Psy, your skepticism is well-founded. Neither party really tries to do anything more than one-up the other. However, I do believe there is a fundamental violation of rights taking place via forced youth transports akin to the manipulation of children in old-style sweathouses. But instead of textile moguls making fortunes off of children, it's a somewhat more sophisticated process - still violating child rights - but in a way that too many feel is "acceptable."
Your questions for me are also well-founded. In reality I don't consider myself an ed con, though I am actually called by that title now and then. I actually promote local therapists who are "not" ed cons to any clients who come to me. I promote a form of intervention that angers both educational consultants and most treatment programs. ALL intervention should begin, and if possible, END locally. Ed cons should be kept out of the picture completely - there is no need for them if therapists can be both employed, and properly educated and warned regarding the private treatment care industry.
Most licensed therapists already have a wary view of residential treatment, having been exposed to it in one manner or another during their journey to licensure. And although most understand, theoretically, why pulling a child out of the home environment and wisping him/her across the country is normally more detrimental than helpful, few understand the real and documented dangers and deceptions of the treatment care industry.
As a side-note here, I am so despised by some of the ed cons and headhunters who know who I am, and what I am doing, that the schools who dare work with me are incessantly warned not to maintain a relationship with me, as by so doing they will earn the wrath of industry insiders - bad press, they say.
What aggravates them? I explain to every one of my clients that they should NOT ever make nor consider placement in a treatment program unless they 1) are working with a local therapist who has completely evaluated the situation before placement, 2) are not working with either an ed con or a headhunter, 3) receive agreement from the program to pay for at least two months of aftercare therapy, and 4) receive agreement from the program to allow the local therapist to maintain constant and unrestrained contact with the child as a local advocate for both the child and the family.
What do I do? That's a bit more complicated, and explaining everything would force me to compromise my anonymity. Basically, I help the therapists understand how to be quarterbacks for their clients - how to scrutinize, manage, and understand the dynamics of how private treatment programs run, what their weaknesses are, how to identify possible/probable violation of rights, etc., in addition to pulling ultimate control out of the program's hands, and placing it in the hands of the "local" treatment team, including the parents, the therapist, and any other locals, such as teachers and school counselors.
Most programs flatly refuse this arrangement. They want to be untouchable and independent of the home environment. This, quite simply, is how I determine what programs I will work with. Length of time in existence is irrelevant. Some of the worst programs in existence, which are normally the most rigid, are those that have been around for far too many years, and perhaps ought to die. Their strength comes from market presence, not therapeutic quality. On the flip-side, some of the better programs I've seen are fairly new, though quite often poorly funded.
I'm as apt to warn about the dangers of poorly funded programs as I am any of the other dangers. The value of new programs is that they're more prone to allow my (and a local therapist's) external influence upon their processes, and will cater to the local needs of their client families. Yet, when programs are new, if they don't have adequate resources, the financial drain directly translates to lower quality of care.
Ed cons pride themselves on knowing hundreds of programs, and being able to refer to "just the right few." I challenge that arrogance. I've been a transitional director and an executive director, and I know from first-hand experience just how difficult it is to properly manage, monitor, and comprehend the dynamics of a program in which I am working. I know a good program can go sour instantly, with a single staff member who is an idiot. I know that a poor therapist can become enmeshed and detrimental to treatment. I know that improperly mixed students with differing referral issues can cause terrible and often dangerous dynamics among the peer group. How can ed cons possibly comprehend the effective dynamics of hundreds of programs?
They can't. It's that simple. And it's unethical to shrug off the responsibility to know the dangers of every single one of their preferred programs.
I work with a small handful of programs at a time (no more than seven). If I don't have a program for someone who wants residential services beyond those with which I'm working, I tell them my limitation. Period. If they're hell-bent on finding someone else to help place their child, they can step beyond what I'll suggest, but before they do, they're warned. Residential care is NOT always the logical next step. Often patience, relationship building, and resource discovery in the home environment is the logical next step - even when that next step isn't immediately visible.
When it comes right down to it, it doesn't matter what care beyond the home is employed. The child will still need to succeed at home, sooner or later - and will need to choose to succeed him/herself. If residential care can be completely avoided, and solutions still found, the likelihood of long-term recovery is MORE likely.
Therapists know I'm right. I've seen how the overwhelming majority of kids in private residential care simply don't belong there - how they could have, and should have been helped at home - how family "reunification" would have never been necessary if someone had focused upon family "unification."
I believe, from the core of everything I am, that the insane growth of the private residential care industry is out of control. It should be shrinking, not growing. Obviously the law isn't going to make the change. So the market has to do it. However, there are still weak points in the process that could be exploited legally.
If someone, somehow, could motivate either legislative or judicial change to recognize the rights of minors, and keep kids, via federal mandate, from being transported across state lines without some form of due process, it would cripple the industry. It would strip it of its fat, and would force it to evolve in a less independent fashion.
The allies here, ironically, may one day be organizations such as the CAMFT and the AAMFT. Massive therapeutic organizations, with a wealth of political might, if properly mobilized, could make the difference. Whenever I sit down with a therapist and explain the multi-million dollar marketing machine that hovers just above them, plucking kids out of their geographic areas without their consultation, I actually see the sting of irritation in their eyes. I have not once had one of these people disagree with my assertion that there needs to be change. And one by one, I'm employing them.
But this move needs to be rapid. Aspen is pretty aggressive at seeking alliances with doctors and therapists to get referrals into their programs. Nonetheless, as massive as they are, they don't have grass-roots mentality. They go after bigger fish. I go after the little guys.
I compete with the big players in the industry, head to head, and they don't even know it. I look like they do. I market the way they do. I bring in clients just as they do ... But then I direct my clients back to their home markets, rather than into residential care. If residential care becomes necessary I'm willing and able to help. But this is where I completely differ from ed cons - I talk far more people out of residential treatment than I place.
Okay, I'm sorry ... I haven't answered some of your other questions ...
-- Tours of Schools -- They're always a ruse. They put on the best show possible, always. A tour alone cannot educate anyone on the quality of the school. I require every school with which I work to undergo workshops that "I" provide to their staff members. I ask them questions that help me identify what kind of managerial and therapeutic culture actualy exists functionally. But more importantly, I don't EVER tell parents or therapists to rely upon my perspectives alone ... Every step of the way, if they interview and place with the school, they with their therapist should monitor the process of care and change. Full cooperation of the school is required. A single complaint from one of the therapists regarding treatment of either the child, or cooperation with their advocacy, will result in my pulling away from the school.
-- Industry Self-Regulation -- Related to what I wrote above, I don't wait for criminal complaints. Simple failure to cooperate, communicate, or otherwise function properly with the local treatment team causes the loss of my support. Some people wait for a court of law to define their opinions ... I find the court of public opinion to be far more dynamic, and often more just. I can't regulate the entire industry. But I can sure-as-hell influence my little corner of it.
-- Reputable Programs -- Although I seem to be a skeptic, I believe that people in general are good ... But that's not good enough. "Seasoned" programs are often so well entrenched in the market that they don't have to change, improve, nor respond to complaints and market demands at all. They can abuse, neglect, and otherwise completely screw up treatment, and they're not going to hurt for it at all. Newer programs can't provide a track record, though their staff and founders can be drawn into the rigors of record-building - reputation-construction, if you will. If they're teachable, and their program can be shaped to actually respond to the "intrusive" nature of outside therapeutic advocates (not ed cons), they are far more "reputable" than seasoned programs. Is it a crap shoot in a way? Yep. But with proper, continuous monitoring (normally not allowed by market-established programs), whatever "earned" reputation is gained, is gained through actual work and relationships, rather than "time in business," be it short or long.
-- Cultish Origins -- I'm guessing you've been exposed to some of this stuff. I'm new with fornits, so I haven't had the opportunity to read anything else you've written. But in this area specifically I am deeply concerned with some of the truly bizarre practices, processes, and instruments of change being employed by many programs. Just as wilderness programs were originally formed without therapeutic oversight, some current treatment programs are adopting training processes that depart from sound therapy, and border upon bullshit.
Emotional Growth seminars, for instance, are in my opinion, garbage. I don't care how much crying has taken place, nor how many pages have been torn out of the book of torment (or whatever the hell they call it), it's not therapy. Its intrusion into a therapeutic environment is as unethical, I believe, as if radical religious brainwashing were employed to manipulate vulnerable students into new age elysium.
I'm pretty simple, on the surface, when it comes to what I expect of treatment. I am a student of systems theory. Everything I practice and teach leans back toward systemic principles. From the proper management of a treatment program, to the deference to the family system to diagnose and bring resolution to problems hidden behind a child's smptoms, I am an advocate of pushing solutions into the home, and ultimately to the individual.
There is far more strength in these kids than most people in my industry realize - though they often fear rather than employ their power - Helping kids to discover their strength and ability to change (without treatment, if possible), is the surest way to long-term success ... In fact, it's the ONLY way to long-term success, whether or not residential treatment is ever employed.
Okay. Sorry so long. I hope I haven't broken any rules by writing a book. Anyway, Psy, does this answer your questions? I still believe that if the process of transporting kids against their will, across state lines, were to come under attack, it would change the industry.
