New at Reason

December 28, 2006

Maia Szalavitz examines "tough love" drug rehab programs aimed at teens.

Comments

Warren|12.28.06 @ 3:48PM|#

Who said that? Who the fuck said that? Who's the slimy little communist shit twinkle-toed
cocksucker down here, who just signed his own death warrant? Nobody, huh?! The fairy fucking
godmother said it! Out-fucking-standing! I will P.T. you all until you fucking die! I'll P.T. you until your assholes are sucking buttermilk.

|12.28.06 @ 3:51PM|#

Good article and it covers all of the bases but the author seems to call for more government oversight and regulation regarding these programs. I am all for stopping the government from offering ineffective treatment as an option but not necessarily for increased oversight with regards to "private" organizations. If parents were fully informed as to the harshness and ineffectiveness of these programs, either by researching them or by the media, these "tough love" organizations would close overnight.

|12.28.06 @ 3:52PM|#

Kwix- I think this may be one of the rare cases where government oversight is a good thing.

|12.28.06 @ 4:08PM|#

I'm the ministry of death
Ahoorah!
I'm part of a brotherhood no hackers allowed
You scumbag sonofabitch
You bubble-butted bulging maggot piece of shit
You syphillitic Siberian sonofabitch
I'm gonna screw your head off
I'm gonna stick my dick in your nose
I'm gonna sell you to queers
I'm gonna bury you like dog shit
Ahoorah!

ed|12.28.06 @ 4:09PM|#

It's doubly ironic that those same parents who are damn near getting a free pass on responsibility -- they didn't know a friggin' boot camp might brutalize their kids? -- are the individuals most responsible for their kids' behavioral problems in the first place.

dhex|12.28.06 @ 4:52PM|#

"I am all for stopping the government from offering ineffective treatment as an option but not necessarily for increased oversight with regards to "private" organizations."

cept it looks like homeboys are like, murdering people and shit. on the public dollar.

|12.28.06 @ 4:53PM|#

As funny as it was in Full Metal Jacket, it's a lot more funny when it's happening to the guy next to you. Just don't laugh, don't even smile.

My favorite was when someone said "you" referring to the Drill Instructor.


"Did you call me a You?"
"Do you know what a you is?"
"A you is a female sheep"
"Female sheep have little hairy assholes"
"I bet you like to f**k little hairy assholes"
"Do you want to f**k me, boy?"

The first time I heard that I was crying it was sooooo funny.

Larry A|12.28.06 @ 5:32PM|#

It's doubly ironic that those same parents who are damn near getting a free pass on responsibility -- they didn't know a friggin' boot camp might brutalize their kids? -- are the individuals most responsible for their kids' behavioral problems in the first place.

There are undoubtedly parents who cause their kids' problems. Having raised two daughters I suspect that most parents whose kids end up in trouble are normal parents who did their best, and who raised healthy kids as well as rebellious ones.

In my case one of our daughters simply stopped listening to us about age 14 and fell in with the wrong crowd. This happened in public school when we had no input in that part of her life.

Because alcohol and drugs are zero-tolerance illegal and we couldn't help her make good decisions without ourselves being indited, because we were actively discouraged from any role at school, and because there was simply no other community alternative other than the police, who couldn't act until it was too late, we had to muddle through on our own.

Please note I'm not clueless. I have a degree in sociology, at the time held a social work certification, and spent several years working at a residential facility for emotionally disturbed children whose family situations were so totally screwed up they had lost custody. I knew what options there were, or on the case of kids who were headed the wrong way but had not yet arrived what options there weren't. Luckily I knew what research said about boot camp programs, so we avoided that trap.

About the time she was eighteen our daughter's boyfriend got pissed off and burned all her stuff. That taught her dating a felon wasn't as cool as it sounded. It's amazing how much smarter her parents were when she was twenty than when she was sixteen.

In our case it was luck and the solid foundation we had given her before she tuned out. Had she been a person who tended toward addiction the outcome could have been very different.

|12.28.06 @ 6:23PM|#

Number 6 | December 28, 2006, 3:52pm | #
Kwix- I think this may be one of the rare cases where government oversight is a good thing.

I fail to see is how this is anything other than advocating for the government to assume the role of consumer protection akin to the FDA. I feel that the "tough love" programs are just a modern variation of "snake oil" guaranteed to fix all of your problems, even the ones you didn't know you had. Sure, it's all a farce and it may even kill you, but should the government be in the role of telling you what is and is not healthy for you or your children?

dhex | December 28, 2006, 4:52pm | #
"I am all for stopping the government from offering ineffective treatment as an option but not necessarily for increased oversight with regards to "private" organizations."

cept it looks like homeboys are like, murdering people and shit. on the public dollar.

Again, this goes back to government coercion. If the gubmit stops offering (forcing) these worthless programs as a "treatment" option (you know, after seeing that they don't work and kids die and stuff) and they sever all funding to these programs then I think that should be the end of the discussion from the government's point of view.

That's not to say that these programs should be allowed to continue as is; I just don't think the government should have any hand in them. If somebody dies while in the care of one of these programs then by all means press charges and try the mutha's for murder. Sue them out of existence. Smear them from here to kingdom come. I feel that exposing these atrocities, as this article did, is a good thing and a great start. Hell, this goes back to a private "consumer reports" organization that could rate these programs based on effectivness, danger, etc. When Consumer Reports said "don't buy the Hyundai Excel" peopled listened and Hyundai changed it's operating practices and begain building relatively reliable cars. In this case, the government continues to endorse a failing product and the story rolls on.

Part of the extended problem is the media sees that government "experts" endorse these programs and think that there must be some redeeming value to them. The government wouldn't hurt it's own people now would it? Another good example is to look at the Drug War as a whole. How many AP "articles" are simply rehashing of DEA/ONDCP press releases. No verification, no counterpoint, no worries. Surely for every kid killed in a boot camp or little old lady shot in a SWAT raid there must be something good to it or the Government wouldn't be endorsing it. The government doesn't lie so why should the press question it.

|12.28.06 @ 7:09PM|#

I'm saddened by this story. When I was a kid at Eckerd College in St.Petersburg in the 70's, I was part of a group that investigated the Seed. Our group included students, the local ACLU, and the ST.Petersburg Times. The Seed's practices were throughly exposed, at least in the St.Pete times. I left St. Pete before results could become appearent. It's a damned shame those scum have continued to perpetrate their crimes. These people belong in prison along with other child abusers.

|12.28.06 @ 8:27PM|#

Were the guards ever charged with anything?

Paul|12.28.06 @ 8:44PM|#

I'm on the fence with this one. What Szalavits points out is the same thing that happens in any program when the state becomes a temporary ward of people-- underage people to boot.

I think that States where these boot camps exist should take a very low-to-zero tolerance for any kid that dies while in the care of these groups. I like the idea that they have cameras-- it creates a kind of accountability. Sort of like cameras on the dash of every cruiser.

Exposing incompetence, criminal or even murderous incompetence doesn't make me want to scrap the concept of juvenile boot camps. I mean, how many kids have died while in the traditional detention system? Dare I even let this question pass across my lips: How many kids have died while in the foster care system?

All the people associated with this incident, and possibly the management of this boot camp are certainly due for a 'Come to Jesus' meeting. And certainly some broader investigations may be due. But to simply point out that a kid died in a given program and conflate it into an indictment of the program itself seems like an eagerness to vent some bias against the boot-camp system-- not a well thought out argument.

Some numbers are certainly due to be crunched. How many people die in U.S. Military boot camps? Is the number of kids who died in the juvenile camps exceeding the percentages in military camps? What precautions against injury are there with the camp management? What accountability measures are in place?

I think she makes a decent argument about the general effectiveness of the programs-- this seems like a more salient point than "hey, some kids died, it's the program that kills them." That's like saying "the foster care system kills kids."

Yeah, I know, the foster care system probably isn't the best example, but I'm just sayin'.

I guess my gut feeling is that if it were my kid, I'd rather have them in the boot camp than traditional juvenile detention. Even knowing that some kids have died in the program- just as grown-ups have died in military boot camps etc.

brian423|12.28.06 @ 8:47PM|#

We libertarians need to start thinking of Grace Llewellyn as an imperfect but invaluable ally.

|12.28.06 @ 10:18PM|#

If preventing kids from being tortured and killed isn't a core government function, then what is?

|12.28.06 @ 10:25PM|#

I am a bit confused. Several times in the article, the author noted that studies didn't find that boot camps were more effective than juvie, which I take to mean that their was no statistically-significant result found. So why is this an arguement to close boot camps? Isn't it equally logical to conclude that we should do whichever is cheaper, and if the price differences are modest, let people choose?

|12.28.06 @ 10:40PM|#

Chad

The argument was to close the boot camps. Although comparative stats were NOT given, I think the clear implication was that juvenile detention systems do not systematically abuse and torture their inmates. [Or at least, if they do, to a much lesser degree.]

Jennifer|12.28.06 @ 10:53PM|#

I've never believed that parents should have absolute, unquestioning authority over their children, and I've long felt that no child should be locked up (in a boot camp or any other "teen help center") without the equivalent of a trial, just as adults can't be imprisoned without a trial. The fact that the prison is owned by a private entity rather than the government shouldn't make a goddamned bit of difference.

Jon Thompson|12.29.06 @ 1:51AM|#

I have no problem with people hurting or even killing children, as long as they have the permission of the parent, for the same reason that I believe 45th trimester abortions should be legal. Children are not free citizens; they are property, reminiscent of a dog.

With that said, in this case, the government took someone's property and mistreated it. I'd have the same reaction, from a legal standpoint, if someone did this to a misbehaving dog.

As you can guess, I hold no fondness for Grace Llewellyn.

edna|12.29.06 @ 9:03AM|#

I've long felt that no child should be locked up (in a boot camp or any other "teen help center") without the equivalent of a trial, just as adults can't be imprisoned without a trial.

what about catholic school?

Jennifer|12.29.06 @ 9:43AM|#

what about catholic school?

If it's a Catholic boarding school that disallows any contact with the outside world, same thing. If you're not allowed to leave and you're not allowed to talk to anyone outside, you're in prison, no matter what fancy names you call it.

Larry A|12.29.06 @ 10:09AM|#

How many people die in U.S. Military boot camps? Is the number of kids who died in the juvenile camps exceeding the percentages in military camps?

First, people in military basic training are adults, and at least right now volunteers. Second, they are preparing for a physically arduous and mentally challenging occupation for which some desensitization and toughening are necessary for survival. Sweat in training or bleed in battle.

The children sent to "boot camp" programs are subjected to degradingly violent physical and verbal assaults in an attempt to destroy what they are with the hope that what replaces it will be healthier. They are forcibly molded into a cult-like groupthink environment where the camp leaders can control them completely.

IMO the exact opposite needs to happen. In my experience with children taken out of abuse situations such kids have already learned to discount physical punishment. Kids who get in trouble with drugs tend to be those most easily swayed by peer pressure, thus the groupthink environment is counterproductive.

If we really want to help these kids then lay within them a foundation of independent thought. Teach them to take responsibility for their own decisions, and train them to exercise personal authority in making those decisions.


What precautions against injury are there with the camp management? What accountability measures are in place?

How can you have accountability and precautions to prevent injury when the underlying philosophy of the juvenile boot camp model is to intenionally inflict injury as a means to a cure?

I guess my gut feeling is that if it were my kid, I'd rather have them in the boot camp than traditional juvenile detention.

Your kid will be much safer in detention, particularly if he or she is not violent. Also, because your kid will most likely be held locally you will have more opportunity to at least monitor if not participate in his or her care. Note I'm not saying juvenile detention is a good place to be. But at least, in well-run programs, physical restraint and coertion are last resorts, not standard practice.

If you're not allowed to leave and you're not allowed to talk to anyone outside, you're in prison, no matter what fancy names you call it.

I'll go further than that. Even most prisoners can have visitors and correspondence. (At least in the U.S.) My theory is that any program that prohibits outside contact has too much to hide.

|12.29.06 @ 10:35AM|#

I fail to see is how this is anything other than advocating for the government to assume the role of consumer protection akin to the FDA. I feel that the "tough love" programs are just a modern variation of "snake oil" guaranteed to fix all of your problems, even the ones you didn't know you had. Sure, it's all a farce and it may even kill you, but should the government be in the role of telling you what is and is not healthy for you or your children?

But Kwix, it isn't you that's going to be killed by the boot camp. If parents who are having problems with their kids want to check themselves into a boot camp to learn better parenting techniques, I don't think the government should stop them.

I understand the reluctance to let the government decide what is and is not healthy for your children--but the story makes reference to one of these facilities used to "cure" teenagers who are gay. Do you belive parents have the right to send teens to such facilites?

|12.29.06 @ 11:16AM|#

Excellent article. One that I will probably use as a resource from time to time.

Waaayyy back in the eighties, I was a teenager that enjoyed recreational drugs far too much. So much that I took it upon myself to clean up my act (failing 9th grade twice was a big part of it). I attended 12-step programs and immersed myself in the sXe punk culture that still existed in DC to some extent.
Right down the street from where I live was the Springfield Straight facility. I often ran into the kids from there in my travels.
They are forcibly molded into a cult-like groupthink environment
That really cannot be overstated. It was frightening how cowed these kids were. Despite the fact that I was completely drug and alcohol free, the few Straight kids I ran into at school and elsewhere were absolutely not allowed to associate with me. They were creepier than any cult zombies I have ever encountered.

|12.29.06 @ 11:42AM|#

To continue with my thought...

That these kids were not allowed to socialize with me led me to the conclusion that getting the kids off drugs was only the visible part of the iceberg. Their real intention was to turn them into the Straight founder's idea of "good citizens", conservative born-again Christians in other words.

edna|12.29.06 @ 3:37PM|#

If you're not allowed to leave and you're not allowed to talk to anyone outside, you're in prison, no matter what fancy names you call it.

well, for me, that was summer camp (very similar to jew-bilee). for my bro-in-law, it was indeed catholic school. in my case, the beatings were administered ad hoc by my peers. for b-i-l, the beatings were more professionally structured and involved guys who didn't have sex with women and wore long woolen dresses.

|12.30.06 @ 4:06PM|#

Kwix, just TRY prosecuting these clowns. They'll just become anti-drug martyrs.