Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => Public Sector Gulags => Topic started by: Antigen on January 15, 2010, 07:49:16 AM
-
This is starting to start sounding like some sense.
Report Finds Problems Plague State-run Juvenile Detention Centers
by Cindy Rodriguez
Download MP3 | Embed HTML
NEW YORK, NY December 14, 2009 —A report by a state task force recommended today that Gov. David Paterson close or significantly downsize state run juvenile detention facilities. A draft copy of the report obtained by WNYC, says the facilities are damaging young people and wasting taxpayer dollars.
Jeremy Travis, President of John Jay College of Criminal Justice, headed the task force and says the state must shift from a punitive approach to one that's therapeutic.
The report says 1,600 youth enter the facilities annually, costing the state about $200,000 a year per child. Travis says those resources should be reinvested in services for youth.
"This is a big challenge that we are laying at the doorstep of the state of New York here," he says. "Other states have made the shift and we have every confidence that New York State can make this transformation as well."
Upstate lawmakers and unions that represent facility employees adamantly oppose closing them down, and warn that sending troubled kids back into communities poses a public safety hazard.
The report comes as the state continues to negotiate an overhaul of facilities with the Department of Justice. A two year investigation by the DOJ revealed serious abuse of kids at four upstate facilities.
According to a court memo, the state agency overseeing detention facilities has already urged family court judges not to send kids to facilities unless they pose a danger. The memo outlines a serious lack of services to deal with mental health problems, substance abuse and educational needs.
The DOJ has investigated 100 youth facilities across 16 states and its currently monitoring 65 of them.
The report says 53 percent of kids in detention facilities are there for misdemeanor offenses, including shoplifting and assault.
http://www.wnyc.org/news/articles/146177 (http://www.wnyc.org/news/articles/146177)
-
This is starting to start sounding like some sense.
Well... I'll tell ya one thing. I bet the private prison contractors are salivating at the bit. Organizations like Youth Services International Inc. (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=29777) and Sequel Youth and Family Services (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=72&t=29764) are probably polishing up their bid submissions for management contracts as we speak. Getting involved in molding young minds and behaviors in the "schoolhouse to jailhouse" spectrum is big binnis.
I'm not sure that'll be an improvement.
-
This is from a long past conference on prison privatization, although I don't think much has changed, as far as which direction some would have the industry take:
"While arrests and convictions are steadily on the rise, profits are to be made - profits from crime. Get in on the ground floor of this booming industry now."
from an invitation to a World Research Group conference; Dallas, December 1996[/list]
Presenters on said investment opportunities included executives from Wackenhut, Correctional Services Corp, Avalon Community Services, Cornell Corrections, Youth Services International, Youth Track Inc, Children's Comprehensive Services and Res-Care Inc.[/list]
-
from the bowels of the nys government.... I would be shocked by a private takeover of our juvenile justice system, ala three springs. however, what is already happening is that youth are being diverted from our ocfs programs to non-profit residential programs licensed by ocfs. it's part of a steady trickle where youth who used to be served by rtcs are being served in the community, to fill the beds those rtcs are taking court referrals that would have been served by the facilities that they are considering closing.
-
Here's some more background to the OP...
See also: copy of the draft report (http://http://documents.nytimes.com/14juvenile#p=1) by the New York state task force
-------------- • -------------- • -------------- • --------------
The New York Times
New York Finds Extreme Crisis in Youth Prisons (http://http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/nyregion/14juvenile.html?ref=nyregion)
By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE
Published: December 13, 2009
ALBANY — New York's system of juvenile prisons is broken, with young people battling mental illness or addiction held alongside violent offenders in abysmal facilities where they receive little counseling, can be physically abused and rarely get even a basic education, according to a report by a state panel.
The problems are so acute that the state agency overseeing the prisons has asked New York's Family Court judges not to send youths to any of them unless they are a significant risk to public safety, recommending alternatives, like therapeutic foster care.
(http://http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/12/14/nyregion/14juvenile02/articleInline.jpg)
Violent offenders could be housed with young people in custody for lesser offenses, including truancy, the report said.
Robert Stolarik for The New York Times
"New York State's current approach fails the young people who are drawn into the system, the public whose safety it is intended to protect, and the principles of good governance that demand effective use of scarce state resources," said the confidential draft report (http://http://documents.nytimes.com/14juvenile#p=1), which was obtained by The New York Times.
The report, prepared by a task force appointed by Gov. David A. Paterson and led by Jeremy Travis, president of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, comes three months after a federal investigation found that excessive force was routinely used at four prisons, resulting in injuries as severe as broken bones and shattered teeth.
The situation was so serious the Department of Justice, which made the investigation, threatened to take over the system.
But according to the task force, the problems uncovered at the four prisons are endemic to the entire system, which houses about 900 young people at 28 facilities around the state.
While some prisons for violent and dangerous offenders should be preserved, the report calls for most to be replaced with a system of smaller centers closer to the communities where most of the families of the youths in custody live.
(http://http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/12/14/nyregion/14juvenile01/articleInline.jpg)
Family Court judges have been urged to send only dangerous youths to the juvenile prisons.
Robert Stolarik for The New York Times
The task force was convened in 2008 after years of complaints about the prisons, punctuated by the death in 2006 of an emotionally disturbed 15-year-old boy at one center after two workers pinned him to the ground. The task force's recommendations are likely to help shape the state's response to the federal findings.
"I was not proud of my state when I saw some of these facilities," Mr. Travis said in an interview on Friday. "New York is no longer the leader it once was in the juvenile justice field."
New York's juvenile prisons are both extremely expensive and extraordinarily ineffective, according to the report, which will be given to Mr. Paterson on Monday. The state spends roughly $210,000 per youth annually, but three-quarters of those released from detention are arrested again within three years. And though the median age of those admitted to juvenile facilities is almost 16, one-third of those held read at a third-grade level.
The prisons are meant to house youths considered dangerous to themselves or others, but there is no standardized statewide system for assessing such risks, the report found.
In 2007, more than half of the youths who entered detention centers were sent there for the equivalent of misdemeanor offenses, in many cases theft, drug possession or even truancy. More than 80 percent were black or Latino, even though blacks and Latinos make up less than half the state's total youth population — a racial disparity that has never been explained, the report said.
Many of those detained have addictions or psychological illnesses for which less restrictive treatment programs were not available. Three-quarters of children entering the juvenile justice system have drug or alcohol problems, more than half have had a diagnosis of mental health problems and one-third have developmental disabilities.
Yet there are only 55 psychologists and clinical social workers assigned to the prisons, according to the task force. And none of the facilities employ psychiatrists, who have the authority to prescribe the drugs many mentally ill teenagers require.
While 76 percent of youths in custody are from the New York City area, nearly all the prisons are upstate, and the youths' relatives, many of them poor, cannot afford frequent visits, cutting them off from support networks.
"These institutions are often sorely underresourced, and some fail to keep their young people safe and secure, let alone meet their myriad service and treatment needs," according to the report, which was based on interviews with workers and youths in custody, visits to prisons and advice from experts. "In some facilities, youth are subjected to shocking violence and abuse."
Even before the task force's report is released, the Paterson administration is moving to reduce the number of youths held in juvenile prisons.
Gladys Carrión, the commissioner of the Office of Children and Family Services, the agency that oversees the juvenile justice system, has recommended that judges find alternative placements for most young offenders, according to an internal memorandum issued Oct. 28 by the state's deputy chief administrative judge.
Ms. Carrión also advised court officials that New York would not contest the Justice Department findings, according to the memo, and that officials were negotiating a settlement agreement to remedy the system.
Peter E. Kauffmann, a spokesman for Mr. Paterson, said the governor "looks forward to receiving the recommendations of the task force as we continue our efforts to transform the state's juvenile justice system from a correctional-punitive model to a therapeutic model."
The report contends that smaller facilities would place less strain on workers, helping reduce the use of physical force, and would be better able to tailor rehabilitation programs.
New York is not unique in using its juvenile prisons to house mentally ill teenagers, particularly as many states confront huge budget shortfalls that have resulted in significant cuts to mental health programs. Still, some states are trying to shift to smaller, community-based programs.
The report by New York's task force does not say how much money would be needed to overhaul the system, but as Mr. Paterson and state lawmakers try to close a $3.2 billion deficit, cost could become a major hurdle.
Ms. Carrión has faced resistance from some prison workers, who accuse her of making them scapegoats for the system's problems and minimizing the dangerous conditions they face. State records show a significant spike in on-the-job injuries, for which some workers blame Ms. Carrión's efforts to limit the use of force.
"We embrace the idea of moving towards a more therapeutic model of care, but you can't do that without more training and more staff," said Stephen A. Madarasz, a spokesman for the Civil Service Employees Association, the union that represents prison workers. "You're not dealing with wayward youth. In the more secure facilities, you're dealing with individuals who have been involved in pretty serious crimes."
Advocates have credited Ms. Carrión, who was appointed in 2007 by former Gov. Eliot Spitzer, with instituting significant reforms, including installing cameras in some of the more troubled prisons and providing more counseling.
But the state has a long way to go, many advocates say.
"Even the kids that are not considered dangerous are shackled when they are being transferred from their homes to the centers upstate — hands and feet, sometimes even belly chains," said Clara Hemphill, a researcher and author of a report on the state's youth prisons published in October by the Center for New York City Affairs at the New School.
"It really is barbaric," she added, "the way they treat these kids."
A version of this article appeared in print on December 14, 2009, on page A1 of the New York edition.
Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company
-
Another article coming right on the heels of the one just previous; this one focusing on Gladys Carrión, the commissioner of the state Office of Children and Family Services:
-------------- • -------------- • -------------- • --------------
Official Hopes Prison Crisis May Spur Change (http://http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/16/nyregion/16carrion.html?fta=y)
By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE
Published: December 15, 2009
ALBANY — After a state task force delivered a withering indictment of New York's juvenile prisons, the head of the agency responsible for the prisons reacted by going on a publicity blitz — not to challenge the findings, but to promote them.
"It is a lever, and I think that is important," Gladys Carrión, the commissioner of the state Office of Children and Family Services, said Monday, in between an interview with a radio station and a meeting with the chairman of the task force. "Usually the lever is the death of a child, and I don't want to see that. If it takes this report to push through change, then good."
(http://http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/12/16/nyregion/16carrion_CA0/articleInline.jpg)
Gladys Carrión has the support of child-welfare advocates but draws criticism from unions representing workers at her agency.
Damon Winter/The New York Times
When Ms. Carrión, a lawyer and a former executive at the United Way, took over the department in 2007, her track record as a no-nonsense leader raised hopes that she could overhaul what was widely considered a broken system.
But after almost three years progress has been halting, and the task force, which was appointed by Gov. David A. Paterson last year, described a system rife with problems. Many of the youths at the state's 28 facilities have mental illnesses or drug addictions for which they get inadequate treatment, the report found. Many of those released from state custody are arrested and jailed again within a few years. And despite stringent rules imposed by Ms. Carrión dictating when staff can use physical force, abuse complaints are still common.
The United States Department of Justice, which highlighted serious physical abuse at four prisons in a separate report last summer, has threatened to take over the entire system if the problems are not fixed.
Ms. Carrión and her supporters — including juvenile justice experts and child welfare advocates — blame a combination of bureaucratic inertia, scarce state dollars, and resistance from unions and elected officials to closing or reducing the size of the prisons, many of which are in struggling upstate communities that need the jobs.
Ms. Carrión, 58, a blunt yet cheerful Bronx native who previously was a city community development official and worked as an executive at the United Way of New York City, said she embraced the task force report's findings in part because they revealed the magnitude of the work that remains.
"I have people on staff that have two, three, four, five cases of abuse or inappropriate restraint, and I can't get rid of them" because of civil-service rules, Ms. Carrión said. "I'm also the commissioner of child welfare. If you as a parent abuse your child, I take them away from you. Why is there a different standard for children that are in juvenile justice?"
But her critics, including the unions that represent agency workers, seized on the task force's findings on Monday to argue that Ms. Carrión was the problem.
"If things haven't improved in the three years she's been in this position, the governor should decide what's in the best interests of these kids," said Ken Brynien, the president of the New York State Public Employees Federation.
Some advocates believe there needs to be a greater sense of urgency because the future of many young people in the agency's care is at stake. "The system is turning in a new direction," the task force's report said, "but there is still much more to be done."
Ms. Carrión acknowledged that she needed to do better.
Asked what her biggest failure had been, she did not hesitate before answering.
"My greatest disappointment continues to be the number of restraints in my system — that we still have a correctional model where kids get hurt," she said. "The worst day for me always is when I go visit a facility. I see these children, and it kills me. I grew up in the same communities that these kids come from. I see our future."
Still, she has aggressively downsized the system of state-run youth prisons and diverted resources to community-based care: smaller group facilities located closer to a youth's family that emphasize psychological counseling and rehabilitation, with longer-term residential prisons reserved for the truly dangerous.
"She believes, and I am a proponent as well, that in New York State we have historically overvalued institutional care for the juvenile delinquent population," said Bill Baccaglini, executive director of the New York Foundling, a private child welfare agency, and a former senior official at the Office of Children and Family Services.
Ms. Carrión has closed 11 facilities and has cut the population in the detention facilities by about 50 percent. Cameras have been installed to protect the workers and the youths in custody, Ms. Carrión said.
Workers are required to report every instance in which they use physical restraint, and Ms. Carrión receives a weekly summary. "I read them, and I think everybody holds their breath," she said. "Because if it goes up, they hear from me."
But many workers have resisted the changes, arguing that limits on physical force have put them at risk, pointing to a rise in workplace injuries among agency employees. They also argue that Ms. Carrión underestimates the danger that many youths in custody pose to themselves and others, and that community-based programs are not equipped to handle them.
"The youth are there because they have committed crimes," Mr. Brynien said. "Many of them pled down from violent crimes. Some of them are larger than the staff, some are involved in gangs. To portray them as children who are locked away and shouldn't be is a very oversimplified view."
Despite the harsh spotlight on her agency, Ms. Carrión still seems to have the support of her boss, Governor Paterson, who praised the task force's report as well as Ms. Carrión, saying she "has done everything possible to provide better care for the mentally disabled."
Ms. Carrión's efforts may get a boost when the state finishes negotiating a plan to address the problems in its juvenile justice system with the Department of Justice, which could compel the agency to institute a more aggressive overhaul.
"This is like a huge ship," Ms. Carrión said. "Trying to turn it around is very difficult."
A version of this article appeared in print on December 16, 2009, on page A36 of the New York edition.
Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company
-
This move to the “Missouri model” will be a great step for all the more serious juvy offenders who are placed into programs through the justice system and the acknowledgment that one of the keys to success is a smooth transition back into society is encouraging. Moving from the present "state run facility" mentality to one that is more closely modeled after the private sector will not only reduce costs by 50% or more for tax payers but will reduce the rate at which these kids end up back in front of a judge. They are local and also provide a therapy component, although I know that many here are opposed to any therapy which is not voluntary. This is a step up from the existing programs, especially in the state of New York where I heard the places were terrible.
For those families who can afford an alternative the private Therapeutic boarding schools will still be a better option because the majority of these kids are not serious offenders and also can avoid getting a record which could affect college acceptance in many cases.
But whether the crimes are serious or not the kids need to be taken off the streets. The judges have no other choice in this matter.
...
-
They are local and also provide a therapy component, although I know that many here are opposed to any therapy which is not voluntary. This is a step up from the existing programs, especially in the state of New York where I heard the places were terrible.
For those families who can afford an alternative the private Therapeutic boarding schools will still be a better option because the majority of these kids are not serious offenders and also can avoid getting a record which could affect college acceptance in many cases.
But whether the crimes are serious or not the kids need to be taken off the streets. The judges have no other choice in this matter.
You either knowingly contradict yourself or you have no idea what you're talking about.
1) Juvenile records are expunged. They should have no impact on college admissions. The only impact that a juvenile court record might have when it comes to college admission is what the name of the school on the high school transcript says. Yeah, go ahead and play on parents' fear.
2) The New York State OCFS facilities are terrible, we also have lots of other RTC's and one TBS in our state that are also terrible. All different kinds of terrible, but terrible none the less.
3) What makes the difference in the Missouri model is something that no therapeutic boarding school does to my knowledge, is that they keep kids in their communities, and allow them to have regular interactions with their families. For the private industry to even approach what Missouri does, they would have to build small group home like settings in the areas that they recruit their families from. Don't go praising the Missouri model on one hand and then praising it's polar opposite on the other.
-
You either knowingly contradict yourself or you have no idea what you're talking about.
Neither, I understand your sensitivity to the subject but you have to be intimately familiar with the industry from a standpoint other than having attended a program to understand. Here are the bases for my original thinking:
1) Juvenile records are expunged. They should have no impact on college admissions. The only impact that a juvenile court record might have when it comes to college admission is what the name of the school on the high school transcript says. Yeah, go ahead and play on parents' fear.
They “Should” have no impact but they do. Having a name like “Academy at Swift River” as the present name of your highschool vs. a New York State detention center makes a big difference to the college acceptance board. I think we can all agree here. Believe me they will find a reason to reject you.
2) The New York State OCFS facilities are terrible, we also have lots of other RTC's and one TBS in our state that are also terrible. All different kinds of terrible, but terrible none the less.
Exactly, I hear you on this one, that’s why New York is looking outside their State for solutions.
3) What makes the difference in the Missouri model is something that no therapeutic boarding school does to my knowledge, is that they keep kids in their communities, and allow them to have regular interactions with their families. For the private industry to even approach what Missouri does, they would have to build small group home like settings in the areas that they recruit their families from. Don't go praising the Missouri model on one hand and then praising it's polar opposite on the other.
No, the therapeutic Boarding Schools are not local that is one of their drawbacks. But they do offer therapy in a group setting and also one on one. They typically have a better staff to student ratio than state run facilities and most have an effective transitional program for when the kids move back into society (as a couple of examples). On the other hand Missouri model doesn’t have the freedom to prescreen the kids who enter their program to the point that private TBS’s can which is why Private TBS’s maintain a high success rate. Also, sometimes removing the child from the family setting is exactly what is needed in cases where the family setting is abusive and the Missouri model would not be very effective here. So we need to look at the possible solutions from many vantage points to determine success. They each have their strengths and weaknesses.
...
-
Once again as I posted over the thread concerning the Missouri. Most 95% of these kids are not from middle or upper class lets just get honest. They don't have many options of getting sophisticated thraputic help especially w/ the family.
Which in most cases is one parent and maybe a grandparent. The ethic group is not always minority, I was one of these cases and I am as white as a "Gandorf the White". It is the crimes that brought us all together in these institutions.
Treatment centers today are not taking these cases as much today b/cuz of liability, not b/cuz they don't want them....shit they would take them in a heart beat lock them down just to get there hands on that steady cash flow from the states.
Remember Elan we took these cases back in the 70's, this is the only time I know about could have been more years there....75-78.....rapist,molesters, man slaughter, atempted murders, car theft/jacking, kidnapping, severe mental diseases, eating disorders, autism,drug/alcohole addicts and cases I can't even get into until I understand more of the legal process here. What I can say is we wharehoused them. Until consequences came, frustrations w/staff for being unable to deal w/these cases so on and so forth, we kno the drill.
Now I will say this going to Elan vice staying in juvie in 1975 was a no brainer go to Elan....Juvie was violently insane...Elan was just insane.
I applaude Missouri for making the effort to take my kin folk (young criminals) and w/ whatever family they can scrap up
and try w/ a sincere sophisticated educational/treatment system, to help these folks.
-
...On the other hand Missouri model doesn't have the freedom to prescreen the kids who enter their program to the point that private TBS's can which is why Private TBS's maintain a high success rate.
While I'm not in Missouri, it would appear that their state programs screen on the basis of whether or not the kid has committed an actual crime, by virtue of what those programs are for. A kid who will not be helped by that system is unlikely to be there. *
TBSs, on the other hand, screen strictly on the basis of whether or not a parent can pay! Consequently, there are many kids who really do need some help ... mixed in with kids who just pissed their parents off or offended their sensibilities. This helps no one, save for the folks whose pockets get lined. And I beg to differ on that "high success rate," lol...
Also, sometimes removing the child from the family setting is exactly what is needed in cases where the family setting is abusive and the Missouri model would not be very effective here.
I think you are dead wrong here. From what I've read, the counselors in Missouri attempt to address the reasons for the kids' having headed down the path they did, which, in many cases, is abusive home settings. Here, listen to the 4:20 clip from NPR:
NPR: Missouri Youth Prisons (http://http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1127713) · Listen to this Real Player news clip that explains how Missouri's Juvenile Justice System differs from the juvenile systems in other states.
August 21, 2001 · Morning Edition
Matt Hackworth of member station KCUR has a report on the Missouri juvenile justice system -- while over 70 percent of kids housed in conventional jails nationwide end up back behind bars, in Missouri that figure is only 11 percent. State officials credit their juvenile justice system, which emphasizes counseling and rehabilitation.[/list][/list]
Whereas in the other corner, while no longer actually physically residing in an abusive home helps in some cases, TBSs rarely address the reasons for that abuse in any meaningful fashion. They definitely stop short of the point where it might affect their funding source! Plus, in many cases, the abuse that subsequently happens at a TBS is even worse than the abuse which was happening at home. Gotta wonder just how meaningful this kind of "preparation for life" is for anyone.
* See also this thread on the Missouri model:
Commentary: Lock up teen criminals?
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=29834 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=29834)[/list][/size]
-
While I'm not in Missouri, it would appear that their state programs screen on the basis of whether or not the kid has committed an actual crime, by virtue of what those programs are for. A kid who will not be helped by that system is unlikely to be there. *
TBSs, on the other hand, screen strictly on the basis of whether or not a parent can pay! Consequently, there are many kids who really do need some help ... mixed in with kids who just pissed their parents off or offended their sensibilities. This helps no one, save for the folks whose pockets get lined. And I beg to differ on that "high success rate," lol...
If I remember your past correctly you never had to go through the process of choosing an appropriate placement. I believe this was done for you. I also think you represent the predominate view here on fornits. TBS’s that I have been exposed to will not take kids unless they feel they can be successful or refer them to programs that they feel could help them if they cannot. I know many programs which will not take specific kids if they are too violent, have a long history of depression, suicide, eating disorders etc. no matter how much money they have. Each program may have differing strengths which is what is making them more successful.
In Missouri, like you said, if the kid commits a crime he is placed regardless of whether or not they are equipped to deal with each specific cause. The private sector has the flexibility to do a better job of screening for success, which they do.
I think you are dead wrong here. From what I've read, the counselors in Missouri attempt to address the reasons for the kids' having headed down the path they did, which, in many cases, is abusive home settings. Here, listen to the 4:20 clip from NPR:
I don’t think I said Missouri ignores the problem. My point was that some kids need to be away from the family setting if it is abusive.
Whereas in the other corner, while no longer actually physically residing in an abusive home helps in some cases, TBSs rarely address the reasons for that abuse in any meaningful fashion.
If a TBS takes on the case of a child in an abusive household then that is the problem they are going to address. Anyone who has been through the process knows that the strength of TBS’s is repairing family relations. From what I have read I don’t think Elan has this reputation which shows that not all programs are the same.
They definitely stop short of the point where it might affect their funding source!
I think Nigel is a good example that this isn’t the norm. I am sure it happens though because it is a business and some would take advantage of the situation. Almost every program I have seen has a predetermined end date which they target fairly closely.
Plus, in many cases, the abuse that subsequently happens at a TBS is even worse than the abuse which was happening at home. Gotta wonder just how meaningful this kind of "preparation for life" is for anyone.
We both know that abuse occurs in the state run agencies also. It occurs everywhere, we could all toss up examples public or private. But I think it is a feather in the private TBS’s hat that the state run facilities are starting to model their programs after the private sector by introducing a softer and more therapeutic approach to helping these children instead of just locking them up and abusing them.
...
-
But I think it is a feather in the private TBS’s hat that the state run facilities are starting to model their programs after the private sector by introducing a softer and more therapeutic approach to helping these children instead of just locking them up and abusing them.
:roflmao:
Who's kidding who (no pun intended).
On paper do you think even the programs in New York State are about punishment? They are called Residential Treatment Centers. The problem is the culture of the programs. Much like many of the private programs, where adults feel entitled to do whatever it is in there judgment will be helpful to the youth that they serve, whether that means sexualized role play, electric shocks, confrontational group therapy, making everyone in the program admit that they are an addict even if they've never used drugs, boxing rings, giving kids eight different kinds of powerful anti-psychotics, it's power run amok. As long as you look at youth as having deficits that need to be fixed in a coercive fashion instead of strengths that need to be built on in a collaborative fashion, abuse will happen.
-
Who's kidding who (no pun intended).
On paper do you think even the programs in New York State are about punishment? They are called Residential Treatment Centers. The problem is the culture of the programs. Much like many of the private programs, where adults feel entitled to do whatever it is in there judgment will be helpful to the youth that they serve, whether that means sexualized role play, electric shocks, confrontational group therapy, making everyone in the program admit that they are an addict even if they've never used drugs, boxing rings, giving kids eight different kinds of powerful anti-psychotics, it's power run amok. As long as you look at youth as having deficits that need to be fixed in a coercive fashion instead of strengths that need to be built on in a collaborative fashion, abuse will happen.
I very much doubt that New York will model their new approached based on those methods. I think you will see that they will take a softer more therapeutic approach. We can be assured that they will not try to incorporate the strategies which have failed, when designing a new system from the floor up. The approach is to look at what has worked and what has not worked and I think what we will see is that they will model their new system around the Missouri system and the positive aspects of the private TBS’s. I very much doubt they will adopt a model which includes electric shocks, sexualized role playing and feeding them various anti-psychotic drugs.
I realize the perception of TBS, here on fornts, is that kids get electric shocked and sexually abused and force feed medications etc. (on a daily basis, lol). I would probably think that too if all my information was derived from fornits. But the reality is that the industry is very successful and the public sector has sat up and taken notice of the progress and adopted similar programs (As we see Missouri did).
If fornits was dedicated to exposing corruption within, say, the “public school system” we would all be lead to believe that football coaches run every kid to death, every teacher is out to rape all the kids, the suicide rate is thru the roof and Columbine is your typical high school and you need to carry a weapon to survive. So I understand why you have the perception that you do. You are only seeing a small piece of the information.
...
-
Missouri is still a very lax state when it comes to laws that apply to children. If I am not mistaken, Missouri is one of the few states where children are allowed to restrain other children in state public and privately owned programs.
@ Whooter, It is not the success of these programs that people are witnessing, it is the "illusion" of success that is purported by these programs. Please correct me if I am wrong. Which program, particularly, would you say is successful?
I believe children are force fed medications on a daily basis in programs across the country. I have talked to many of the "recently released" and stories of this. I believe that children receive electro-shock "treatment" daily at the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center in Massachusetts, which is no secret. As for sexual abuse, I believe the loose regulations within this industry allow for many types of abuse to go unseen and therefore do not think it is unlikely that children are sexually abused daily in these programs. To trivialize these terrible things by acting as if they do not occur or to imply that they do not occur as frequently as people opine is to miss the point entirely.
-
Missouri is still a very lax state when it comes to laws that apply to children. If I am not mistaken, Missouri is one of the few states where children are allowed to restrain other children in state public and privately owned programs.
@ Whooter, It is not the success of these programs that people are witnessing, it is the "illusion" of success that is purported by these programs. Please correct me if I am wrong. Which program, particularly, would you say is successful?
I have seen 100% turn around on kids going thru a program and they continue on a healthy path..... I have seen 80% and 60%..... No illusions.....I have also read (here on fornits) about kids who were not as fortunate. I have been exposed to and therefore am able to see the larger picture where you seem to only have information about a small sub set of kids who come out of programs. Just because these other kids dont post on fornits doesnt mean they do not exist. I think we can all agree that fornits doesnt represent an even cross section of kids who attended programs.
I believe children are force fed medications on a daily basis in programs across the country. I have talked to many of the "recently released" and stories of this. I believe that children receive electro-shock "treatment" daily at the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center in Massachusetts, which is no secret. As for sexual abuse, I believe the loose regulations within this industry allow for many types of abuse to go unseen and therefore do not think it is unlikely that children are sexually abused daily in these programs. To trivialize these terrible things by acting as if they do not occur or to imply that they do not occur as frequently as people opine is to miss the point entirely.
I guess my point above is that not all kids are force fed meds in programs, sexually abused or shocked. just like not all kids are raped by their teachers in public school. The Missouri model is not going to be immune to these types of problems either. Predators have a way of getting into the system. But the steps being taken by the state of NY are good ones in my opinion and the Missouri model and private sector models (or hybrid) are going to prove to be a much safer alternative to what they have today. I think this is an area where we can all agree.
...
-
I grant that I came up with the most sensationalist examples that I could think of. But they all tie back to a specific program where the abuse/mistreatment/maltreatment is/was part of the "treatment".
Some of these methods have been discredited and until recently they still have happened behind closed doors (Mount Bachelor Academy). Some of these methods have been discredited and they happen in full view (Judge Rotenberg Center). Some of these methods are no longer used, but the people who used these methods have not expressed any public remorse for using those methods, or doubt their own judgment in using them, and are still working with youth (Family Foundation School, Elan).
There are different levels of critique here. There are programs whose programming is abusive (Mount Bachelor Academy). There are programs who have policies and systemic deficiencies that will inevitably lead to abuse (New York State's juvenile justice programs). There are programs that due to a lack of community integration and community oversight are more likely to attract employees who are likely to abuse kids (Bromley Brook). There are programs that may not legally abuse kids but are expensive and ineffective, and are effectively committing fraud, by selling the mental health equivalent of Airborne and claiming it actually cures colds (name your program).
In making some reasonable and fair critiques of these issues, in my encounters so far with the industry, I have run into programs who are receptive to these criticisms and are trying to make changes, and I have run into programs who are comfortable doing business as usual.
And the truth is, there's very little in the mental health and substance abuse world that we do that we know works. The one thing that seems to have evidence behind it, is that the shorter the duration of the program and the more community integrated that program can be, the better the outcomes. If the privately run programs want to move towards this model more power to them. It won't be as profitable, but it'll actually serve the youth they work with better. Is there a private program out there like the Missouri JJ model that serves youth from that youth's community, and only for a limited period of time?
-
It seems we agree that when designing a new model that it would be best to avoid those programs which failed to deliver what they promised (as you pointed out above) and that is what the Missouri Model did…
“ The state of Missouri changed its juvenile prison system into a new, more effective model that looks something like a series of therapeutic boarding schools…………They often do therapeutic work in peer groups, where they open up about their pasts, family traumas, and other problems. If they adhere to rules, they receive rewards in the form of visits home, field trips, and other freedoms.
In 2006, only 7% of Missouri teens who finished the therapeutic program were in adult prisons within three years. This compares to 75% in New York and California. No Missouri teens have committed suicide since the overhaul of the system. Nationally, more than 25 teens within juvenile systems kill themselves every year.
"This isn't rocket science," said Mark Steward, director of Missouri's Division of Youth Services. "It's about giving young people structure, love and attention, and not allowing them to hurt themselves or other people. Pretty basic stuff, really."
What Missouri did was take from their research into TBS’s and other privately run programs what was working and that is their small staff to student ratio, therapeutic component, transition back into the community support and a focus on family to name a few.
The same would apply if you were going to start a new charter school you would look at and research what works well in other schools public and private but would not consider what was not effective thereby making a stronger more effective school.
As far as length of stay I don’t see how a shortened stay can increase effectiveness. It’s the quality of the stay that is important and the Missouri model doesn’t guarantee a short stay. The stay is determined by how well the kids apply themselves. TBS’s maintain profitability very well with shorter stays. The key is to keep the beds filled and as one student graduates another is accepted into the program. If you have a program with 150 beds then keeping them filled is the ultimate goal to profitability not how long they are there.
...
-
Missouri is a state run facility...no money (per say)....comes from the state allocating funds....paperwork.
Paralell w/ juvie institutions...this is why I think it is revolutionary....now humans have self-will we can
only hope that the ones holding the "keys to the castle" don't become self-centered or the next Gov.
thinks there are getting to much funding.
-
When you write "I think we can all agree" repeatedly, that doesn't mean that we all agree and it doesn't make your opinion any more valid.
How is therapy better than general counseling sessions where the children don't have to rely on a reward/punishment system to advance? A visit home should not be a reward.
And no, it isn't rocket science....the human mind and factors contributing to behavior is much more complicated than rocket science.
Peer groups are an innappropriate venue to open up about PRIVATE traumas and family issues.
If you can't provide an example of a specific program that you consider to be successful, for whatever reason, I don't know how to discuss what models might be successful or detrimental. I don't have the knowledge base to discuss every positive and negative concerning program methods and their efficacy.
Blombrowski has listed a few programs that have serious issues, it would be productive to list a few that seem to be on the right track (in your opinion).
-
When you write "I think we can all agree" repeatedly, that doesn't mean that we all agree and it doesn't make your opinion any more valid.
What I try to look at is your point of view and my own and see if there are any areas in which we have consensus. If it bothers you that I point this out I will stop.
How is therapy better than general counseling sessions where the children don't have to rely on a reward/punishment system to advance? A visit home should not be a reward.
Our whole society is based on a reward/ punishment system. The Missouri Model uses this also and has seen great results so far.
And no, it isn't rocket science....the human mind and factors contributing to behavior is much more complicated than rocket science.
I think what the director of youth service meant was that there are a few basic components of the Missouri Model which make it successful… Structure love and attention. I don’t think he was trying to make a direct comparison. He was Just saying that it is not that difficult.
Peer groups are an innappropriate venue to open up about PRIVATE traumas and family issues.
I disagree with you especially if they can place people in groups which have similar experiences. The Missouri Model has seen success so far in this approach as have the Therapeutic Boarding Schools.
If you can't provide an example of a specific program that you consider to be successful, for whatever reason, I don't know how to discuss what models might be successful or detrimental. I don't have the knowledge base to discuss every positive and negative concerning program methods and their efficacy.
Blombrowski has listed a few programs that have serious issues, it would be productive to list a few that seem to be on the right track (in your opinion).
I would rather not list names of Programs here for obvious reasons. But if you look at the shift from a large prison type system (like Missouri had) to a smaller more therapeutic setting modeled after TBS with its peer groups and group therapy with reward systems and then see the results that only 7% ended up back in prison after 3 years vs 75% in the old system its not hard to see that it has been a successful change.
...
-
When you write "I think we can all agree" repeatedly, that doesn't mean that we all agree and it doesn't make your opinion any more valid.
How is therapy better than general counseling sessions where the children don't have to rely on a reward/punishment system to advance? A visit home should not be a reward.
And no, it isn't rocket science....the human mind and factors contributing to behavior is much more complicated than rocket science.
Peer groups are an innappropriate venue to open up about PRIVATE traumas and family issues.
If you can't provide an example of a specific program that you consider to be successful, for whatever reason, I don't know how to discuss what models might be successful or detrimental. I don't have the knowledge base to discuss every positive and negative concerning program methods and their efficacy.
Blombrowski has listed a few programs that have serious issues, it would be productive to list a few that seem to be on the right track (in your opinion).
You are associated with HEAL. What ideas do HEAL members think will change abusive programs and other juvenile justice programs? It is easy to say, "Shut abusive programs down". However, these programs resurface elsewhere in the United States.
-
It seems we agree that when designing a new model that it would be best to avoid those programs which failed to deliver what they promised (as you pointed out above) and that is what the Missouri Model did…
“ The state of Missouri changed its juvenile prison system into a new, more effective model that looks something like a series of therapeutic boarding schools…………They often do therapeutic work in peer groups, where they open up about their pasts, family traumas, and other problems. If they adhere to rules, they receive rewards in the form of visits home, field trips, and other freedoms.
In 2006, only 7% of Missouri teens who finished the therapeutic program were in adult prisons within three years. This compares to 75% in New York and California. No Missouri teens have committed suicide since the overhaul of the system. Nationally, more than 25 teens within juvenile systems kill themselves every year.
"This isn't rocket science," said Mark Steward, director of Missouri's Division of Youth Services. "It's about giving young people structure, love and attention, and not allowing them to hurt themselves or other people. Pretty basic stuff, really."
What Missouri did was take from their research into TBS’s and other privately run programs what was working and that is their small staff to student ratio, therapeutic component, transition back into the community support and a focus on family to name a few.
The same would apply if you were going to start a new charter school you would look at and research what works well in other schools public and private but would not consider what was not effective thereby making a stronger more effective school.
As far as length of stay I don’t see how a shortened stay can increase effectiveness. It’s the quality of the stay that is important and the Missouri model doesn’t guarantee a short stay. The stay is determined by how well the kids apply themselves. TBS’s maintain profitability very well with shorter stays. The key is to keep the beds filled and as one student graduates another is accepted into the program. If you have a program with 150 beds then keeping them filled is the ultimate goal to profitability not how long they are there.
...
The numbers from the blue (quoted) section in Whooter's post didn't exactly compare with numbers I've read about thus far, so I googled them...
Moreover, the comparison of the Missouri model with therapeutic boarding schools struck me as odd.
None of the material coming out of Missouri or describing that system seems to use that particular descriptive or those "relapse rate" percentages.
·
·
·
Well... here's the actual source of Whooter's quote, one of a myriad of "teen help" spam sites:
http://www.teen-help-directory.com/miss ... hools.html (http://www.teen-help-directory.com/missouri-reforms-schools.html)
I noticed that the "article" appeared right alongside a "featured program" description of Academy at Swift River. :D
-
Network Solutions whois info for teen-help-directory.com (http://http://www.networksolutions.com/whois-search/teen-help-directory.com):
Domain Services Provided By:
000domains, http://www.000domains.com (http://www.000domains.com)
Registrant:
Aspen Education Group
17777 Center Court Dr
Suite 300
Cerritos, CA 90703
US
Registrar: 000DOM
Domain Name: TEEN-HELP-DIRECTORY.COM
Created on: 01-NOV-02
Expires on: 01-NOV-10
Last Updated on: 15-OCT-07
Administrative, Technical Contact:
Hobbins, Mark [email protected]
Aspen Education Group
17777 Center Court Dr
Suite 300
Cerritos, CA 90703
US
1.5624675526
Domain servers in listed order:
NS.RACKSPACE.COM
NS2.RACKSPACE.COM
End of Whois Information
-
The numbers from the blue (quoted) section in Whooter's post didn't exactly compare with numbers I've read about thus far, so I googled them...
Moreover, the comparison of the Missouri model with therapeutic boarding schools struck me as odd.
None of the material coming out of Missouri or describing that system seems to use that particular descriptive or those "relapse rate" percentages.
Well... here's the actual source of Whooter's quote, one of a myriad of "teen help" spam sites:
http://www.teen-help-directory.com/miss ... hools.html (http://www.teen-help-directory.com/missouri-reforms-schools.html)
I noticed that the "article" appeared right alongside a "featured program" description of Academy at Swift River. :D
I think you consider it spam because it doesnt agree with you and that is okay. But if the numbers or portions of the article seem off to you then post what you have. Its always good to compare the figures from different sources, maybe the director of youth services and others are not getting their figures straight. That would be good to know. I noticed the ASR ad also and thought they had updated their logo on recent ads. This one seemed a little dated to me, but it did pop out.
A drop from 75% down to 7% seems large to me also. I know that the TBS industry has experienced these success rates but to see it drop so easily for kids who are coming out of a prison environment (like the Missouri model) is a huge success in my mind. Dropping the heavy hand for a more therapeutic approach does seem to be the answer, though.
...
-
A drop from 75% down to 7% seems large to me also. I know that the TBS industry has experienced these success rates but to see it drop so easily for kids who are coming out of a prison environment (like the Missouri model) is a huge success in my mind. Dropping the heavy hand for a more therapeutic approach does seem to be the answer, though.
Hey, ya might just try reading the previous page (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=29831#p355658) of this here very thread, although I know ya did post in it...
Here are the stats that I see cited, I haven't seen the figures you cite anywhere save that "teen help" snake oil ad:
NPR: Missouri Youth Prisons (http://http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1127713) · Listen to this Real Player news clip that explains how Missouri's Juvenile Justice System differs from the juvenile systems in other states.
August 21, 2001 · Morning Edition
Matt Hackworth of member station KCUR has a report on the Missouri juvenile justice system -- while over 70 percent of kids housed in conventional jails nationwide end up back behind bars, in Missouri that figure is only 11 percent. State officials credit their juvenile justice system, which emphasizes counseling and rehabilitation.[/list][/list]
Moreover, how does one interpret "small dormitory-style facilities, free of bars and perimeter fences" as being equivalent to "therapeutic boarding schools?"
Seems the Aspen folk are getting kinda loose and slothful with their advertising standards here!
-
Wow, your tough on people....Here, this is why the numbers are different.
Your source:
In 2001, over 70 percent of kids housed in conventional jails nationwide end up back behind bars, in Missouri that figure is only 11 percent.
My source:
In 2006, only 7% of Missouri teens who finished the therapeutic program were in adult prisons within three years. This compares to 75% in New York and California. No Missouri teens have committed suicide since the overhaul of the system. Nationally, more than 25 teens within juvenile systems kill themselves every year.
It seems your figure was 5 years earlier and refers to a nationwide average of 70% and that Missouri is experiencing an 11% return rate at that time.
My figure speaks to New York and California with 75% and 7% in Missouri.
So looking at both our numbers it seems the Missouri model has been improved over the 5 years from 11% return rate down to 7%. I find looking at many sources valuable. With the addition of your source we can see that they are both in line with each other. It would be interesting to see if they have been able to improve upon the 7% since 2006.
Moreover, how does one interpret "small dormitory-style facilities, free of bars and perimeter fences" as being equivalent to "therapeutic boarding schools?"
I think it goes beyond the physical set-up. The Missouri model has incorporated a therapy component into their rehabilitation and focuses more on family and getting them involved. The Staff to child ratio has been brought more in line with therapeutic boarding schools and they focus on an easier transition back into society.
...
-
Moreover, how does one interpret "small dormitory-style facilities, free of bars and perimeter fences" as being equivalent to "therapeutic boarding schools?"
I think it goes beyond the physical set-up. The Missouri model has incorporated a therapy component into their rehabilitation and focuses more on family and getting them involved. The Staff to child ratio has been brought more in line with therapeutic boarding schools and they focus on an easier transition back into society.
I'm just going by what your "informative" source wrote, namely (emphasis added):
Missouri Reforms Its Reform Schools to a More Effective Therapeutic Model (http://http://www.teen-help-directory.com/missouri-reforms-schools.html)
The state of Missouri changed its juvenile prison system into a new, more effective model that looks something like a series of therapeutic boarding schools...[/list]
While we're on the subject of "more effective therapeutic models," do tell us what is so "therapeutic" about going through Aspen's Lifesteps, experiential exercises based in part on those used in the psychologically destructive LGAT Lifespring?
Given how coercive and damaging many adults found Lifespring's methodology to be, what makes you think it would be anything but more so for adolescents?
-
You two can rumble for 15 more pages. What is the solution to the problem in state facilities?
So far the discussion has lead us to following what the state of Missouri did which was to drop the heavy hand and cell doors for a more therapeutic approach which seems to be working.
@ Ursus : Oh boy, your asking the wrong guy on that one. I don’t have a background in therapy. I know first hand that sitting in a Russian style sauna in the winter time and then jumping into the snow or icy pond is extremely therapeutic but I couldn’t explain the details of why it works. It just does.
...
-
@ Ursus : Oh boy, your asking the wrong guy on that one. I don’t have a background in therapy. I know first hand that sitting in a Russian style sauna in the winter time and then jumping into the snow or icy pond is extremely therapeutic but I couldn’t explain the details of why it works. It just does.
Aah but can you prove it works? Just because something makes a person feel fantastic or changed or healthy does not make it so. The amount of popular snake oil and quackery out there in the market proves that. Something can only be said to objectively work or be therapeutic if it provide demonstratable, consistant, and repeatable results. That has never been done with the programs you support so highly. One would think given the amount of money in this industry that if these programs actually worked there would be some independent, peer reviewed studies out there, but there aren't. Why is that?
-
While we're on the subject of "more effective therapeutic models," do tell us what is so "therapeutic" about going through Aspen's Lifesteps, experiential exercises based in part on those used in the psychologically destructive LGAT Lifespring?
Given how coercive and damaging many adults found Lifespring's methodology to be, what makes you think it would be anything but more so for adolescents?
@ Ursus : Oh boy, your asking the wrong guy on that one. I don't have a background in therapy. I know first hand that sitting in a Russian style sauna in the winter time and then jumping into the snow or icy pond is extremely therapeutic but I couldn't explain the details of why it works. It just does.
I see... ;D
And this sauna experience works its way into your alleged credentials for touting the "beneficial" or "therapeutic" nature of TBSs ... HOW?
If you recall, you were the one who saw fit to broach the subject (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=29831&start=0#p355644) in this thread (about New York state juvies) with the following bit of advertising:
For those families who can afford an alternative the private Therapeutic boarding schools will still be a better option because the majority of these kids are not serious offenders and also can avoid getting a record which could affect college acceptance in many cases.[/list]
-
@ Ursus : Oh boy, your asking the wrong guy on that one. I don’t have a background in therapy. I know first hand that sitting in a Russian style sauna in the winter time and then jumping into the snow or icy pond is extremely therapeutic but I couldn’t explain the details of why it works. It just does.
Aah but can you prove it works? Just because something makes a person feel fantastic or changed or healthy does not make it so. The amount of popular snake oil and quackery out there in the market proves that. Something can only be said to objectively work or be therapeutic if it provide demonstratable, consistant, and repeatable results. That has never been done with the programs you support so highly. One would think given the amount of money in this industry that if these programs actually worked there would be some independent, peer reviewed studies out there, but there aren't. Why is that?
Oh, we have been through that psy. there are plenty of studies to support that programs are effective. But the ones that are independent are rejected here on fornits because of a previous employment to the industry or the results are not found to be popular so they are discarded out of hand or the published paper didnt have a sample size that suited everyone. We all know the drill..
So we can see that the only study to be accepted will have to be paid for by someone outside the industry and no one has volunteered yet. Cant blame the industry for that.
As for the russian sauna,I cannot prove it works (at least none that I can think of) but experiencing it first hand convinces me that it does.
...
-
And this sauna experience works its way into your alleged credentials for touting the "beneficial" or "therapeutic" nature of TBSs ... HOW?
Whoa, Ursus, you got some fur (or fir) across yer ass tonight? The TBS’s stand on their own. They don’t need the likes of me to tout them. The Sauna story was in response to knowing the therapeutic value of LGAT’s. I have no idea how to explain how they are effective because I have a background in engineering. I base my opinions on what I have read and the people I have met and first hand knowledge like most of the other posters here.
If you recall, you were the one who saw fit to broach the subject in this thread (about New York state juvies) with the following bit of advertising:
For those families who can afford an alternative the private Therapeutic boarding schools will still be a better option because the majority of these kids are not serious offenders and also can avoid getting a record which could affect college acceptance in many cases.
The Missouri Model was put in place to replace the existing "prison system". So if the parents can afford to send their kids to a private TBS and the kid isn’t a hardened criminal “and” the kid has a good shot at a decent college it would be advantageous to place him/her in a private institution. They both may be similar in effectiveness but colleges frown on accepting a kid into college from state juvy facilities (prisons).
I don’t see this as derailing the thread and I thought it was worth mentioning.
...
-
@ Ursus : Oh boy, your asking the wrong guy on that one. I don’t have a background in therapy. I know first hand that sitting in a Russian style sauna in the winter time and then jumping into the snow or icy pond is extremely therapeutic but I couldn’t explain the details of why it works. It just does.
Aah but can you prove it works? Just because something makes a person feel fantastic or changed or healthy does not make it so. The amount of popular snake oil and quackery out there in the market proves that. Something can only be said to objectively work or be therapeutic if it provide demonstratable, consistant, and repeatable results. That has never been done with the programs you support so highly. One would think given the amount of money in this industry that if these programs actually worked there would be some independent, peer reviewed studies out there, but there aren't. Why is that?
Oh, we have been through that psy. there are plenty of studies to support that programs are effective. But the ones that are independent are rejected here on fornits because of a previous employment to the industry or the results are not found to be popular so they are discarded out of hand or the published paper didnt have a sample size that suited everyone. We all know the drill..
Interesting tactic. Declare you've won without actually doing so. What studies might these be, Whooter? You say we've already been through this. For the benefit of those reading who haven't perhaps you can elaborate on which studies you are referring to. Might it be the Behrens study (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=28834&start=0) (read that link if you're new here)? Long story short: woman who did the story used to work at an aspen program and currently recommend and refers to them. That's hardly an independent source of information. She has a financial as well as an ideological interest in the outcome. Got anything better, or are you just here to assure the parents that the studies exist without actually showing them the hard evidence?
So we can see that the only study to be accepted will have to be paid for by someone outside the industry and no one has volunteered yet. Cant blame the industry for that.
As for the russian sauna,I cannot prove it works (at least none that I can think of) but experiencing it first hand convinces me that it does.
And I wouldn't contest since there is probably no great evidence to go either way. I would, however, have a problem if you marketed it to cure cancer, it didn't work, and after the patient dies you sit there, shrug your shoulders and go "well. I still believe it works". It's false advertising.
-
This is getting off topic but I’ll respond…
I checked your link and your first source is a random posting with no back up where you tried to show she was a clinical director… also I couldn’t find any evidence that she is currently referring to aspen programs. But even if she were you need to look at the time frame when the study was being done, not what she is doing today. What if a researcher joins one of the companies they researched? Does this invalidated their previous work? Of course not.
This is what I mean about the studies being accepted here. The study was conducted by “canyon Research” but since it doesn’t go along with your belief that programs are ineffective you wont consider the results and instead waste energy trying to discredit the results in an effort to keep your beliefs alive…… but like I said and your link shows we have been down this path already. This is an old discussion. (The people outside of fornits can rely on the studies)
So now that we see you dont accept any studies to date which show programs to be effective we will need to wait until someone outside the industry volunteers to fund a study.
Until that happens we will rely on the next best thing which is to speak to families which have had kids attend these programs, speak to and visit the programs themselves and consult professionals familiar with the industry to help guide us towards the better programs and solutions.
-
Oh, we have been through that psy. there are plenty of studies to support that programs are effective. But the ones that are independent are rejected here on fornits because of a previous employment to the industry or the results are not found to be popular so they are discarded out of hand or the published paper didn't have a sample size that suited everyone. We all know the drill. So we can see that the only study to be accepted will have to be paid for by someone outside the industry and no one has volunteered yet. Cant blame the industry for that.
Programs are rejected for several reasons. They are often rejected due to improper restraints, deaths, lack of medical care, poorly trained staff, lack of food, lack of water, poor living conditions, group sessions where children are forced to discuss personal issues, verbal abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse, censoring mail, physical restraint paperwork watered altered, excessive consequences, poor supervision, low staff to student ratio, lack of contact with parents, short telephone calls, lack of sleep during "marathon workshops", forced medication, lack of program oversight, staff with criminal records, poor education and dirty mind control tactics. What studies are you referring to? You speak as if you are very familiar with the industry. Am I correct or incorrect Whooter?
-
Comparing apples to oranges and using logical fallacies doesn't equal proof. Mixing up different states and models with numbers that may or may not be accurate or using the same criteria seems awfully loose and fast to be considered factual.
It is possible to "improve" the public juvenile facilities without turning them into "therapy programs". I would say, first stop the abuses occuring in these facilities (by staff and other inmates) and then give these children some basic schooling and job training. Why would they need therapy? If you want to diminish recidivism, (long term, and not judging by a supposed 3 year outlook) take a look at what blombrowski has offered as possible solutions.
@exposecedu... I am an individual. I am not to be confused with any conglomerate or organization when it comes to my personal views and opinions. I do not represent HEAL and vice versa. Also, I have decided to resign my coordinator status at HEAL and, for now, will not be working with that organization. As for what HEAL people think, I cannot offer any suggestions. You would have to ask them personally, but do ask them as individuals and not as a group.
-
Comparing apples to oranges and using logical fallacies doesn't equal proof. Mixing up different states and models with numbers that may or may not be accurate or using the same criteria seems awfully loose and fast to be considered factual.
It is possible to "improve" the public juvenile facilities without turning them into "therapy programs". I would say, first stop the abuses occuring in these facilities (by staff and other inmates) and then give these children some basic schooling and job training. Why would they need therapy? If you want to diminish recidivism, (long term, and not judging by a supposed 3 year outlook) take a look at what blombrowski has offered as possible solutions.
@exposecedu... I am an individual. I am not to be confused with any conglomerate or organization when it comes to my personal views and opinions. I do not represent HEAL and vice versa. Also, I have decided to resign my coordinator status at HEAL and, for now, will not be working with that organization. As for what HEAL people think, I cannot offer any suggestions. You would have to ask them personally, but do ask them as individuals and not as a group.
The Missouri model seems to be effective and strikes just the right balance utilizing therapy, schooling, job training and working to help ease their return into society and providing support once they get home. Whether you choose to call them therapy programs or TBS’s they seem to be very effective and are taking hold throughout the country and bear watching. Hopefully we can get some study results from the public sector which will help us to better understand how far reaching the success is.
I didn’t see where we were comparing apple and oranges. The two reports went a long ways to validate each other with both reporting return rates in the 70% range utilizing the old prison system and reporting 7 – 11% return rate utilizing the Missouri model. These are impressive numbers.
...
-
What studies are you referring to? You speak as if you are very familiar with the industry. Am I correct or incorrect Whooter?
Off the top of my head there was a study out of Colgate university and one by Canyon research...... A person who spent a year inside a program and wrote a book on his findings... and a few others. You wont find the studies to be a very popular topic here on fornits for many reasons. Yes, I have some experience with the industry but am not part of the industry or profit from it.
...
-
What studies are you referring to? You speak as if you are very familiar with the industry. Am I correct or incorrect Whooter?
Off the top of my head there was a study out of Colgate university and one by Canyon research...... A person who spent a year inside a program and wrote a book on his findings... and a few others. You wont find the studies to be a very popular topic here on fornits for many reasons. Yes, I have some experience with the industry but am not part of the industry or profit from it.
...
Can you elaborate on your role in the industry?
-
What studies are you referring to? You speak as if you are very familiar with the industry. Am I correct or incorrect Whooter?
Off the top of my head there was a study out of Colgate university and one by Canyon research...... A person who spent a year inside a program and wrote a book on his findings... and a few others. You wont find the studies to be a very popular topic here on fornits for many reasons. Yes, I have some experience with the industry but am not part of the industry or profit from it.
...
Can you elaborate on your role in the industry?
I had a daughter who attended Academy at Swift river (ASR) and have researched various aspects of the industry over the years..... Their short comings and strengths... successes and failures...
...
-
Back on topic - regarding New York efforts to embrace the Missouri Model.
Before anyone gets the wrong idea, I agree that the data that Missouri has is impressive, and that they have developed what an ideal juvenile justice system should look like.
The one major change that they have made that should be a no-brainer at this stage in history, is that large training schools/boot camps hundreds of miles away from home are ineffective and lead to bad outcomes.
I have questions about the data though. It's not clear what the 11% statistic is referring to. I've been trying to do research on it, and haven't been able to come up with the data source. My understandng is that the figure represents the number of youth who come into the juvenile justice system who re-enter the juvenile justice system within a year. The 11% I think includes every youth, those who don't receive services, those who end up in day treatment, those who end up in non-secure facilities, and those who end up in secure facilities. The system is effective, not necessarily the programs. And what the system seems to be particularly effective at, is sequestering and screening youth. Diverting youth with mental health conditions to psychiatric residential treatment centers, and only sending youth with serious conduct disorder issues to their facilities. Not that this is a bad thing, but it would be interesting to look at the entirety of the Missouri residential system of care to see how effective the whole system is on measures other than just short-term recidivism, before putting Missouri on a pedestal, which I am guilty of anyone as doing.
Regardless of the manipulation of the numbers, Missouri's numbers are better than New York's by any measure.
-
Back on topic - regarding New York efforts to embrace the Missouri Model.
Before anyone gets the wrong idea, I agree that the data that Missouri has is impressive, and that they have developed what an ideal juvenile justice system should look like.
The one major change that they have made that should be a no-brainer at this stage in history, is that large training schools/boot camps hundreds of miles away from home are ineffective and lead to bad outcomes.
I agree with this point, Blombowski. The smaller staff to student ratio and moving away from the large boot camp mentality is an increase in cost for the state (initially) but is a huge step in the right direction as you mentioned. They have also added a therapeutic component, a focus on family and give attention to assisting in a smooth transition back into society along with after care support. Not sure I agree with the relationship of distance to the program vs "success rate" though. Not sure how this ties in, although the closer the facility is to home the easier it is to include family members in the process.
I have questions about the data though. It's not clear what the 11% statistic is referring to. I've been trying to do research on it, and haven't been able to come up with the data source. My understandng is that the figure represents the number of youth who come into the juvenile justice system who re-enter the juvenile justice system within a year. The 11% I think includes every youth, those who don't receive services, those who end up in day treatment, those who end up in non-secure facilities, and those who end up in secure facilities.
My thinking is that since the subject is the” Missouri Model” that this is what is being measured. I don’t think they would include kids who didn’t pass thru the “Missouri model” system because they wouldn’t be able to measure the effectiveness this way,( i.e it would muck up the data)
2001…..while over 70 percent of kids housed in conventional jails nationwide end up back behind bars, in Missouri that figure is only 11 percent
The way I read it as “11% of kids who passed thru the Missouri model” ended up behind bars…
The system is effective, not necessarily the programs. And what the system seems to be particularly effective at, is sequestering and screening youth. Diverting youth with mental health conditions to psychiatric residential treatment centers, and only sending youth with serious conduct disorder issues to their facilities. Not that this is a bad thing, but it would be interesting to look at the entirety of the Missouri residential system of care to see how effective the whole system is on measures other than just short-term recidivism, before putting Missouri on a pedestal, which I am guilty of anyone as doing.
This is what the private sector had been struggling with for decades. They have been able to exponentially increase their success rate by pre-screening the kids that they accept and specialize in certain disorders. For example many TBS’ do not accept kids who have a history of violence or if the child has extreme mental issues or serious disorders which their particular model would not be very effective in correcting…... They very well may refer them to a sister program which may be more effective in those areas (i.e. kids with eating disorders would go to a program specializing in this area). So I think you have a point that part of their success is screening the kids to see who gets into the “Missouri Model” and who doesn’t.
As you pointed out there are many unanswered questions and an intense study would be eye opening for the rest of us here as well as the private sector who would be chomping at the bit to see their numbers so they could compare them to their own. Since the Missouri model is publicly funded they have a better shot at having a study done I believe.
...
-
Not sure how this ties in, although the closer the facility is to home the easier it is to include family members in the process.
You answered your own question.
As for the reason for this posting...
From Missouri's budget allocation to their system some recent information about their juvenile justice facilities.
http://oa.mo.gov/bp/budreqs2011/SSYouth/SSYouth.pdf (http://oa.mo.gov/bp/budreqs2011/SSYouth/SSYouth.pdf)
Go to pg. 32 & 33
-
Not sure how this ties in, although the closer the facility is to home the easier it is to include family members in the process.
You answered your own question.
I think the distance is a challenge but I don’t see how this would lead to ineffectiveness. The program could be 2 miles away and if the family was poor then this distance could be like 2,000 miles to them. I see the distance as a relative factor but not a direct measurement of effectiveness. When my daughter attended we made the trip to the school often.
As for the reason for this posting...
From Missouri's budget allocation to their system some recent information about their juvenile justice facilities.
http://oa.mo.gov/bp/budreqs2011/SSYouth/SSYouth.pdf (http://oa.mo.gov/bp/budreqs2011/SSYouth/SSYouth.pdf)
Go to pg. 32 & 33
Good find! Their budget has been increasing……….I also see Missouri does screen their kids for effectiveness, that’s interesting. They don’t accept dangerous offenders and try to target those kids who would benefit from a structured environment and life skills and also target those kids who didn’t do well in community based programs . These are the same kids who benefit from a TBS environment… so they do pick and choose which makes sense. Their peak into the private sector allowed them to avoid this learning curve which took decades for TBS’s to develop.
...
-
Seriously, your efforts to try to spin this are kind of sad.
The distance issue is really simple. You make a reasonable point that if you happen to be from a family where jet-setting is pretty common, and "community" is a relative term, and the parent has a Gulfstream, I suppose a trip of hundreds or even thousands of miles wouldn't pose much of a barrier. However, that's the exception for most families, and distance can be as much of a psychological barrier as much as a physical one.
By keeping youth closer to home there's a psychological and physical engagement with the family that is more likely to happen. Not to say that a parent couldn't just as easily place a child in an RTC down the street, and then never go see them, but it's more unlikely. Research shows that family engagement leads to better outcomes. Out of sight, out of mind. Out of mind, and the transition back can be jarring, leading to relapse and recidivism.
Making their dorms not look like jail cells helps. I've seen rooms in RTCs that look more like jail cells than the ones in Missouri.
But the real secret to their success is the screening process, where they are probably assessed multiple times by a trained team of social workers, psychologists, and psychiatrists, on intake, and at the juvenile detention center. And lastly and most importantly, the youth have a lawyer, who can defend their client's rights and make sure that whatever screening process is being used is being properly administered. I can tell you that's something they didn't learn from the private industry.
-
seriously, your efforts to try to spin this are kind of sad.
Its just a discussion. I think we have covered some good points. Just because we dont see eye to eye on every point doesnt mean one of us is spinning.
The distance issue is really simple. You make a reasonable point that if you happen to be from a family where jet-setting is pretty common, and "community" is a relative term, and the parent has a Gulfstream, I suppose a trip of hundreds or even thousands of miles wouldn't pose much of a barrier. However, that's the exception for most families, and distance can be as much of a psychological barrier as much as a physical one.
By keeping youth closer to home there's a psychological and physical engagement with the family that is more likely to happen. Not to say that a parent couldn't just as easily place a child in an RTC down the street, and then never go see them, but it's more unlikely. Research shows that family engagement leads to better outcomes. Out of sight, out of mind. Out of mind, and the transition back can be jarring, leading to relapse and recidivism.
I agree , the closer the better. But I haven’t seen a correlation between distance and success.
Making their dorms not look like jail cells helps. I've seen rooms in RTCs that look more like jail cells than the ones in Missouri.
I am sure the private industry varies widely and they wouldn’t model their new system after an RTC that looked like a jail cell. Personally I wouldn’t send my kid to one that looked like that either. The "Missouri Model" utilizes a dorm type layout with no locks on the doors. The rooms look very similar to those my daughter stayed in at ASR.
But the real secret to their success is the screening process
I think this is where we closely agree.
, where they are probably assessed multiple times by a trained team of social workers, psychologists, and psychiatrists, on intake, and at the juvenile detention center.
This is where the private sector has an advantage because they have many options at their disposal. The private sector needs to rely on local services to perform these screenings. My daughter needed to be evaluated at a local hospital for 3 days prior to acceptance. The program did not provide this service. But the end result was the same.
And lastly and most importantly, the youth have a lawyer, who can defend their client's rights and make sure that whatever screening process is being used is being properly administered. I can tell you that's something they didn't learn from the private industry.
No they didn’t take this from the private sector. The state/court system is not likely to give up control and the parents are not the childs advocates in the public sector. It is tough on parents to have to turn over their parental control to lawyers and state employees. That is why I always advocate that if the parents can afford it they should keep their kids out of the court system and get them the help they need, out of pocket, thru a private Boarding school. In many cases they can have their child see a private therapist which adds an extra dimension and they have a little more control over when the child comes home.
...
-
Whooter wrote:
"No they didn’t take this from the private sector. The state/court system is not likely to give up control and the parents are not the childs advocates in the public sector. It is tough on parents to have to turn over their parental control to lawyers and state employees. That is why I always advocate that if the parents can afford it they should keep their kids out of the court system and get them the help they need, out of pocket, thru a private Boarding school. In many cases they can have their child see a private therapist which adds an extra dimension and they have a little more control over when the child comes home."
It is tough on parents to give up control, but not as tough as a child who has been stripped of his or her rights and sent away while having no legal procedure to protect them. Parents, in many cases (if not most) are just as big a part of the problem as the children. Sometimes the entire problem stems from the parents themselves. In these cases, should the kids receive "therapy"? And if so, for what reason? I have no problem with a kid being allowed to live away from the family for a short period of time as long as that child ALWAYS has the option to control where they are staying and always has open communication to complain to authorities if there is any abuse. And I agree with blombrowski that placement should be close to home if there is no other option than placement, preferrably in the same state. Once a parent has made the decision to send their child away, they have essentially given up control over their child anyway. Why would it be a bad idea to give that child the ability to obtain legal representation and advocacy? The parents are paying either way.
Maybe we are focusing on the children too much here. A family problem should be treated as such, with the parents taking the majority of the responsibility for the family problem. When an assessment is conducted on a child, wouldn't it be wise to assess the problem from the standpoint that the parents may be the largest contributing factor (or, at least "a" factor) to the dynamics of the child's "bad" behavior? A family assessment instead of an individual assessment seems more appropriate. This would also aid in any counseling the child received in the future. No matter where you send the child, the family will likely be unchanged when the child returns. And this is why I often side with blombrowski and his thoughts on the family approach.
-
I sincerely doubt that assessing parents will start anytime soon w/ integrity....if they did this then the whole "shooting match" would change and the treatment industry would falter almost as much as the housing market.
They would have to create a whole knew cottage industry w/ the concentration on the parents getting treatment to learn how to responsibly raise children....If they could put the parents behind bars w/ their chilren....you know the dads that run out and don't pay....mom's that use the rent money for meth....ect...put them along side their children....pass a bill in every state that if you fail in your responsibilities of parenthood due to being a asshole, well by God you will be held accountable.
I know this sounds rather naive and stupid ....but is it really.....irresponsible parents account for the industry(youth treatment)
financial gains...on the backs of their own children....How many of us had parents that dropped ball, now I am not saying that we don't have to accept our own responsibility we do, I'm talking about when we were young and the ball was set in motion before we even knew b/cuz of decisions made by parents that were either ill equiped or selfish and self-centered.
How much conversation does this attract here or on any site......wonder if there are any opinions written or data on this...maybe a study done..lab study...anyone have any idea...let me be more specific, a study done on the parents contribution negatively on their children and how this is assessed as part of the process prior to acceptance of treatment for their children.
Thanks for bringing this point up...cause for thought.... :shamrock:
-
This is getting off topic but I’ll respond…
I checked your link and your first source is a random posting with no back up where you tried to show she was a clinical director…
It's a cached posting by Tom Croke, educational consultant, from his old website, Bridge to Understanding Online.
also I couldn’t find any evidence that she is currently referring to aspen programs.
It used to be on her website. Can't find it anymore but it was there.
But even if she were you need to look at the time frame when the study was being done, not what she is doing today. What if a researcher joins one of the companies they researched? Does this invalidated their previous work? Of course not.
She worked, for Aspen. Aspen paid for the study (as admitted by NATSAP's Jan Moss in this document (http://http://www.natsap.org/Behrens.doc)) which says "Disclosure Statement: Aspen Education Group provided funding for this study". The study was on 9 aspen programs, presumably from data provided directly from Aspen. I could go on and on but the credibility of just about every element of the study and those who conducted it was pretty well picked apart in this post (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=28834&start=0#p347262).
Until that happens we will rely on the next best thing which is to speak to families which have had kids attend these programs
Why is it with you always "Speak to families who have had kids attend..." and never "Speak with the kids" themselves, who were actually in the program and have first hand experience... And for the sake of neutrality, seek the kids out rather than let the programs recommend them. There are plenty of Facebook or MySpace groups for any given program which is a good place to start.
-
Parents often negate the problems and causes of their kids troubles and blame them on anything but themselves. People by nature hate to admit being wrong and over doing something. The kids are the best resource to truth.They really have no reason to hold back or embellish with others that were in Elan or any place like that.The fact is we as survivors like them, do believe the stories because all of us were in a story like that one time. :rocker: :jamin: :rocker: :rasta: :rasta: :cheers:
-
@ psy ……Of course Aspen paid for the study. I don’t think anyone is going to perform a study for free. They are very expensive. Aspen chose to have the study done externally.
Canyon Research performs studies of treatment programs so naturally they would want to employ people who are familiar with this area and or have a background in the field. If they were doing research of retirement facilities it would be advantageous to hire people who had a background and experience in this area. In fact this would add to the studies credibility not take away from it. I would agree with you if any of the employees working on the particular study was presently employed by Aspen, but they were not. Canyon Research gets paid whether the outcome is favorable or not.
I fully understand why you and others want to discredit the study. I have been here long enough to know that anything favorable to the industry is a tough area to discuss and it is better to bury it or discredit it and I have come to accept that here. But I maintain that it is important to look at all the information available not just the reports which fit a particular persons’ views.
@ psy and others, As far as asking the kids what their experience has been I think many of you know that I believe the more information a person can have the better equipped they are to make a good decision. I recommend parents read here on fornits as well as contacting and visiting the programs and speaking to families who have had kids attend the programs. They should talk to as many people as possible before making a decision.
...
-
@ psy ……Of course Aspen paid for the study. I don’t think anyone is going to perform a study for free. They are very expensive. Aspen chose to have the study done externally.
Canyon Research performs studies of treatment programs so naturally they would want to employ people who are familiar with this area and or have a background in the field. If they were doing research of retirement facilities it would be advantageous to hire people who had a background and experience in this area. In fact this would add to the studies credibility not take away from it. I would agree with you if any of the employees working on the particular study was presently employed by Aspen, but they were not. Canyon Research gets paid whether the outcome is favorable or not.
I fully understand why you and others want to discredit the study. I have been here long enough to know that anything favorable to the industry is a tough area to discuss and it is better to bury it or discredit it and I have come to accept that here. But I maintain that it is important to look at all the information available not just the reports which fit a particular persons’ views.
:roflmao: This is just like the tobacco industry's Altria Group hiring an "outside firm" -- comprised of former employees who still work with and support their former employer -- to do a "study" on the alleged lesser harm of "light" cigarettes. Jeezum! Would YOU believe them?
When all is said and done, it's pretty clear that this is just yet another advertising gimmick, one that cloaks the "info" with dubious legitimacy.
Altria got hauled (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=26127#p321151) to court for the fraudulent nature of just that bit of advertising. Perhaps Aspen should be dealt with similarly.
-
@ psy ……Of course Aspen paid for the study. I don’t think anyone is going to perform a study for free. They are very expensive. Aspen chose to have the study done externally.
Canyon Research performs studies of treatment programs so naturally they would want to employ people who are familiar with this area and or have a background in the field. If they were doing research of retirement facilities it would be advantageous to hire people who had a background and experience in this area. In fact this would add to the studies credibility not take away from it. I would agree with you if any of the employees working on the particular study was presently employed by Aspen, but they were not. Canyon Research gets paid whether the outcome is favorable or not.
I fully understand why you and others want to discredit the study. I have been here long enough to know that anything favorable to the industry is a tough area to discuss and it is better to bury it or discredit it and I have come to accept that here. But I maintain that it is important to look at all the information available not just the reports which fit a particular persons’ views.
:roflmao: This is just like the tobacco industry's Altria Group hiring an "outside firm" -- comprised of former employees who still work with and support their former employer -- to do a "study" on the alleged lesser harm of "light" cigarettes. Jeezum! Would YOU believe them?
When all is said and done, it's pretty clear that this is just yet another advertising gimmick, one that cloaks the "info" with dubious legitimacy.
Altria got hauled (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=26127#p321151) to court for the fraudulent nature of just that bit of advertising. Perhaps Aspen should be dealt with similarly.
Well, I think we all could agree that those tobacco people (researchers) should be hauled into court for that, Ursus. Having the tobacco company hire an outside firm to conduct research is the right thing to do. But having the researchers on the tobacco companies parole would be fraudulent, no doubt.
But as far as research groups go it would be difficult to find any successful researcher (in any field) who doesn’t have a background or experience in the area they are researching.
It is best to have researchers who use to work in the field they are researching it just makes sense. Now like you said if the people doing research for Canyon Research were also getting paid by the industry (on their parole) then I would see a reason for concern. But this isn’t the case.
Again I understand why information favorable to the industry doesn’t get discussed here and more energy is put into discrediting it than analyzing the results.
...
-
Whooter wrote:
"No they didn’t take this from the private sector. The state/court system is not likely to give up control and the parents are not the childs advocates in the public sector. It is tough on parents to have to turn over their parental control to lawyers and state employees. That is why I always advocate that if the parents can afford it they should keep their kids out of the court system and get them the help they need, out of pocket, thru a private Boarding school. In many cases they can have their child see a private therapist which adds an extra dimension and they have a little more control over when the child comes home."
It is tough on parents to give up control, but not as tough as a child who has been stripped of his or her rights and sent away while having no legal procedure to protect them. Parents, in many cases (if not most) are just as big a part of the problem as the children. Sometimes the entire problem stems from the parents themselves. In these cases, should the kids receive "therapy"? And if so, for what reason? I have no problem with a kid being allowed to live away from the family for a short period of time as long as that child ALWAYS has the option to control where they are staying and always has open communication to complain to authorities if there is any abuse. And I agree with blombrowski that placement should be close to home if there is no other option than placement, preferrably in the same state. Once a parent has made the decision to send their child away, they have essentially given up control over their child anyway. Why would it be a bad idea to give that child the ability to obtain legal representation and advocacy? The parents are paying either way.
Maybe we are focusing on the children too much here. A family problem should be treated as such, with the parents taking the majority of the responsibility for the family problem. When an assessment is conducted on a child, wouldn't it be wise to assess the problem from the standpoint that the parents may be the largest contributing factor (or, at least "a" factor) to the dynamics of the child's "bad" behavior? A family assessment instead of an individual assessment seems more appropriate. This would also aid in any counseling the child received in the future. No matter where you send the child, the family will likely be unchanged when the child returns. And this is why I often side with blombrowski and his thoughts on the family approach.
I think I am the first ones to agree that in most cases it is not just the kids problem but rather a family issue. To send the child off to be fixed without taking a look at the root cause(which could be the home environment) is just not going to work long term.
If the family is indeed the problem or part of the problem then removing the child from the situation is probably a good thing. The Missouri Model does this also and the therapist works with the family at home to try make the necessary changes so that the child returns to a healthy environment. The program my daughter attended did just this. They worked with the child individually and also with the family and made recommendations as to what should be changed in the childs home situation to assist with a smooth transition home…. (in my case it was a bumpy transition period but they have improved themselves since then)... this has actually become one of the programs strengths where as it use to be their weakness in my opinion.
...