Trails Carolina - new program

[Joel]

Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010

[Ursus]

V 503 · 27D .0103 Client Rights - Search And Seizure Policy >  Are there more specifics on this complaint?

I don't know whether V503 was in the original complaint which sparked the investigation, but this violation had to do with the confiscation of all clients' pants and shoes each night, regardless of whether someone was considered to be a runaway risk or not. Apparently this had been Trails Carolina's SOP since they opened.

North Carolina had a problem with this practice not jiving with Trails Carolina's own official Search and Seizure policy, both in the nature of what was seized, esp. from kids who were not considered to be runaway risks, as well as the fact that these seizures were not duly documented. Moreover, if Trails Carolina was going to be taking these kids' clothing from them every night, there needed to be notation stipulating to that effect made by a qualified professional in each kid's file, which was certainly not done.

[Joel]

Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010

[Whooter]

Too bad there was not more detail available......Unless we know exactly what the specifics of the violations were we really dont know how serious the issue(s) were.  Could be something major or minor like a paperwork issue.  If the background checks are not filed correctly or someone leaves a trash can on the fire escape you are held in violation.  You need to also consider that many of the inspectors need to justify their jobs.  If you are an inspector you need to find stuff (thats what you do) if you dont find anything than many perceive it as maybe you didnt look hard enough or are not very effective at your job.  Very few inspections come out clean even when they are scheduled and the schools are prepared for it... this inspection did not appear to be scheduled in advance.



...

[Ursus]

Too bad there was not more detail available......Unless we know exactly what the specifics of the violations were we really dont know how serious the issue(s) were.  Could be something major or minor like a paperwork issue.  If the background checks are not filed correctly or someone leaves a trash can on the fire escape you are held in violation.  You need to also consider that many of the inspectors need to justify their jobs.  If you are an inspector you need to find stuff (thats what you do) if you dont find anything than many perceive it as maybe you didnt look hard enough or are not very effective at your job.  Very few inspections come out clean even when they are scheduled and the schools are prepared for it... this inspection did not appear to be scheduled in advance.

Geeezzzz. I wouldn't consider punching a kid in the kisser in retaliation for misbehavior, and injuring the kid in the process, to be a "minor" issue. I'm sure that incident figured prominently in the original complaint.

If you're really sooooo bloody concerned about inspectors "justifying their jobs" with busywork at the taxpayers expense, you'll be relieved to know that they probably weren't doing it this time around!

[Whooter]

Too bad there was not more detail available......Unless we know exactly what the specifics of the violations were we really dont know how serious the issue(s) were.  Could be something major or minor like a paperwork issue.  If the background checks are not filed correctly or someone leaves a trash can on the fire escape you are held in violation.  You need to also consider that many of the inspectors need to justify their jobs.  If you are an inspector you need to find stuff (thats what you do) if you dont find anything than many perceive it as maybe you didnt look hard enough or are not very effective at your job.  Very few inspections come out clean even when they are scheduled and the schools are prepared for it... this inspection did not appear to be scheduled in advance.

Geeezzzz. I wouldn't consider punching a kid in the kisser in retaliation for misbehavior, and injuring the kid in the process, to be a "minor" issue. I'm sure that incident figured prominently in the original complaint.

If you're really sooooo bloody concerned about inspectors "justifying their jobs" with busywork at the taxpayers expense, you'll be relieved to know that they probably weren't doing it this time around!

I read back and didnt see this listed as a finding, Ursus.  Maybe I missed it:

Apparently... someone filed a complaint on TRAILS Carolina, and the North Carolina Division of Health Service Regulation and/or the County Department of Social Services investigated earlier this year. Not only was the complaint found to be substantiated, but a number of other violations were also found, specifically:

    * V 114 · 27G .0207 Emergency Plans and Supplies
    * V 118 · 27G .0209 (C) Medication Requirements (medication administration)
    * V 123 · 27G .0209 (H) Medication Requirements (medication errors)
    * V 131 · G.S. 131E-256 (D2) HCPR - Prior Employment Verification (health care personnel registry)
    * V 132 · G.S. 131E-256(G) HCPR - Notification, Allegations, & Protection (health care personnel registry)
    * V 133 · G.S. 122C-80 Criminal History Record Check
    * V 500 · 27D .0101(a-e) Client Rights - Policy on Rights (policy on rights restrictions and interventions)
    * V 503 · 27D .0103 Client Rights - Search And Seizure Policy
    * V 512 · 27D .0304 Client Rights - Harm, Abuse, Neglect (protection from harm, abuse, neglect or exploitation)
    * V 522 · 27E .0104(e10) Client Rights - Sec. Rest. & ITO (seclusion, physical restraint and isolation time-out and protective devices used for behavior control)
    * V 537 · 27E .0108 Client Rights - Training in Sec Rest & ITO (training in seclusion, physical restraint and isolation time-out)


They filed a complaint for search and seizure didnt they, not punching a guy in the face.  Where does it say that?



...

[Joel]

Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010

[Whooter]

* V 114 · 27G .0207 Emergency Plans and Supplies
* V 118 · 27G .0209 (C) Medication Requirements (medication administration)
* V 123 · 27G .0209 (H) Medication Requirements (medication errors)
* V 131 · G.S. 131E-256 (D2) HCPR - Prior Employment Verification (health care personnel registry)
* V 132 · G.S. 131E-256(G) HCPR - Notification, Allegations, & Protection (health care personnel registry)
* V 133 · G.S. 122C-80 Criminal History Record Check
* V 500 · 27D .0101(a-e) Client Rights - Policy on Rights (policy on rights restrictions and interventions)
* V 503 · 27D .0103 Client Rights - Search And Seizure Policy
* V 512 · 27D .0304 Client Rights - Harm, Abuse, Neglect (protection from harm, abuse, neglect or exploitation)
* V 522 · 27E .0104(e10) Client Rights - Sec. Rest. & ITO (seclusion, physical restraint and isolation time-out and protective devices used for behavior control)
* V 537 · 27E .0108 Client Rights - Training in Sec Rest & ITO (training in seclusion, physical restraint and isolation time-out)

[/color][/i][/b]

I think Trails Carolina got caught with their "pants down" and thanks for posting the information Ursus.  There are allot of wilderness programs that get away with the above complaints.  Whereas wilderness programs fly under the radar because people from DSHS don't inspect them on a routine basis.  The above complaints don't surprise me because I saw them at Eckerd Youth Alternatives Camp E-Hun-Tee.

Maybe they were caught with their pants down because it was not a scheduled audit.  You saw the same thing at Eckerd youth.  From my experience most places are given plenty of notice to clean things up prior to an inspection.  The week prior to the inspection is dedicated to going over all the records, performing internal audits based on requirements etc. .... so it is not surprising that discrepancies were found when they came in with little to no notice.  
If there was nothing major I am sure they were given a few weeks to tie up the loose ends.. come up with corrective action strategies and schedule a follow-up inspection to verify the changes.



...

[Ursus]

Too bad there was not more detail available......Unless we know exactly what the specifics of the violations were we really dont know how serious the issue(s) were.  Could be something major or minor like a paperwork issue.  If the background checks are not filed correctly or someone leaves a trash can on the fire escape you are held in violation.  You need to also consider that many of the inspectors need to justify their jobs.  If you are an inspector you need to find stuff (thats what you do) if you dont find anything than many perceive it as maybe you didnt look hard enough or are not very effective at your job.  Very few inspections come out clean even when they are scheduled and the schools are prepared for it... this inspection did not appear to be scheduled in advance.

Geeezzzz. I wouldn't consider punching a kid in the kisser in retaliation for misbehavior, and injuring the kid in the process, to be a "minor" issue. I'm sure that incident figured prominently in the original complaint.

If you're really sooooo bloody concerned about inspectors "justifying their jobs" with busywork at the taxpayers expense, you'll be relieved to know that they probably weren't doing it this time around!

I read back and didnt see this listed as a finding, Ursus.  Maybe I missed it

I first posted 'bout that just under a week ago, colored emphasis added:

It seems Trails Carolina has some problems with their "medication management," background checks on personnel, and a host of documentation issues which include, but are not restricted to, informing appropriate personnel when events during a restraint do not go well. Such as a staff member losing it and punching a kid in the face.[/list]

[Ursus]

They filed a complaint for search and seizure didnt they, not punching a guy in the face.  Where does it say that?

I never said they filed a complaint for search and seizure. In fact, I specifically said, with emphasis as per the original, "I don't know whether V503 was in the original complaint which sparked the investigation..." As of yet, I have not actually seen, nor read, nor read of ... what was in the original complaint.

My strictly non-professional guess is that the original complaint had to due with the kid being punched. Trails Carolina graduated him within a couple of weeks after that incident. I'd wager that would have made it a lot more difficult for North Carolina authorities to interview him, eh? ... jes sayin' !

Perhaps, given the egregious nature of the incident, and/or anger fueled by the injustice of how things went down, other violations were also noted in the original complaint in addition to the kid being abused or injured in said altercation.

It is also conceivable that North Carolina authorities were not happy with the "ends justify the means" manner of effecting "treatment" that these programs always seem to employ and, once at Trails Carolina investigating the abuse of a client, chose to investigate a bit more. And the more they poked, the more they found.

All that said and speculated 'bout aplenty, I honestly don't know. Re. the original complaint, that is...

[Pile of Dead Kids]

Ursus, are you able to divulge your source of the punching thing? Link, or was this gotten some other way?

[Whooter]

My strictly non-professional guess is that the original complaint had to due with the kid being punched. Trails Carolina graduated him within a couple of weeks after that incident. I'd wager that would have made it a lot more difficult for North Carolina authorities to interview him, eh? ... jes sayin' !

Perhaps, given the egregious nature of the incident, and/or anger fueled by the injustice of how things went down, other violations were also noted in the original complaint in addition to the kid being abused or injured in said altercation.

Yes, but what complaint, what investigation?  Where does it state that a child was hit in the face by a staff member and then graduated the program?  I looked at every post in this thread and there isn’t anything about this event…. Then you go on to say other violations were also noted in the original complaint in addition to a child being abused.  So there must be some type of evidence or documentation.


Its just confusing.  By all the wording you use  It looks like something could of occurred but maybe it did or maybe it didn’t.  Can you provide a link to a report or post what you have so we can look at the original or the info that you saw?  Where did this information originate from?  I am not trying to be an ass here just doesnt seem to add up or something is missing.  If I missed the link I apologize but I have been through the thread twice.



...

[Troll Control]

:eek:  

Apparently... someone filed a complaint on TRAILS Carolina, and the North Carolina Division of Health Service Regulation and/or the County Department of Social Services investigated earlier this year. Not only was the complaint found to be substantiated, but a number of other violations were also found, specifically:


V 114 · 27G .0207 Emergency Plans and Supplies
V 118 · 27G .0209 (C) Medication Requirements (medication administration)
V 123 · 27G .0209 (H) Medication Requirements (medication errors)
V 131 · G.S. 131E-256 (D2) HCPR - Prior Employment Verification (health care personnel registry)
V 132 · G.S. 131E-256(G) HCPR - Notification, Allegations, & Protection (health care personnel registry)
V 133 · G.S. 122C-80 Criminal History Record Check
V 500 · 27D .0101(a-e) Client Rights - Policy on Rights (policy on rights restrictions and interventions)
V 503 · 27D .0103 Client Rights - Search And Seizure Policy
V 512 · 27D .0304 Client Rights - Harm, Abuse, Neglect (protection from harm, abuse, neglect or exploitation)
V 522 · 27E .0104(e10) Client Rights - Sec. Rest. & ITO (seclusion, physical restraint and isolation time-out and protective devices used for behavior control)
V 537 · 27E .0108 Client Rights - Training in Sec Rest & ITO (training in seclusion, physical restraint and isolation time-out)

Man, this program has been in operation for only a year or so and they are up to their necks in serious violations already?  Looks like they've been popped for most of the same things the Aspen programs continuously get hit for.

Abuse, neglect, no verification of employees (professional or criminal), messing up the meds...and a whole laundry list of deadly serious violations.

Looking at this list of violations you'd have to ask "What did they do right at this place?"  That's probably a much shorter list.

[Joel]

Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010

[Whooter]

DJ these complaints are signs of serious ongoing problems over several months rather than an isolated incident. If it were an isolated incident, allot of this could have been "swept under the rug" supervisors in wilderness programs are skilled at doing. This is sad but it is true.

How do you know any of these are ongoing problems vs isolated?  I have not been able to determine this based on the posts thus far.


 

This time an ASPEN wilderness program got caught with their pants down and justice will be served. The complaints about restraints { I'll break it down for ASPEN people reading my post } = restraints without justifiable cause and using excessive force/assaulting a minor.

Where did you read that this is an Aspen program?  I wasn’t able to determine this from their website.  If you look at the aspen website they don’t list Trails Carolina as one of theirs.
Link to Aspen site

Nothing seems to add up on this thread.  All the facts presented do not lead anywhere which can verify their authenticity.  In fact they say just the opposite.
Does anyone have a link to verify any of the abuse or violations found?  Just curious.



...