that procedure.
REP. WINDHAM also required information from the SPONSOR. She felt it was very important that the board discussed in the bill had legitimacy. She questioned the governor appointing two members from the general public. REP. CLARK was sure the appointments would be made appropriately.
Because he hand selected them?
Closing by Sponsor:
REP. CLARK asserted that the criticism from OPI and DPHHS did not apply to the programs he had seen in operation. He was firm in his belief that the programs could regulate themselves as they had been operating for a number of years. He took exception to the opposition testimony as he had information about the programs that were in conflict to what had been said. :rofl:
EXECUTIVE ACTION ON HB 628
Motion: REP. WINDHAM moved that HB 628 DO PASS.
Motion/Vote: REP. WINDHAM moved that HB 628 BE AMENDED. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. REPS. LAKE and SONJU voted by proxy.
EXHIBIT(edh40a19)
Motion/Vote: REP. WINDHAM moved a CONCEPTUAL AMENDMENT FOR AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE ON THE BILL. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. REPS. LAKE and SONJU voted by proxy.
Motion: REP. WINDHAM moved that HB 628 DO PASS AS AMENDED.
Discussion:
REP. BUTCHER spoke in favor of the bill as he felt the programs should be left alone but he realized they felt bureaucracy ascending down on them to engulf them into their nets of regulation. He was familiar with several programs that had not attended the hearing and had observed very closely their operations and he was very intrigued with them. He wished to allow the programs to remain independent and create their programs to meet the needs of troubled children.
Damn, and they're not even "faith-based".
REP. SALES reported that he hoped the Senate bill would be defeated and HB 628 would pass out of both houses. He would be supporting the bill.
REP. ANDERSEN testified that she would support the bill and she reported that she was very impressed with the poise and maturity of the students she was able to visit with. She wished to thank the students for giving her the opportunity to spend time with them.
REP. WINDHAM reported that she felt the bill represented the understanding that the government is not going to go away. The programs are being pro-active and they do want to be responsible and accountable. She believed that peer review is a wonderful way of control. She commented that the programs are private industry at its best. ::puke::
REP. GALVIN-HALCRO said she was not going to support the bill in committee because she was concerned about the "bad apples out there" that the committee had not heard about. She didn't see the bill addressing them. She planned to visit with the SPONSOR and do what she could to have her concerns met.
Vote: Motion that HB 628 DO PASS AS AMENDED carried 13-3 by roll call vote with REPS. GALVIN-HALCRO, REP. KOOPMAN, and REP. MCKENNEY voting no. REPS. LAKE, RASER, and SONJU voted by proxy.
-
Yeh, it's alot to read, but grab a couple of beers and wade through it when you have nothing better to do.
Might be a good topic for the Yahoo group too.
I can't even begin to imagine the long-term implications of this.
Anyone else care to speculate?
-
::bump::
-
This is why i would argue for uniform independent federal regulation on the industry.
-
Kids don't deserve no goddamn rights, cuz they ain't no better than a bunch of fuckin' NIGGERS! If mine ever try to "assert their rights" I'm gonna drag 'em out to the woodshed and tear up their uppity little asses!
-
Matt Ihrig, enrolled in Spring Creek Lodge Academy, testified that the program had helped him earn his high school diploma, gain self confidence, morals, goals, and confidence and self-esteem.
------
Brandee Dellasilva was enrolled at Spring Creek for twelve months. She graduated the program eight months ago and since then she has earned scholarships for college and has traveled around the state talking to students about drugs. Spring Creek program had changed her life around.
------
Elizabeth Kleg, Chrysalis resident, testified that before arriving at Chrysalis her life was unmanageable from the time she was twelve years old and coming to Chrysalis was a rebirth for her and her family.
--------
Rachel Berlin-Allaire reported that she had lived at Chrysalis for two years. Before arriving there, she had been making very poor decisions and her parents decided to send her to Chrysalis. She had learned to love herself and in doing so had gained values and morals.
--------
Liz Gochnauer, Carroll College student, testified that she had graduated from the Chrysalis program about six months ago. At fifteen she had been expelled from high school and her parents sent her away. Her life is changed and she is earning A's in college. She never dreamed she could do that.
I feel sorry for these kids. I can't believe their parents let them become willing tools.
-
Paul Clark
http://leg.mt.gov/css/sessions/59th/leg ... LAWSID=430 (http://leg.mt.gov/css/sessions/59th/leg_info.asp?HouseID=1&SessionID=88&LAWSID=430)
ISAC has a sworn statement posted by a parent with experience with Galena Ridge and 20 Peaks. Sounds like they use the same MO as all the others. Any wonder Clark is pushing so hard for self-regulation?
This parent addressed item-for-item the programs violations of NATSAP Principles.
http://www.isaccorp.org/documentsam.asp#galena (http://www.isaccorp.org/documentsam.asp#galena)
-
NUTSACK (natsap) does not enforce its own rules and has no mechanism for doing so. NATSAP is a SADSACK. They are "organized crime," plain and simple.
-
Utah Working To Break new Ground
The Utah NATSAP member programs are breaking new ground in working with one another and working with the State of Utah. In the past few months Utah NATSAP member programs have been particularly busy.
Following a very successful regional conference in June, a call went out to
members to participate in an ad hoc series of meetings designed to review current Utah state licensing standards and make recommendations for changes. Kreg Gillman of the Provo Canyon School hosted an initial meeting in which thirty administrators and key staff from several schools and programs attended. Jerry Spanos and the Heritage School then hosted two follow up sessions culminating in a meeting with Ken Stettler, Director of the Utah Office of Licensing.
The group identified four main areas of focus which included:
1) Staff to Student Ratios, 2) Development of Policies Related to Housing Eighteen Year Olds, 3) Revisions to Overall Standards, Particularly as They Related to Behavior Management and 4) The Development of an Additional Licensing Category, Focusing on Therapeutic Boarding
Schools Separate From Residential Treatment Centers.
Draft revisions were then emailed to member programs for feedback. Once the final revision was completed, the recommendations were presented to Mr. Stettler. Mr. Stettler, who will follow up further as the State Legislature considers a bill that includes the recommendations, has already incorporated much of what was provided.
Brent Hall of Discovery Academy, James Meyer and Jared Balmer of the Oakley School, Pam Nielsen of Cedar Ridge Academy, and Robin
Stephens of the Aspen Education Group put in extra effort to synthesize the group?s ideas into print. We would particularly like to recognize Kimball
DeLaMare of Oakley School and Island View who spearheaded these meetings.
Kimball reports that it was remarkable how generous everyone was with their time and talent, even though many who participated are direct competitors. He notes that each successive meeting further deepened the
camaraderie of the group as a whole. In the course of putting together these recommendations, it was suggested to Ken Stettler of State Licensing that a member of NATSAP would be interested in representing the group on the Department of Human Services Licensing Board. The seat on the Board was granted and Jeff Smith of Logan
River Academy was selected to represent us. Jeff?s considerable experience, coupled with his administrative and personal abilities will certainly add much to the Board while benefiting our industry overall.
NATSAP Board members, Craig LaMont of Telos Residential Treatment and James Meyer of the Oakley School, visited with the group about furthering the NATSAP mission through a greater public presence in the State. These discussions helped generate an invitation for NATSAP programs to provide in-service training to over fifty State Licensing Specialists.
The training, which encompassed presentations about the continuum of care and behavior management standards, culminated in a panel presentation by students from six different facilities, who brought a real
human element into what is otherwise seen as only a regulatory process by many. Feedback from the Licensing Office has been very positive.
Utah Chapter?
With the success of these events, Utah is now exploring ways in which to formally organize a NATSAP Regional Chapter. Craig LaMont did significant groundwork about how a Chapter might function. This work is presently being disseminated to NATSAP members with the goal to start a Chapter early in 2005.
FROM THE SAME NEWSLETTER
Natsap Standards Used As Template for Montana Legislation
Penny James-Riddell, Explorations
Over 30 programs and schools in Montana are currently faced with the involvement of the State of Montana in ways not present in the past. In July 2004, open dialogue began between program and school officials and the Department of Health and Human Services regarding potential licensure for those operating in Big Sky country. Since then, representatives from a broad base of youth care options available statewide have convened in Helena at the state legislature committee level and have met in numerous meetings across the state to discuss potential licensure or regulation.
NATSAP member programs have been integrally involved in the process which currently includes subcommittee work to draft potential bill legislation for the upcoming legislative session. Current bill language
advocates for mandatory registration of all alternative residential care providers in Montana. The bill further suggests a governor-appointed Board, comprised of youth care professionals, state officials, and individuals from the general public, as a public service to monitor and
maintain standards of care and ensure the safety of adolescents and parents using such programs.
Professional codes of conduct, principles of good practices, and ethical code language have been incorporated into the bill language.
NATSAP standards have been utilized as a template, both for numerous discussions and as the foundation for the actual bill draft. John Santa (Montana Academy), John Mercer (Mission Mountain School), and Penny James-Riddell (Explorations) have assisted in the process by working with like-programs statewide to educate others regarding the process of devising standards applicable to a wide-range of programs and schools. NATSAP Interim Executive Director, Jan Moss, provided input to
program representatives in Montana at a meeting held in November in Kalispell. Mercer and Santa developed the initial draft language for the sub-committee work, with James-Riddell, Kenny Pannell (Chrysalis), and Patrick McKinnon (The Monarch School) also contributing to the final bill language. The bill is anticipated to be brought forth in the January session. NATSAP member programs, as well as others throughout the state, watch the outcome with anticipation.
-
Let's look at what isn't discussed in the press release.
It doesn't say what the new regulations are supposed to accomplish.
It doesn't say why the regulations would be put into place, or how they would be enforced, or even IF they would be enforced. To make doubly sure that nothing would actually happen to their abuse centers, there's nothing to enforce and no one to enforce it.
Bottom line: This is a thinly veiled attempt to legalize the unconscionable.
-
The agenda is to get Utah to distinguish TBSs from RTCs and adopt NATSAPs lame guidelines as regulations for TBSs.
As I've been saying for a while, NATSAP is positioning its self to become a national accrediting agency for the industry. Programs defining the terms or regulation.
Exactly what will NATSAP present during their "in-service" training of Licensing Specialists?
Since when does any entity that is regulated "train" their regulators?
This is absurd.
-
ATTN: MT Program alumni
Your letter of testimony are needed!!
We are also seeking folks who can fund their own transportation to MT to testify!
DEADLINE FOR LETTERS - (tentatively 1/13)
NOT MUCH TIME LEFT!!!!
For those who would like clarification, in a nutshell Senator Schmidt is trying to pass a law which would require oversite, regulation and monitoring of currently unregulated programs like SCL, like MMS. Just as the state is required to do with all other child-caring institutions, ie. residential treatment programs, juvenile justice programs.
Places like SCL and MMS have fallen through a legal loophole by calling themselves therapeutic boarding schools, that way they don't get looked into by the state or any health care acrrediting body. In a recent informal study, we found MT does not investigate allegations of abuse at 'UNregulated facilities' because of this loophole and the private nature of the schools. That's why programs have effectively been able slide on by, mistreating children and calling it therapy.
Hopefully, with all of your hard work, our letters will put a stop to that.
Obviously this will not be easy to do. The Senator has no funds to bring folks in to testify - so if any of you are anywhere near Helena, MT please let us know if you would be willing to travel and cover expenses. Perhaps we (CAFETY) may be able to secure funding, this is tentative but an effort we are focusing on.
We all know there will be many current students and alumni expressing, in person, their devotion to both facilities. Few understand the mental break down that allows youth to become complicit in their own mistreatment, for this reason it is IMPERATIVE we work to present the flip-side of the industry to the MT State legislature.
So please take a moment to express your grievances and help spread the word!!
This is our big shot to help protect youth and stop the mistreatment so many of us both witnessed and experienced. Please ACT NOW!
Lenore Behar, Phd is collecting the stories to submit to Senator Schmidt.
Please e-mail her:
[email protected] (http://mailto:[email protected])
Please don't hesitate to contact me with any questions.
Best,
kat & the CAFETY team
The Montana legislature meets from early January until the end of April, so things will move fast. They also meet every other year, so if Sen. Schmidt isn't successful, it will be another 2 years before she can try again. Also, MT has limits on congressional terms and 2009 will be her last one.
The bill that was passed last time was put in the Department of Labor, which was an attempt by the lobbyists/program directors to weaken it. In addition, the bill only called for a committee to determine what kind of oversight to provide. Their report, after 2 years, was that they need more time! To decide anything.
The new bill can be seen shortly and tracked at:
http://laws.leg.mt.gov/pls/laws07/law0203w$.startup (http://laws.leg.mt.gov/pls/laws07/law0203w$.startup)
It is LC 1004 (use the second box for the bill #)
ALSO SEE:
Online PBS Doc on MT Industry
Who's Watching The Kids?
www.montanapbs.org (http://www.montanapbs.org)
-
deberah, since you have info about an obvious violation of the law..
WILL YOU PLEASE CONTACT THE APROPRIATE LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES?
(if these things exist)
pretending to have accreditation or practising medicine without a liscence is a very serIOUS CRIME!!!! :exclaim: :oops:
-
deberah, since you have info about an obvious violation of the law..
WILL YOU PLEASE CONTACT THE APROPRIATE LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES?
Why should she? Crimes against children made while they are in programs are not taken serious.
The staff goes free or get a slap on their wrist!
It is only the self-pronounced colonel, who has to do time.
What your country needs:
1) A number of concress men driving around the country showing up unanounced in whatever program they choose. Any time - any place !
2) Oversea programs should be forbidden for american citizens unless they agree also to be visited unannounced.
3) All programs has to be listed in Washington. If an un-listed program exist it should mean jail-time for the owner and heavy fines for the staff-members.
4) All education should be accredited from standards made by the education board in Washington. (Then the education would count in Europe too.).
-
(if these things exist) pretending to have accreditation or practising medicine without a liscence is a very serIOUS CRIME!!!! :exclaim: :oops:
Apparently NOT in Montana. It appears that Mr State Rep can do just about anything he wants. Let's just hope Senator Schmidt takes him down a few notches before she leaves office.
Who will one complain to?
DHR? Nope, no jurisdiction.
Dept of Labor? :rofl:
This info is not secret. He had the audacity to post it on public websites. Guess he thought no one would check his credentials.
-
ummmm ....
What would one think if I were to tell you that Montana's House Majority Leader Roy Brown (R), had a child who spent nearly 2 years in a Montana program?
Would this have any bearing on .... anything?
-
:o
-
ummmm ....
What would one think if I were to tell you that Montana's House Majority Leader Roy Brown (R), had a child who spent nearly 2 years in a Montana program?
Would this have any bearing on .... anything?
Not surprising. Which one? How do you come by this info? Is it pubic?
-
Not surprising. Which one? How do you come by this info? Is it pubic?
Maybe TheWho told them; TheWho knows everything! :lol:
-
:rofl: :lol: ::bwahaha::
-
NADASI AT WILDERNESS TREATMENT CENTER
(January 5, 2007) Ben Dorrington, Admissions Director of Wilderness Treatment Center, Marion, MT, 406-854-2832, announced that Dr. Chris Nadasi is their new consulting psychologist. Dr. Nadasi is a Licensed Clinical Psychologist, Certified School Psychologist and has worked with other programs including Montana Academy and he was Clinical Director at Summit Preparatory School. Dr. Nadasi will perform initial psychological assessments on all clients and be available to perform any expanded testing as well as educational evaluations. He replaces Dr. James Murphy in this role.
I can't find Nadasi OR Murphy. Someone else want to give it a whirl. I'd hate to wrongly accuse either of not being licensed.
http://app.mt.gov/lookup/ (http://app.mt.gov/lookup/)
-
NADASI AT WILDERNESS TREATMENT CENTER
(January 5, 2007) Ben Dorrington, Admissions Director of Wilderness Treatment Center, Marion, MT, 406-854-2832, announced that Dr. Chris Nadasi is their new consulting psychologist. Dr. Nadasi is a Licensed Clinical Psychologist, Certified School Psychologist and has worked with other programs including Montana Academy and he was Clinical Director at Summit Preparatory School. Dr. Nadasi will perform initial psychological assessments on all clients and be available to perform any expanded testing as well as educational evaluations. He replaces Dr. James Murphy in this role.
I can't find Nadasi OR Murphy. Someone else want to give it a whirl. I'd hate to wrongly accuse either of not being licensed.
http://app.mt.gov/lookup/ (http://app.mt.gov/lookup/)
discoveringmontana.com, select "find a licensed professional"
-
Mercer vying for a spot on PAARP?
Mission Mountain School
Swan Valley, MT
John Mercer Testimony To Montana Legislature
Contact: John Mercer, M.S.
Head and Co-Founder
406-754-2580
http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewforum.php?f=38 (http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewforum.php?f=38)
-
ummmm ....
What would one think if I were to tell you that Montana's House Majority Leader Roy Brown (R), had a child who spent nearly 2 years in a Montana program?
Would this have any bearing on .... anything?
I would imagine, gentle reader, that it would have about the same impact as knowing that Florida's new governor, Charlie Crist, is most likely a proud Seed graduate.
-
I have a few questions for Deborah. How did Trudy Schmidt's hb 288 get a last minute amendment that allows adults/managers/workers with a history of criminal offenses to have access to students in programs?Who pressed for this amendment in the final minutes and why???? Who is this Jim Dorrian guy from California who is hiring lobbyists and spending a bunch of money on hb 288 in Montana?There are rumors locally that he is a part of Spring Creek Lodge. There are also rumors that he is opening a program named Whispering Pines that is located 10 miles away from Spring Creek. For some reason there is allot of secrecy around who is the MONEY behind Whispering Pines. There is a artical in the Sanders County Ledger, the local paper that Mike Linderman is going to be the new manager at Whispering Pines. He worked at Spring Creek Lodge at the time the girl commited suicide there. He was is charge of their treatment program and I have heard had contact with the girl. Glen Schenavar also worked or was paid by Spring Creek Lodge and he is listed as manager of operation of Whispering Pines. There are several local people who have said that he had a serious incident with a female student at Spring Creek on a wilderness trip he was in charge of.There are several other Spring Creek employee's that are rumored to work there. Is there a chance that these 2 programs are 1. Or just another corporation with allot of money that thinks It / he needs more MONEY?
-
How did Trudy Schmidt's hb 288 get a last minute amendment that allows adults/managers/workers with a history of criminal offenses to have access to students in programs?
Last I read, everyone gets a background check, which can be waived if the employee has a professional/occupational license. :roll:
Who pressed for this amendment in the final minutes and why????
Good question. SB101 didn?t pass, sb288 did. Maybe because a Sen and Rep own programs? Neither bill was adequate. Leaves a lot to be desired. Inspections every TWO years? Program may not be inspected at all if certified by an outside organization, like JCAHO. :rofl:
What a waste of time and tax dollars.
Who is this Jim Dorrian guy from California who is hiring lobbyists and spending a bunch of money on hb 288 in Montana?
Good question. VC'ist. You know more than I, and I couldn't find any connections between him and the industry.
There are rumors locally that he is a part of Spring Creek Lodge. There are also rumors that he is opening a program named Whispering Pines that is located 10 miles away from Spring Creek. For some reason there is allot of secrecy around who is the MONEY behind Whispering Pines. There is a artical in the Sanders County Ledger, the local paper that Mike Linderman is going to be the new manager at Whispering Pines.
Post that article.
He worked at Spring Creek Lodge at the time the girl commited suicide there. He was is charge of their treatment program and I have heard had contact with the girl. Glen Schenavar also worked or was paid by Spring Creek Lodge and he is listed as manager of operation of Whispering Pines. There are several local people who have said that he had a serious incident with a female student at Spring Creek on a wilderness trip he was in charge of.There are several other Spring Creek employee's that are rumored to work there. Is there a chance that these 2 programs are 1. Or just another corporation with allot of money that thinks It / he needs more MONEY?
Do VCs every have enough money? Is Whispering Pines advertised anywhere? I couldn't find anything.
What irony. Looks at this book review I found:
By Evil Means : A Phoebe Siegal Mystery
From Publishers Weekly
Gritty realism and a modern sensibility permeate this promising debut set in Billings, Mont. Half-Jewish, half-Irish Catholic, PI Phoebe Siegel is hired by farm wife Mary Kuntz to investigate the extreme personality change that has transformed her formerly drug-abusing teenage daughter Jennifer since she began treatment with Dr. Victor Stroud at the Whispering Pines sanatorium. Initially reluctant, Phoebe takes the case when Mary discloses that a Stroud-induced complaint by Jennifer may have led to the suicide of Phoebe's beloved policeman brother, Ben, a few years earlier. Phoebe, who discovers Mary is the daughter of one of the most powerful men in the state, sneaks into Whispering Pines and finds disturbing evidence of coercion and blackmail. Another young Whispering Pines patient dies under questionable circumstances after begging for help, further galvanizing Phoebe, who has been dogged by a mysterious police car and warned off the case by her cop uncle. Siegel, a tough and charming heroine with angst, unresolved conflicts and extensive family ties, is a welcome addition to swelling ranks of female PIs.
Copyright 1992 Reed Business Information, Inc.
From Library Journal
As Phoebe Siegel (in her debut mystery) investigates a drug treatment center near Billings, Montana, she is pushed to the limit both mentally and physically. Standard elements soon pile up: the foreboding medical facility, the malevolent director with his icy female assistant and terrified patients, evidence of a potential conspiracy and cover-up, and connections to the recent questionable death of Phoebe's policeman brother. As she nears the truth, Phoebe experiences the usual break-ins, threats, and sudden realizations. A routine effort, perhaps of interest to larger collections.
Copyright 1993 Reed Business Information, Inc.
-
Bill would oversee behavioral programs for troubled teens
By CHELSI MOY
Tribune Capitol Bureau
HELENA ? The state needs to keep a watchful eye on more than two dozen private behavioral programs for troubled teens in Montana, supporters of a bill to regulate these facilities argued Monday.
Droves turned out Monday to testify on the proposal before the House Education Committee. It's one of two bills this session proposing to license the facilities and to create an advisory board to oversee them.
Sen. Trudi Schmidt, D-Great Falls, testified Monday in favor of her bill before the House Education Committee.
A bill by Rep. Bob Lake, R-Hamilton, has been transmitted to the Senate.
Their bills have different guidelines for the composition of the advisory board.
And Schmidt's legislation has a shorter timeline for the facilities to comply with state regulations.
Montana has one of the highest populations of these types of programs in the West, Schmidt said, and is among the few Western states that don't regulate them. Of the 28 in Montana, 11 are in isolated, forested areas of Sanders County, she said.
Schmidt said she was astonished to learn that private therapeutic programs serving troubled youth are not regulated by either the state or federal governments. Teens dealing with issues such as drug abuse, a history of suicide attempts and other serious emotional problems arrive at these institutions from across the country for help, often as a last resort.
The Choteau Youth Ranch is the closest such program to Great Falls.
The ranch is closely involved with the community.
But little is known about many of the programs, which is all the more reason to regulate them, Schmidt said. She argued for oversight to prevent unethical practices and to assure parents who send their children to these programs that they are safe.
Schmidt said her bill is not aimed at summer camps.
The legislation targets programs offering emotional and behavioral help to troubled teens.
Some are religious or wilderness-based. Some take only a handful of teens while others accept hundreds. Each program targets children of different ages.
These differences make it difficult to establish a one-size-fits-all solution, opponents argued. :roll:
Although both supporters and opponents envision some form of regulations in the future, they disagree on how best to achieve that goal. Pat McKenna, owner of The Monarch School in Heron, argued that program officials were left out of the drafting of Schmidt's bill.
And they see this as a valid argument? There's a process for the public to give comments. Why should they be given special treatment? You'd think they were members of the senate.
"In Montana, there's such a diversity in schools, which allows students of different ages and makeup to get help they haven't had before," he said.
Other opponents argued that regulatory measures, such as those in 18 other states, will drive up costs, which will weigh heavily on the families who have to pay increased tuition. Regulations are an unnecessary burden on programs that do not receive federal or state funding and have been operating for decades, said Mickey Manning, now principal of Spring Creek Lodge near Thompson Falls.
Lame argument and they should be required to prove that regs will drive up costs. And... even if it were true, is the cost of program more important that protective regulations? Unnecessary burden? I can not believe they would have the nerve to say this pubicly.
Manning said she stumbled on Spring Creek when her daughter was using drugs and refused to go to school. Her daughter, who completed the program, is now a student at the Flathead Valley Community College in Kalispell.
"I can thank Montana for allowing more options than the over-regulated, one-size-fits-all system that some other states offer," Manning said. "I can thank Montana for allowing me as a parent ... to find the appropriate place for my daughter and be fully knowledgeable about my daughter. Without Spring Creek my daughter would be dead."
Is the senate buying this shit? Un-f'in-believable!!!
Paul Clark, a former state representative from Trout Creek, is owner of the Galena Ridge teen program. He talked about the bill with his students ? two of whom then decided to testify against the bill Monday.
Sean Beardsley, 18, is on track to graduate from the program this year. Some supporters of the bill argue that part of the need for regulation is the seclusion of these teens from their parents. Beardsley testified that, at first, he wasn't allowed contact his parents, but that it was for his own good. Now he writes his father a letter every week, he said.
::noway:: Can not believe they are allowed to use the kids this way. A letter once a week. What's his diagnosis and service plan, and who created it? Or is it the standard one-size-fits-all?
Taylor Bradley, 16, argued the bill is in violation of the separation of church and state.
"The state should not have any say in any type of religious organization," he said.
Regulation of the facilities may be inevitable. Linda Carpenter, of the National Association of Therapeutic Schools and Programs, said that federal legislation is already making its way through Congress. The state needs to regulate itself before the federal government throws down mandates that don't meet state needs, she said.
Schmidt's legislation is Senate Bill 288; Lake's bill is House Bill 769.
Post a Comment View All Comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments by: robingay Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 3:07 pm
For anyone questioning the need for oversight when it comes to behavioral programs for teens, I wish you would read "Help At Any Cost: How the Troubled Teen Industry Cons Parents and Hurts Kids" by Maia Szalavitz. The number of teenage lives ended or destroyed in many of these programs is devastating. As for religious camps - I don't trust the untrained or fanatical members of their staffs with our children despite a church's backing. If they have nothing to hide requiring them to keep records and make them available to oversight should be no more a problem than knowing my phone may be tapped.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post a Comment View All Comments
Originally published March 13, 2007
-
This may be a stupid question ... but I am interested in knowing what Federal regulations exist for parochial schools. Are they regulated in the same way as public schools? Do they have accountability to anyone ... or are they "self regulated"?
If these programs have nothing to hide ... and are operating within the confines of ethical treatment, etc., then what is there beef with complying with set standards?
Rhetorical question I know.
-
This may be a stupid question ... but I am interested in knowing what Federal regulations exist for parochial schools. Are they regulated in the same way as public schools? Do they have accountability to anyone ... or are they "self regulated"?
If these programs have nothing to hide ... and are operating within the confines of ethical treatment, etc., then what is there beef with complying with set standards?
Rhetorical question I know.
No they are not, they are restricted but not as much as public schools which receive state funding.
Charter schools are actually renewing public education, they don?t have to adhere to all the tedious and overbearing state regulations and can get on with the task of education our minors, choosing a rich curriculum . They don?t have to have a flag in the corner of the room or a picture of GWB or pledge allegiance or 3.5 hours of sex education per month. Very angry parents are finding a way to distant themselves from state oversight and regulation so their kids can get educated.
As time goes on and the charter schools grow they will accept more and more state money and will have to conform to more regulations but hopefully the states will wake up by then and use the better of the emerging charter schools as a model for a new public school system.
-
Yeah......cause who want's their kids knowing the pledge of allegiance?
-
Press Releases
Posted: Mar 31, 2007
07:33
National Association Of Therapeutic Schools And Programs (NATSAP)
Prescott, Arizona
NATSAP Increases Membership Requirements
For information:
Rosemary Tippett
770-435-8464
www.natsap.org (http://www.natsap.org)).
To be considered for full membership status, programs and schools must have operated for more than two years. Current NATSAP members must achieve the new standards by January 1, 2009. NATSAP will provide assistance to new and member programs wishing to qualify.
"NATSAP remains dedicated to a leadership role in improving the standards of our profession," said Tippet.
~~
Why two years? Provisional licenses allow programs to operate for varying timeframes until they come into compliance. They should all be required to apply for licenses before the end of 2007. That's plenty of time. Actually very generous, give they've all been operating in violation of the law, and some for over a decade.
-
-Licensure by the appropriate state agency authorized to set and oversee standards of therapeutic and/or behavioral healthcare for youth and adolescents or accreditation by a mental health accreditation agency.
Gotta love those loop holes.
-
Press Releases
Posted: Mar 31, 2007
07:33
National Association Of Therapeutic Schools And Programs (NATSAP)
Prescott, Arizona
NATSAP Increases Membership Requirements
For information:
Rosemary Tippett
770-435-8464
www.natsap.org (http://www.natsap.org)).
To be considered for full membership status, programs and schools must have operated for more than two years. Current NATSAP members must achieve the new standards by January 1, 2009. NATSAP will provide assistance to new and member programs wishing to qualify.
"NATSAP remains dedicated to a leadership role in improving the standards of our profession," said Tippet.
~~
Why two years? Provisional licenses allow programs to operate for varying timeframes until they come into compliance. They should all be required to apply for licenses before the end of 2007. That's plenty of time. Actually very generous, give they've all been operating in violation of the law, and some for over a decade.
Deborah, this NATSAP attempt to appear willing to work toward regulations is a smoke screen tossed up after NATSAP's less than productive meeting with members of an advocate group at the conference in Florida. Tippet is the woman who demanded NATSAP have a presence at the symposium, and I guess they regret it now.
Let's dissect this lame attempt at placating the "middle of the road" types who support the idea of regulations which will magically end the abuses in RTC's. Tough love programs rely on brutality, that's behavior modification, and "warm and fuzzy" can't be worked into the equation.
1. Licensure by the appropriate state agency authorized to set and oversee standards of therapeutic and/or behavioral healthcare for youth and adolescents or accreditation by a mental health accreditation agency. My wife and I ran into this with Peninsula Village - there is no single state agency with the authority to oversee the programs. The TN Department of Mental Health told us they didn't have the jurisdiction to force them to open the books. These programs escape regulation because they are undefined. NATSAP is very aware that a separate agency would have to be created with authority few other regulatory overseers have.
2. Therapeutic services with oversight by a qualified clinician.
Define "qualified", otherwise the field is left wide open. They need to add "licensed" to that, more importantly, licensed as a Health Service Provider in the state the program operates in.
3. -Compliance with NATSAP Ethical Principles and NATSAP Principles of Good Practice (see www.natsap.org (http://www.natsap.org)).
Compliance means the programs promise to follow the codes of NATSAP, do some "self-studies" and police itself. Nonsense.
I knew something like this was coming, given the troubles in Montana, Florida, Texas, Tennessee, Maryland.
If the push toward regulation gets serious, NATSAP will offer to meet the regulations, with a five year time frame to implement the changes. I imagine they'll also stipulate they want immunity from lawsuits with allegations predating the date they agree to the "regulations".
No regulations, no negotiations with these scum. We need a scorched earth policy when dealing with teen torture programs. I like Lon's new newsletter, "keeping up with change". Lon talks about the "explosion of knowledge", and the knowledge that's making it's way off Fornits and into TV and print media is creating outrage. Lon, you stooge, knowledge is the one thing you and your industry fear the most, and people who never heard of these programs are being enlightened, and can you imagine - they "just don't get it" and are having a knee-jerk reaction to a few brutally murdered kids. Yeah, I know of some good facilities - they're for time definite periods, you never see their names on Fornits, and they welcome regulation because it will separate them from the shitpits you edcons pull blood money from.
-
I dont see that being pro regulation is being pro the industry. To me regulation and education need to go hand in hand. The power of places to do harm needs to be decreased with specific enforcable rules, while more information is given about the overall damage done in a bid to get the public to vote with their feet.
It does become a slippery slope when organisations like NATSAP are at the bargaining table but by the same token it is extremely dangerous that a program can potentially put a kid in actual physical peril or inadequately feed them without it being a breach if any specifci law.
-
I don't see that being pro regulation is being pro the industry. To me regulation and education need to go hand in hand. The power of places to do harm needs to be decreased with specific enforcible rules, while more information is given about the overall damage done in a bid to get the public to vote with their feet.
It does become a slippery slope when organizations like NATSAP are at the bargaining table but by the same token it is extremely dangerous that a program can potentially put a kid in actual physical peril or inadequately feed them without it being a breach if any specifci law.
Pro regulation is not pro industry. NATSAP is a joke, they will make overtures to engage in regulation, but the process of "break 'em down, build them up" is not going to change, this is how these programs operate. NATSAP is a worthless seal of approval. Kids die in NATSAP approved programs through neglect or brutal physical torture, and the programs maintain their NATSAP certification. JCAHO licensure is being recognized as useless, too.
There's a concept of "program drift", where a program starts off with the loftiest of intentions to save troubled youth. Covenant Health, shortly after the purchase of Peninsula Village from Ft. Sanders in Tennessee, brought in some highly respected psychiatric professionals, one from Duke, as consultants to create a safe, therapeutic program that would work. The pros tried to set-up the ideal facility, but what monkey-wrenched the works? The bottom line-watching accountants, the money counters who hired unqualified counselors, cut corners, and eventually caused the respected advisers to give up their consultant positions in disgust. Program drift is also what happens when an RTC or WTF is busted for abuse, neglect, or homicide. After the program gets the usual "don't do it again" from the Court, they clean up the violence for a time and try to avoid the same allegations. Time, along with high-turnover rates of counselors and clinicians, causes the program to drift back down the slope into abusive practices Without further outside agency interference, the old ways of physical, mental, and medical neglect re-surface like they never left. The reason is simple: Restraint and abuse of the kids is a convenience for the under-educated and burned-out staff.
Oz girl, I agree that a pro-regulation stance does not make you pro-industry. There are wonderful facilities available (my daughter attended one, the clinicians called her a "joy to work with in the milieu, eager to interact in group, often giving affectionate support to fellow patients who were having difficulties" For reasons beyond the facility's control, as well as my wife's, our daughter's biological father sent her to PV, (like going from a holiday spa to Auschwitz) where she was labeled "treatment resistant", "Narcissistic", then abused, viciously taken to the ground by five large women in what PV considered a "restraint" - in full view of her mother. What does Peninsula Village fear more than an unruly patient? A parent who photographs an obviously criminal assault on a child. My wife was banned from family therapy and phone contact with her daughter until we got the child out of that pit. The girl spent six months in the lockdown level of PV before walking out free on 12/14/06, and she's back in her old high school, an honor role student, and working on the demons PV left .
What happened to the girl at the other facility who wanted to be involved in all therapy, helped her peers, and, far from being "treatment resistant", as PV insisted, she was a joy to work with and well-liked. The answer is simple: PV has no individualized treatment, and they perform a "process" on every kid, regardless if the kid is there for ADD, eating disorders, depression, or convicted as an adult for sodomizing a female escort with a baseball bat, or convicted as an adult for conspiracy to commit mass murder on a Columbine level. They're all thrown into the same milieu, and THAT'S insane.
The good programs will not fear regulation, they'll welcome it. My daughter was given the choice to stay in the first, benevolent program. If she had asked to leave, they wouldn't have kept her, and this place is in Maryland, where it's not legally required.
Given the choice of being sent home to live with her alcoholic, abusive father, she took the Maryland facility. After we got our girl out of PV, she said she could use a trip back to the Maryland facility for "decompression" and some restorative therapy. I guess that shows the difference between the "wretched, all for cash" programs and the truly therapeutic ones.
-
Well the other pro is that if NATSAP or what ever other dodgy set up club for programs agree to some kind of regulation (If only because they look like assholes for not) there are specific rules that they can be held accountable for by not following. One program in breach of the rules makes em all look bad as they accdedited the recalcitrant program.
-
Well the other pro is that if NATSAP or what ever other dodgy set up club for programs agree to some kind of regulation (If only because they look like assholes for not) there are specific rules that they can be held accountable for by not following. One program in breach of the rules makes em all look bad as they accdedited the recalcitrant program.
You're right, but NATSAP lobbies, and they're in bed with the GOP. NATSAP will stall, fight every step of the way, and rely on the fact that NATSAP has many different types of programs (at least in name), and how long will it take to decide how to regulate the various types of shithole? This newest gesture by NATSAP to consider regulation is in response to the program deaths, sexual abuse and cover-ups in Texas,(which doesn't involve NATSAP at all) the Montana efforts to regulate, the screaming descent into hell by Hidden Lake Academy, and the legal actions pending against what most people consider "licensed and regulated" programs that were considered above the allegations facing them. NATSAP is not a license. JCAHO has clout in medical hospitals, but they seem to be clueless about behavioral health facilities, especially adolescent residential treatment, so they pass out the JCAHO certification.
Unless we keep pushing and keeping the horrors of these programs in front of the public, the average American amnesiac will move on to some other nightmare, like gas prices. I have a strong feeling NATSAP is bullshitting, knowing they can stall any regulations indefinitely through debate and refusal of all deals, until the public relations stench dies down and business resumes as usual.
-
JCAHO certification is useless, in my opinion. They are another NGO, dues-based industry club. They have program people on their advisory board. One can not read their guidelines unless they purchase a copy. Ever heard of JCAHO issuing sanctions? Closing a program?
-
JCAHO certification is useless, in my opinion. They are another NGO, dues-based industry club. They have program people on their advisory board. One can not read their guidelines unless they purchase a copy. Ever heard of JCAHO issuing sanctions? Closing a program?
Sanctions and closures, no. But JCAHO certification isn't just a dues-based club -- there are some standards that must be met to get the rubber stamp of certification.
That doesn't mean much, but the fact that so few programs have JCAHO's seal of approval might help sort out the worst-of-the-worst programs from the ones that are just plain bad.
I think it's useful to define different levels of badness, since all programs are not going to get shut down overnight. You've got to pick your targets and then go after them in some kind of priority order. I don't think the worst-of-the-worst have JCAHO certification.
-
Deborah, this NATSAP attempt to appear willing to work toward regulations is a smoke screen tossed up after NATSAP's less than productive meeting with members of an advocate group at the conference in Florida. Tippet is the woman who demanded NATSAP have a presence at the symposium, and I guess they regret it now.
I agree.
1. Licensure by the appropriate state agency authorized to set and oversee standards of therapeutic and/or behavioral healthcare for youth and adolescents or accreditation by a mental health accreditation agency. My wife and I ran into this with Peninsula Village - there is no single state agency with the authority to oversee the programs. The TN Department of Mental Health told us they didn't have the jurisdiction to force them to open the books. These programs escape regulation because they are undefined. NATSAP is very aware that a separate agency would have to be created with authority few other regulatory overseers have.
What is PV classified as? Psych facility/hospital or RTC? The Dept of Children's Services regulates RTCs in Tenn and facilites do have to "open their books" to them, if you are refering to childrens and employees files, and such.
If they are licensed as a psych facility through DMH, that may be a different story, although, I can't believe that any licensing agency wouldn't have access to pertinent information. It's part of an inspection.
PV sounds like both, a psych facility and program, complete with wilderness. My question would be, are they properly licensed? Has a thorough review of all the 'services provided' been evaluated?
I knew something like this was coming, given the troubles in Montana, Florida, Texas, Tennessee, Maryland.
This licensing issue has been brewing for a couple of years. I'm sure ASTARTs efforts was a factor as well.
If the push toward regulation gets serious, NATSAP will offer to meet the regulations, with a five year time frame to implement the changes. I imagine they'll also stipulate they want immunity from lawsuits with allegations predating the date they agree to the "regulations".
As an industry assoc, NATSAP is not required to be licensed and will not be involved in the licensing process of its member programs. They can't negotiate with licensing. They can only require licensure of their member programs. That's the extent of their involvement, except like in Utah and Montana, where they were allowed to act as consultants to DHS. There is growing public awareness of this issue, and NATSAP is attempting to maintain credibility as an association. The hitch, is the "or accreditation" clause. Accreditation with JCAHO or an Educational agency like SACS, is not equivalent to State Licensing. The latter is much more thorough and stringent in terms of evaluating, regulating, and sanctioning programs.
-
Sanctions and closures, no. But JCAHO certification isn't just a dues-based club -- there are some standards that must be met to get the rubber stamp of certification.
Didn't say it was "just" a dues-based club. Yes, they have standards and no one can go online and read them. You must 'puchase' them. And industry people helped create those standards. I found no way to view reports of programs that had incurred violations. Why all the secrecy? All that info is available to the public when a program is licensed by the state.
That doesn't mean much, but the fact that so few programs have JCAHO's seal of approval might help sort out the worst-of-the-worst programs from the ones that are just plain bad. I don't think the worst-of-the-worst have JCAHO certification.
"Think" what you want, but No, you can't use JCAHO certification as a method for weeding out the worst-of-the-worst. Catherine Freer is considered one of the 'best' in the industry, JCAHO certified and has had three deaths, that the pubic is aware of anyway. Ridge Creek (HLAs sister wilderness program) is JCAHO certified, and until recently considered one of the best. It is a confirmed abusive program and had 30 some violations of regulations on the last State inspection. (I've never heard of that many violations. A record.) Wonder if they ever violated any JCAHO standards. Well, we'll never know, cause that's kept secret from the public.
There are others. JCAHO certification means nothing.
-
Peninsula Village(um...Parkwest Medical Center) is JCAHO accredited as a Behavioral Health Care provider (http://http://www.qualitycheck.org/consumer/searchresults.aspx?nm=peninsula+village&ddstatelist=&st_nm=-1&st)(Click on view quality report). JCAHO has a lot of spin but the fact that no one can see their regs without paying 250+ makes me write them off as bunk.
Peninsula Village is also licensed by The State of Tennessee Department of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities as a Mental Health Residential Treatment Facility for Children and Youth - regs here LINK (http://http://state.tn.us/sos/rules/0940/0940-05/0940-05.htm)(view Chapters 0940-5-6, 0940-5-37 and for isolation and restraint - 0940-3-6 (http://http://state.tn.us/sos/rules/0940/0940-03/0940-03-06.pdf))
Zen I'll be in touch..........
-
Thanks Hanzo. So they are licensed as MH facility rather than an RTC (program). I suppose this is so because they dx and rx drugs?
Being licensed as such, would certainly exempt them from licensure through DCS. I haven't had time to find the regs for RTCs in Tenn. If someone has a link, please share. I'd like to compare the definition of RTC and MH facility and the difference in regs.
-
http://www.state.tn.us/sos/rules/1200/1 ... -08-17.pdf (http://www.state.tn.us/sos/rules/1200/1200-08/1200-08-17.pdf)
-
Peninsula Village(um...Parkwest Medical Center) is JCAHO accredited as a Behavioral Health Care provider (http://http://www.qualitycheck.org/consumer/searchresults.aspx?nm=peninsula+village&ddstatelist=&st_nm=-1&st)(Click on view quality report). JCAHO has a lot of spin but the fact that no one can see their regs without paying 250+ makes me write them off as bunk.
Peninsula Village is also licensed by The State of Tennessee Department of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities as a Mental Health Residential Treatment Facility for Children and Youth - regs here LINK (http://http://state.tn.us/sos/rules/0940/0940-05/0940-05.htm)(view Chapters 0940-5-6, 0940-5-37 and for isolation and restraint - 0940-3-6 (http://http://state.tn.us/sos/rules/0940/0940-03/0940-03-06.pdf))
Zen I'll be in touch..........
Thanks. My wife and I were looking at the JCAHO info last night, and what we found was a bit of a surprise. Peninsula Village is part of Peninsula Behavioral Health, which includes an adult facility, an adolescent acute care facility and hospital. Peninsula Behavioral Health didn't get the JCAHO accreditation until 12/06, eight days before our daughter left. When we first looked into the JCAHO accreditation, we found only Parkwest Medical actually had it, and it was given to two of their clinical labs. To the best of my knowledge, no one from JCAHO had set foot in PV, and the program was claiming accreditation it didn't have by riding Parkwest Medical's coattails.
PV uses the lack of a real definition of their program to avoid scrutiny. It's a level 3 lockdown facility with a level system that(supposedly) moves patients to the cabin area, becoming a wilderness treatment facility. The program advertising links on StrugglingTeens homepage have PV listed under "Therapeutic & Treatment Programs", and again under "Wilderness". I guess that makes PV an EdCon's dream, a catch-all. It seems odd Lon left Peninsula Village off his list of programs with JCAHO accreditation. I wonder why? The PV school received SACS accreditation in 2004-05, very recently. Despite the SACS blessing, what my daughter described was a study hall style of school, with the kids doing open-book work. Once again, it's an example of looking damned good on paper, but in reality it's a sham. I've often wondered what PV tells parents when asked about Chemistry Lab areas...
-
A lively contributor to the PV pool listed with a link at the top of the page.
http://www.strugglingteens.com/lr/Tenne ... index.html (http://www.strugglingteens.com/lr/Tennessee/Parent_Support/Educational_Consultant-Referrals/index.html)
-
http://www.state.tn.us/sos/rules/1200/1200-08/1200-08-17.pdf
Thanks, but those are for Drug Rehabs. I was looking for the regs for RTCs/Wilderness, which can be found here:
http://www.state.tn.us/sos/rules/0250/0 ... -04-05.pdf (http://www.state.tn.us/sos/rules/0250/0250-04/0250-04-05.pdf)
-
From the 2nd annual NW Industry Get-to-Gether
Other sites (most being anonymous with no indication of who is behind the site or their experience or credentials) use slick marketing techniques to gain parents trust and then sell them on specific schools that will be advantageous to the site’sowners. Often these sites are are experts at telling parents what they want to hear, but make their money on some variation of “cash-for-kidsâ€
-
Then there are some sites who only talk about the bad experiences, and accept only negative comments, accusing all other viewpoints of being on the take, naïve, or dishonest.
Looks like somebody's troll got shot down.
-
Hey.
If these places are as good as they said they are, why wouldn't the regulate themselves before having to bring up the concept of self regulation?'
:roll:
-
Bump
-
Bump
-
Judge unseals Swan Valley report
By JOHN S. ADAMS Tribune Capitol Bureau
HELENA — A Lewis and Clark County District Court judge on Wednesday released a long sought after report detailing a 2006 state child abuse and neglect investigation into a now-defunct privately run residential treatment center for teen boys.
In the Child and Family Services report, the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services "substantiates" physical abuse, physical neglect and psychological abuse of children at Swan Valley Youth Academy, a private, state-licensed military-style boot camp that closed in early 2006 amid allegations of abuse. The 22-page document offers new insights into the treatment of 14 youths who state investigators said were abused and neglected by staff at the facility.
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/apps/p ... /712130301 (http://www.greatfallstribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071213/NEWS01/712130301)
-
bump