Again to use the example pointed out -- SCL -- Look at SCL compared to TB, or High Impact, or Dundee or the American Samoa one.
These are also the only programs to come under international media scrutiny, and succesfully be shut down. No regulation was necessary to accomplish that. Would 'regulating' high impact have been better than it's complete removal?
All of them are in the same organization, and all have closely related owners. They also pretty much go by the same handbook
Yeah but their employee pool comes from two different worlds. Americans are aware enough to fear criminal prosecution of child abuse. Third worlders without a fear of this commit abuse much more openly. It's hard to compare which facility is worse, both have caused young girls to kill themsleves, so who are we to say?
Yet if you ask any kid who has been to both SCL and one of the other ones, which one they would prefer -- I guarantee 9/10 say SCL.
There are kids who weren't ever treated bad at TB or Samoa. Some were horribly abused. There are kids who were severely beaten and kept locked up in freezing isolation conditions at SCL. Others weren't touched. Some kids were abused, others weren't. At both facilities.
Like you said, they are owned by the same place. A lot of kids are transfered from SCL to TB and High Impact, so if SCL is regulated, but can tranfer kids to the unregulated facilities, how is this regulation effective at all?
Granted, SCL has many problems! I'm not excusing SCL at all, I'm just saying that even crappy regulation starts something; gives people a beginning to get something accomplished at; and does make the program a bit more self-conscious of its actions.
The regulation is completely non existent. They outvote the 'public' every time. Do you think that stacked vote was an accident? The only thing regulation in this case accomplishes is gives a selling point to the programs. Now they can advertise to be a 'regulated' residential program, etc.
It is true that it might make some parents feel as if the program is under more meaningful oversight -- My hope, though, is that if a parent looks into it enough to study the regulation, hopefully they will come across the plethora of information concerning the negative aspects of SCL et al.
Me too! I wish the parents did the research, but they don't. If they did, they wouldn't have chosen a WWASPS program. Hell, strugglingteens regulars don't even reccomend WWASPS! So, if anything the only thing 'regulation' would do, is give a semblence of credibility to which WWASPS has to say. Again, it works against hte parents, IF the so called regulation is rigged like in Montana.
And I also do not think it has been shown that there is an increase in students when a facility is regulated as opposed to unregulated facilities. So I don't think the argument is really founded in anything other than mere speculation at this point.
Well, there aren't any statistics on anything in this industry. But ask a few program parents, they are presented with two programs, one is 'regulated with state oversight for the well being of the kids' the other is 'unregulated', which one do you think appeals more to them?
Again, I am not taking a firm stance against or for regulation. But I do know the sham in Montana is complete BS, and that is what I am afraid of.
