Federal Regulation of Therapeutic Programs? Both Sides Explored at Extraordinary IECA Session

November 13, 2009 | no comments

by Mark Sklarow, Executive Director, IECA

From the IECA Conference in NC

I had the opportunity to moderate a truly extraordinary session before 400 attendees at the IECA Conference in Charlotte. A panel of seven represented divergent views on legislation currently being considered that would regulate the therapeutic industry.

Brian Lombrowski, president of CAFETY supports the legislation and spoke of the role of government to ensure the safety of youth, noting that in many states with licensure and standards already in place, the federal legislation would have little impact, but would address problems in states with little or no regulation.

Next Dr. Jared Balmer, co-founder of a residential treatment program, provided some history. He noted that 25 years ago most troubled youth were housed in psychiatric hospitals, a far worse situation than what is afforded young people in RTCs today. He endorsed regulation but indicated concerns with some aspects of the current legislation.

Next up was Chris Noroski, a student at the University of St. Thomas, and vice president of CAFETY. He noted a concern for the lack of standing a teen has in deciding his or her own placement in a program. He drew attention to the conflict that may come when the parent is the customer and the student is the client. Grace Cole, a student from Charlottesville, Virginia, spoke next and reiterated Chris’ point that students deserve greater say in deciding their own fate and spoke of the need of students to be able to report suspected abuse.

Dr. John Santa, founder of Montana Academy, countered that from his experience, virtually no adolescents will willingly go to the residential treatment center, and so students cannot be making such decisions and that parents make this decisions out of concern for the well-being of their child. He also noted the danger that can come if students can regularly make accusations without foundation, to federal or state authorities. The result of the proposed bill, he said, is that programs would opt for safety, rather than treatment that might invite accusations of violations.

Lon Woodbury, chair of the Special Needs Committee of the Independent Educational Consultants Association spoke next, noting a series of legislative attempts to serve troubled teens that have been unsuccessful. He reminded everyone that even if well-intended, the key to results in new laws are in the regulations and guidelines that are written to implement the law and that these often corrupt the original intent.

Dr. Robert Friedman, a professor in the Department of Child and Family Studies at the University of South Florida, was the final panelist. He expressed concern for programs, Web sites, and unethical consultants that prey on parent anxieties, noting that many of the programs in the room, and IECA, seem committed to raising standards and operating in an ethical manner. He offered that efforts must be made to deal with those less ethical and those who do not work to meet higher standards.

During questions and answers, attendees raised questions about why the legislation doesn’t include traditional boarding schools, as well as questions about lowering the age of consent, as has been done in Washington state.

In the end it was remarkable because it marked the first opportunity for each side in this important debate to listen and speak with each other and to begin a dialogue. I was taken at one point by Dr. Santa’s view that 10 of the 14 regulations outlined in the bill he completely agreed with, and he saw two as administrative annoyances that he could live with. That left just two parts of the bill where he disagreed–with some vehemence–but this showed me that both sides are closer together than anyone had thought. The CAFETY and A-START folks are NOT trying to close down all residential programs, and the therapeutic industry folks accept the value and need for some regulation or licensure.

In the end I think it was a worthwhile exercise, and I had dozens of attendees seek me out to offer their opinion that the session was interesting, valuable, and a breakthrough. We look forward to continuing the dialogue and finding the role consultants may play in ensuring student success and family harmony.