Westridge & Other Schools(Formerly LDS Perceptions thread)

[_truth dancer]

Hi Marg,

I just have a sec so I'll briefly respond... I haven't read through this thread which is why this might not be following the conversation. I have to admit I already knew some of the answers (smile). I wasn't anticipating you calling! :-)

Here are some questions I would ask, just for starters:

Are children in state custody housed in this facility? If so, how long is the average stay? Does their treatment plan clearly state a concurrent plan to get them out as quickly as possible? Does each resident have a guardian ad litem or court advocate? Who oversees the DHS worker involved with each child? How do they handle complaints? Can children make complaints to the Community Service Board or governing agency? How does DHS handle complaints from residents? Who is available for residents to report problems or concerns or abuse? Is said person (if there is one), available 24/7? Are they connected to the facility?

I phoned her again and specifically asked some of your questions. Westridge does not take state custody kids. Average stay she says is 9 months and I've read that elsewhere on the Net. Children can make complaints to her, or police, or child protective services.

OK, so no Court Advocates or GALs... :-( Problematic in my opinion. I am fairly certain these kids cannot call whenever they want. Typically they have to "earn" the privilege. Also, staff would be the ones to monitor calls, the very people who are restraining them and managing the facility. Can children really call for help when the very people who will give them a phone are the people who are hurting them? Children are smart enough to know they can't trust the people (or their friends) who are mistreating them. Children taken away from their families are in survival mode.

Let's see, if it costs 3,000-4,000 dollars a month for a child to remain there, for a nine month stay we are looking at over 30,000 dollars to "cure" a child of misbehavior.

Are incident reports written for every incident and unsafe behavior? Who writes them? Is each and every incident or unsafe behavior documented, reviewed by medical professionals and shared with parents, social workers, and case managers? Who can have access to said reports? Does a medical professional examine each child after every incident or restraint? Who oversees the medical professional?

She said the program that Westridge follows is a national one with procedures specified. It's called CIP..Crisis Intervention Program...and I believe the company is called Positive Control Systems. She thought that could be found on the Internet.

In other words, I don't think she knows.

How are unsafe behaviors dealt with? How do they currently manage restrains? Are they documented? How long are restrains and what type are used? Are parents and guardians immediately aware of each and every restraint?

I don't think I got into that with her because I believe that was part of the CIP program which she says staff are required to follow.

Again, I'm guessing she is trusting the facility.

How long is the average stay? Are parents involved in the treatment plan? Do parents or social workers receive a copy of all records? How often do parents visit? Do parents receive counseling and parenting classes on site? Is family therapy a part of every treatment plan, if so what does this entail and who is the therapist? Can parents and social workers visit any time? How often can children leave the facility? Who can take them off site and for how long? What levels receive what sorts of "rewards"?

I know from readings I've done that parents can be involved but it would make it difficult if they are 2 states away. As far as who can take them off site and for how long, she said that would be a case by case basis with the therapist deciding.

Right... so little if any parental involvement. The therapist decides when a child can leave, meaning it may never happen and most likely, again a child will have to "earn" the privilege. So who is going to take the children out? If the children are managing well enough to leave with strangers why are they unable to live in their home? Is there anyone to oversee the children on a daily basis who is not being paid by the facility? What happens when a child is not moving up levels and remains unable to use a phone or leave the facility or contact anyone outside the facility? From whom is a child receiving love and care as they are locked up in an institution?

While the website makes it sound like they are working with parents, the reality seems quite different. I would like to hear the justification for housing children in an institution with no parental involvement. I find it unconscionable.

Why is this facility chosen over non-residential programs? What sorts of alternative non-residential programs are available? Are parents guided to know of other resources to help a child remain in the home? Are parents made aware of the consequences of removing a child from the home? Are parents made aware of the problems and concerns and behaviors of other residents (generally not specifically) that may involve safety issues? Does each parent receive independent counseling so they know exactly what are the ramifications of separating their child from the family and allowing their child to enter a residential facility?

This is not really her jurisdiction. Parents do contact her for advice, but the decision to send is the parents.

Yes, In other words, there is no one in place who can help a parent decide if an institution is really the right place for a child; no one to give unbiased information to help parents determine if the facility will help or harm their child. Parents call and get the sales pitch and parents trust the salespeople. I'm not saying it is the institution's fault the parents trust them but in my opinion there should be some sort of safeguard to protect children and give parents the information they need to make the best decision for their child. Parents should be apprised of ALL services available. You get desperate parents who talk to the marketing dept and well, it is a disaster waiting to happen.

Are children still kidnapped as they are removed from the home?

Just wonderin...

Yes she believes they probably still are... as that is common for those sorts of places.

She is guessing? She doesn't know? The answer is yes. And, why this is allowed is beyond me. It is traumatic and cruel and should NEVER happen.

She mentioned at the end of the conversation that she would welcome productive calls from anyone on this message board. She gets emails from people who she doesn't respond to because they are unproductive, overly negative. But if anyone wishes to ask her questions she's willing to answer. Phone # 801-538-4242..email bjstuver@utah.gov though 2 emails I sent her and one was a reply to her email, she has not received.

So overall my impression is that she's not too involved in assessing the program. She is of the opinion that abuse which used to occur using "work crew" no longer goes on.

Again, I think these sorts of facilities should not exist. I fundamentally disagree with the program and how the program is implemented.

I believe there is a place for residential facilities specifically for those children who are unable to remain safe in society, or who are a danger to others, still even with these situation there are guidelines that should be put in place to provide protection for the child, the family should be intimately involved with treatment, and receiving love and care from family and friends should never have to be earned.

Sorry for the brevity but I gotta run!

~td~

[_karl61]

Regarding the way they take kids out of the home:

California Penal Code section 207:

(a) Every person who forcibly, or by any other means of
instilling fear, steals or takes, or holds, detains, or arrests any
person in this state, and carries the person into another country,
state, or county, or into another part of the same county, is guilty
of kidnapping

I'm sure there are a lot of judges that may believe that a youth taken by force from his home to another state has been a victim kidnapping . Parents and Legal Guardians cannot give consent to these acts. Could you sue for this - you bet! If this happened in California could Eric go into the local police station that has jurisdiction over the area where the act took place and ask that a report be taken regarding something that happened years ago - the desk officer will say no way but if he keeps going up the chain of command then that desk officer may be told to take the report.

Maybe Eric's Stepdad will read the code and say okay - I messed up. And the facility will read the code and say -oops.

[_Jersey Girl]

marg

It's called CIP..Crisis Intervention Program...and I believe the company is called Positive Control Systems.

The way I'm reading this is that the PCS piece is not a company, marg, it is part of the CIP. That is to say there exists a Crisis Intervention Program and the PCS is part of the plan. It sounds like a system of rights/privileges/consequences, that are extended and also withdrawn based on the behavior. Just going off the wording. This would be part of the CIP, along with other types of supports.

Let's see what truthdancer has to say about it.

Just as an aside, in the early years, we use PBS (Positive Behavior Supports and there are other terms to describe the same process) which do not extend or withdraw rights/privileges/consequences but essentially work to replace or reconstruct inappropriate behaviors with appropriate behaviors while building a positive sense of self. We look for the relevance of the behavior to the child (what profit does the child gain from the behavior...attention?) and teach the child how to get the same results (as attention) with appropriate behaviors.

I can, on some level, understand a program for youth that relies on a system of withdrawal and extension of privileges, however, based on my own work and the strategies that we use, my question would be what the program in question does to create a positive self image that supplies internal vs external rewards? In more simple terms, success vs scoring points.

I hope truthdancer will address this!

Editing: When I see the phrase "positive control systems" it makes my antenna immediately go up for it smacks of disciplinary measures that fail to teach self discipline which are two very different concepts as one corrects where the other teaches. I could be wrong about it in this case, but I get the sense that it has more to do with external controls than internal controls. Perhaps this is used as a temporary "put the brakes on" measure? I'm sketchy on what PCS actually entails.

I want to know what the parent piece of the program is.

Just thinking out loud on the screen.

[_marg]

The way I'm reading this is that the PCS piece is not a company

I believe this is the company she is talking about, having searched on the internet and found other places using the program by this company called "positive control systems." http://www.crisisprevention.com/

I'm leaving this subject for tonight, heading out to a movie. I felt I only scratched the surface talking with her, I was at a disadvantage not knowing what current youth say about their experiences or ones who have recently left Westridge. Obviously there are problem if there is no independent assessment done to determine if a youth warrants a disciplinary type place away from friends at home, away from much that most people have access to. And the fact that the school in the last few years has done away with "work crew" and Bonnie acknowledge that it was inappropriate... that all kids need an education and taking them away from that is counter productive. I have to question the competence of the current people running the place if stopping work crew was so recent. I would like to get more feedback from current students and ones recently left, via Eric's website. So far it's rather quiet there. I was there today and couldn't log onto the message board, probably because the whole site has been revamped and there might be some glitches.

[_Jersey Girl]

I'm more confused now. :-)

truthdancer, can you clarify this for us? Are you familiar with the program used at West Ridge?

What's the deal?

[_marg]

J.G. I've taken this off the Net and it describes the program by CPI which apparently is given world-wide. I thought Bonnie was telling me about the overall Westridge program when she mentioned it, however I think it was when I mentioned "restraints" that she mentioned this program and I didn't appreciation the connection at the time. I don't remember her saying they don't use restraints but I guess the implication is that this program is how staff are trained to handle violent or potentially violent situations with youth in lieu of forced restraint.

Course objectives
By the end of this course participants will be able to:

demonstrate techniques effective in approaching and reducing the tension of an agitated person
demonstrate responses that focus on the alternative if a person loses control and becomes violent
demonstrate non-verbal, verbal and physical intervention skills that maintain the best possible care and welfare, safety and security for everyone involved.
Course content
This course has been designed to target the special needs of caregivers, particularly with the rising level of violence in society. The focus is on safety and health for all involved. The course specialises in providing professionals who work in potentially harmful situations, with the skills to deal confidentially and appropriately with violent and disruptive behaviour.

De-escalation
This training looks at the theory behind disruptive behaviour and offers proven verbal and physical techniques for dealing with it. Non-violent crisis intervention training is not self-defence or restraint training. When applied correctly, the techniques taught on this course will equip the trainee with the skills to handle the crisis and also maintain rapport with the person.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Jersey Girl,

I could write a book on this topic! I REALLY don't like these sorts of facilities for numerous reasons.

Yes, I am very familiar with CPI techniques.

First, there is no reason whatsoever a child with "soft to moderate" behavioral problems needs these sorts of interventions. No reason at all. A child with these sorts of behavioral problems does not need to be housed in an institution, or taken from their family to live with strangers across the country. The whole thing is ludicrous in my opinion.

Secondly, a child with behavioral problems needs to have their challenges addressed; these may be neurological issues, environmental difficulties (school, peers, etc.), family problems, addictions, history of trauma etc. etc. whatever they are, in my opinion they need to be addressed. These types of facilities are not the place for this. (While I understand the children get counseling in these institutions, they could easily have family counseling, enter rehab, or receive mental health care in their communities).

Third, I am very uncomfortable with any facility where children are unable to contact family or a trusted adult outside the institution at any time. This alone raises all sorts of red flags for me. There should be independent adults to monitor, visit, receive all incident and unsafe behavior reports, frequently check in on children, etc.

Finally, the focus of any intervention should be helping the child and the family, and in those situations where a child needs to be removed from the home, the goal should be to have the family reunite as soon as possible. I see these extended stays totally inappropriate for these sorts of behavioral issues.

~td~

[_JAK]

JAK, I would like you to take a look at Westridge's mission statement page 6. I find it odd, that the team report assessing this school, sees nothing odd about the school's mission statement...the school is supposed to be focussed on improving problem behaviors but I get the sense they are focussed on getting religious compliance. http://www.schools.utah.gov/curr/accred/reports/TeamReports/WestRidgeAcad.pdf

If they are focused on behavior, they are clearly focused on much more.

Consider statements from page 6 (your reference):

“Mission Statement
The mission statement is concise and expresses a Christian emphasis on learning. The statement is as follows:

Because the glory of God is intelligence, and our students are children of God, our mission is to bring students to Christ by facilitating optimal learning for all students to enable them to lead fulfilling and productive lives in a rapidly changing and increasingly complex society.”

Just what “problem behavior” does this address? It doesn’t.

“The Visiting Team recognizes the mission statement as being meaningful to the school’s stakeholders and providing worthwhile, realistic objectives for school personnel in a Christian environment. It describes a compelling Christian purpose and direction for the academic division of the school. The Visiting Team reminds the school that a mission should be clear, concise, and precise, and reflect student learning as a top priority of West Ridge Academy. It should motivate, inspire, and reflect a collective vision that focuses on the role the school must assume in shaping the future. Such a mission statement is based upon and aligned with the school beliefs.”

Interesting phraseology in the use of “stakeholders.” It essentially declares that anything goes which satisfies the “stakeholders.” Hence, “worthwhile,” “realistic,” “Christian environment,” means anything the “stakeholders” regard as right. There is nothing there which is “clear” or “precise” as the Visiting Team states should be the case. It’s all open to interpretation as the “stakeholders” wish.

In addition, there is nothing there to suggest that West Ridge has “student learning as a top priority.” Calling this place an “Academy” is a play for legitimacy. It’s a word which has favorable connotation. Who could object or question an “Academy”? It’s important to read all the words here.

What’s a “collective vision”? It’s anything they want to call it. Now just how is the school going to be “shaping the future”? That’s a very broad declaration. The school might influence the future of people who attend it or who work there. That’s a far more limited “shaping” than “shaping the future” as the statement reads.

There is little question that a “mission” of a self-funded school will be “based upon and aligned with the school beliefs.”

This paragraph has so much ambiguous language that it is essentially meaningless so far as detail about what happens specifically at the school.

“Desired Results for Student Learning:
The School Improvement Team at West Ridge Academy, in collaboration with faculty, administrators, and some parents, has identified the following two desired results for student learning (DRSLs):

• Learning to Learn

• Thinking and Reasoning Skills

For each of the above three DRSLs, concise and meaningful indicators are given for guiding learning and assessment. The Visiting Team observes that West Ridge Academy followed closely the guidelines of the NSSE (Schoolwide Goals, Survey of Goals, etc.) for establishing DRSLs.
Members of the Visiting Team concur that the DRSLs are consistent with the school’s beliefs, philosophy, and mission statements.”

“Collaboration” is ambiguous. The two “desired results” are not detailed in such a way that “thinking” or “reasoning” have any explicit meaning. On the contrary, (as you implied), the school appears to be about indoctrination (religious indoctrination). That generally excludes or marginalizes thinking and reasoning skills.

You asked that I look at page 6. The above is from that page. The general “General Commendations and Recommendations” (later) are typical of an “investigation” which skims the surface of a “facility.” Any group which comes to a facility to evaluate does so after planning for the arrival of that group. That is, a whole group of people did not simply show up unannounced at West Ridge and declare they were going to conduct an evaluation of the facility.

West Ridge Academy knew this group was coming. West Ridge provided food and lodging while the group conducted its evaluation (either on the location or nearby). There is nothing about this that is unusual for evaluating teams. The North Central Association of Secondary Schools and Colleges (NCA) with which I was associated is similar to what happened at West Ridge. However, the NCA is generally more critical and detailed as it inspects a public high school or college. Perhaps the website you gave has only part of all that was written by the evaluating team. For example, an intensive evaluation of an institution such as Indiana University results in a far more comprehensive and detailed analysis of that institution. It has no religious overtones. It is more specific and generally weighted on recommendations. The NCA is more focused on improvements than compliments. The NCA revisits an educational institution at regular intervals and compares the previous evaluation with changes made related to the recommendations. It sights areas or specific details which need improvement. If those improvements are not met, the next NCA will state with clarity that the improvements recommended have not been met. The NCA has the objectivity and the authority to place an educational institution on probation (a first step) if that institution fails to improve in areas recommended by objective analysis. It also has the authority to withhold membership in the NCA should the visitation group find that the educational facility fails to meet detailed recommendations.

That stated, marg, it must be said that in secular educational facilities evaluated by the NCA, there are no religious overtones in the evaluations. Therefore, the NCA is not evaluating misconduct by those who attend the institution. It’s not trying to reform juveniles as appears to be the case for West Ridge Academy.

Since you asked, I have attempted to address page 6 of the website you gave for me. The comments may be more than you wanted.

In conclusion, I agree with your general analysis of West Ridge Academy’s evaluation. My observations merely apply some specifics to the scene.

You are to be commended for your efforts to investigate that facility and what has happened there in the past as well as its present situation!

JAK

[_marg]

Thank you JAK for your analysis, it is so good. And thanks T.D. for your perspective. I agree with you, it is wrong to send youth away from friends away from family to an institutional environment for minor issues or when it hasn't even been established professionally and independently that there is any issue with the youth. The issue could really be with the parent.

On Eric's web site message board I mentioned to him that Bonnie Stuver at the Department of Human Service licensing in Utah had said that the school has stopped the practice of "work crew" and has done so for the last 2 - 3 years. According to Eric it was after the protest he and his friends did at the school during a yearly funding raising event called "Scarecrow" in November 2008 that the school sent out a memo to parents saying they were no longer using "work crew". What is concerning is that since Bonnie acknowledge "work crew" was abusive, the practice included taking youth out of school and assigning them meaningless tasks like moving rocks around for hours, and if it was the school which voluntarily stopped this practice, then what good does Human Services do, if they from at least 2005, when licensing was state mandatory..never noticed or if they did notice, allowed it to go on. And why should any youth think that reporting anything to them will do anything when abuse of "work crew" carried on with no one, no staff nobody doing anything about it. Obviously the school realized it was in the wrong by stopping it, it was fundamental to their program. So how many years did it take them to figure out it was not only ineffective but ethically wrong. Assuming Eric is telling the truth as to the timing of when the school eliminated "work crew" which I haven't verified, it looks as if the protest outside the school by Eric and friends, which was put up on youtube in which they showed the practice of being tethered to a rope wearing a blanket instead of pants ..to passerbys may have been the reason the school to eliminated this "work crew" practice.

[_JAK]

Thank you JAK for your analysis, it is so good. And thanks T.D. for your perspective. I agree with you, it is wrong to send youth away from friends away from family to an institutional environment for minor issues or when it hasn't even been established professionally and independently that there is any issue with the youth. The issue could really be with the parent.

On Eric's web site message board I mentioned to him that Bonnie Stuver at the Department of Human Service licensing in Utah had said that the school has stopped the practice of "work crew" and has done so for the last 2 - 3 years. According to Eric it was after the protest he and his friends did at the school during a yearly funding raising event called "Scarecrow" in November 2008 that the school sent out a memo to parents saying they were no longer using "work crew". What is concerning is that since Bonnie acknowledge "work crew" was abusive, the practice included taking youth out of school and assigning them meaningless tasks like moving rocks around for hours, and if it was the school which voluntarily stopped this practice, then what good does Human Services do, if they from at least 2005, when licensing was state mandatory..never noticed or if they did notice, allowed it to go on. And why should any youth think that reporting anything to them will do anything when abuse of "work crew" carried on with no one, no staff nobody doing anything about it. Obviously the school realized it was in the wrong by stopping it, it was fundamental to their program. So how many years did it take them to figure out it was not only ineffective but ethically wrong. Assuming Eric is telling the truth as to the timing of when the school eliminated "work crew" which I haven't verified, it looks as if the protest outside the school by Eric and friends, which was put up on youtube in which they showed the practice of being tethered to a rope wearing a blanket instead of pants ..to passerbys may have been the reason the school to eliminated this "work crew" practice.

Exposure of questionable practices is generally disconcerting to an organization. It has few options.

It can defend its practices. It can deny them. It can phase out practices in virtually invisible ways. In the latter case, it paves the way for some deniability that the “practices” ever existed. Or, it can just say the “practices” were not effective. A combination of these escape techniques can be used at a place where secrecy is fundamental to the operation of the place.

Exposure that is fundamentally accurate requires an organization to do something that makes it appear respectable and beyond reproach.

It may well be the case that the publicity that Eric gave contributed significantly to reform.

How “Human Services” provided any genuine benefit is a good question. Did they just look the other way?

Whether the place actually recognized “work crews” as abuse would be an interesting query. West Ridge yielded to exposure and unfavorable revelations. Were their secretive practices still unexposed, would they still be doing them? Considering how long it took them to discontinue such practices, what was in fact the motivating factor? Was it that they genuinely recognized such practices were abusive?

Institutional ethics tend both to be difficult to expose and difficult to modify. Had the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) successfully terminated abuse by priests long ago, they could have saved billions of dollars in court-mandated compensation for that abuse. What happened instead was a long-time cover-up by the RCC. Only when the practices of priest sexual abuse of boys and girls (mostly boys) exposed did the RCC do anything. The first position was denial that there was any sexual abuse by priests. When countless victims came forward and their stories could not be silenced, the RCC complied with the mandates of the courts. But, the RCC used its own lawyers to fight the accusations for as long as they could.

Since West Ridge claimed “learning” and “thinking and reasoning skills” as what they taught, the “work crew” activities were contrary to the claim.

You stated:
What is concerning is that since Bonnie acknowledge "work crew" was abusive, the practice included taking youth out of school and assigning them meaningless tasks like moving rocks around for hours, and if it was the school which voluntarily stopped this practice, then what good does Human Services do, if they from at least 2005, when licensing was state mandatory..never noticed or if they did notice, allowed it to go on.

This “work crew” business could hardly be an illustration of “thinking and reasoning skills.”

You stated:
According to Eric it was after the protest he and his friends did at the school during a yearly funding raising event called "Scarecrow" in November 2008 that the school sent out a memo to parents saying they were no longer using "work crew".

Just how long was the practice of “work crew” in place? It appears that it was in place until it was exposed to a sufficient extent that the practice was threatened by thinking and reasoning skills.

Let’s assume for argument that parents place their kids at West Ridge because they are unable or incompetent to deal with their own children. It’s likely that a place like West Ridge is also deficient in skills at working with the people it gets. As a result, it tries things out of desperation. It has the kids. The parents are paying $3,000 a month (or something close to that) for West Ridge to FIX their kids. The parents want results. West Ridge also wants results – over time – in order to make the parents think the money was well spent.

How many kids have been held at the West Ridge facility? It might be a valuable study to interview directly 90% of all those who were at West Ridge. While that would not be easy or possible, it would give a picture from those who were directly at that location in order to be “fixed.”

A problem with interviewing only a small percentage is that the small number might not be representative. It’s a bit like giving a standardized test to everyone in a school. We need all the people to get a full picture. A university instructor gives the same test to all the students in a given class. All class members have been exposed to the same reading material and the same lectures.

An inherent problem with a place like West Ridge is this: Every person there has not necessarily been exposed to the same things. Discipline is selective. A person who causes no trouble, follows all the rules, etc. is likely to get different treatment than a problem person. At the same time, a place like West Ridge does not get anyone who is not a problem (in the view of someone – a parent). A “work crew” does not sound like tailored, individual treatment.

JAK