No Surprise: State Spares 'Shock School,' Not Kids

Even though there is no evidence beyond anecdote that its methods work, even though there are clear cases of harm, even though it is now clear that its employees will just follow orders no matter how bizarre, Massachusetts has cleared the Judge Rotenberg Center to use electric shocks on emotionally disturbed and disabled children for another year.

If you are a parent, after serious child abuse has been documented, you can't just tell child welfare authorities, "Don't worry, I promise not to starve and beat my kids again."

But if you are an institution, you can starve, restrain, sleep deprive, shock, sexually humiliate and assault, beat, utilize stress positions, gag with ammonia, pepper spray, emotionally brutalize, isolate and even occasionally kill with complete immunity. All you have to do is promise regulators you won't do it again, write up some new rules that you say you'll follow, maybe fire the occasional scapegoat staffer.

If things really get hot, you can just move to another state or change your name. But no matter how many kids you order to be abused, no matter how discredited your treatment model, no matter what regulatory violations you commit, there always seems to be a state regulator willing to give you one more chance.

One wonders why the "tough love" "zero tolerance" "one strike and you're out" approach isn't applied to the facilities, only to the children who can't fight back.

Comments

[Stagmom]

I wonder why no one has mentioned that many of the children at JRC have autism? They are not having tantrums. Nor are they "disturbed" in the traditional sense of mental illness. THEY. HAVE. AUTISM. And with autism can come severe GI problems, migraines, agony from sound and light, sensory disturbances that affect balance and coordination and an inability to generalize the pain, let alone explain it or ask for help. And so their behaviors can indeed become violent as they lash out against the pain and the stupidity of those around them to recognize it. For this they are treated worse than animals. I met a rep from JRC last October at an autism conference. He smiled as he explained the "treatment" and its efficacy. I almost vomited into his bowl of M&M's.

[Maia Szalavitz - Huffpost Blogger]

See Maia Szalavitz's Profile

Actually, NYC Bear, the vast majority of kids in aversive programs are *NOT* endangering themselves or anyone else. They are smoking pot and annoying their parents. This is far less true of Rotenberg, which does tend to see more severe cases, but most kids in "tough love" programs actually don't meet any diagnostic criteria other than a "wallet biopsy" of the parents.

And, there are empirically-supported treatments that have been shown to work with all types of "troubled teens"-- and no, not just medications or isolation.

In fact, the research is quite clear that for the vast majority of troubled kids, inpatient care of any sort should be limited to brief periods for safety. The treatments that have been shown to work are mainly family therapies that keep kids in the community. We know now that recovery from most mental health issues depends on strong, supportive relationships-- something that is much easier to promote in the community as opposed to an artificial institution.

Rotenberg costs some $200,000 per patient per year-- for that, you could have individualized care in the home 24/7 using positive behavioral techniques with very individualized reinforcement, which, again, have been shown to work with autistic kids with severe self destructive behavior.

Of course, nothing works 100%-- but without research, we don't know that Rotenberg works better than no treatment, let alone better than positive treatment.

And there is a real chance of traumatizing kids via the use of this system-- no one has looked to see if there are long-term harmful effects, either.

[Maia Szalavitz - Huffpost Blogger]

See Maia Szalavitz's Profile

NYC Bear, *choosing* to undergo aversion for behavior *you want* to stop is very different from being forced to undergo it.

When people choose to undergo stressful experiences, stress doesn't affect them the same way that it does when they are coerced. You can see this even in rats: if they are given electric shocks and can choose to avoid them, they don't have immune system problems nor do they develop a form of depression known as "learned helplessness."

But if they can't avoid them, they are more susceptible to induced cancer and to other illnesses and will develop learned helplessness.

The basis of this treatment is supposed to be that the kids can avoid the shock if they change their behavior-- but this presupposes that they are engaging in the behavior voluntarily or for no reason and presupposes that the shocks are administered correctly (which, given the prank incident, is clearly at least sometimes not true).

If the kids are doing the problem behavior involuntarily or less than voluntarily, the shocks will simply punish and could produce learned helplessness and other stress-related illnesses. If they are doing it to self-soothe and don't have alternatives so continue it, the shocks will still be delivered and the same thing will happen.

The strength of the shocks isn't the issue. Some reporters have tried it and found it agonizing-- others say it's no big deal. Clearly, pain perception varies widely and you can't say one or the other is "true"-- particularly since autistic children are known for sensory oversensitivity in general.

What matters here is the data. The data doesn't support the use of this treatment in kids. The only research on it is case studies: no controlled trials. Therapies that can be dangerous *must* be proven safe and effective *FIRST*: not after twenty years of essentially experimenting on kids and not following up to see what happens long term.

If this was a drug and this school was using it on kids without FDA approval and without data, they would have been shut down years ago.

[NYCBear]

I went to an aversion therapy clinic in Seattle to quit smoking. Nothing else worked. The aversion therapy did work. The Schick Center used pulses of electric shocks on my wrist as I smoked in their lab to develop the aversion. The shocks were tiny and rapid. They were annoying rather than painful, and were powered by a 9 volt battery. But they were electric, which is enough for some people to assume that they are torture.

People hear "electric shock" and think "cattle prod" - but that's an assumption that doesn't fit in with the proper practice of aversion therapy. Associating annoying sensations with unwanted behavior works better than inflicting intense pain.

Have any of the adults objecting to this school's aversion therapy techniques put on their equipment and gone through the whole range of shocks that can be administered?

Wouldn't that be the proper thing to do? See first hand just how painful they are? "Electric shock" sounds terrible, but we've all had little electric shocks from static buildup or whatever, and it's annoying but we don't think anything of it. Finding out personally how intense these shocks are is the easiest thing in the world to do, why haven't the critics done so?

Aversion therapy does, in fact, work for some very recalcitrant problems, including drug addiction. The school allows parents to drop in at any time, which is a major plus in their favor, and many parents report good results with children other schools have given up on.

The critics need to put aside their pet theories and assumptions and test out the actual experience before condemning it.

[KateGladstone]

The latest news from Dachau West -- er, Canton, Massachusetts -- plays an ironic blues counterpoint to a bill now before the Massachusetts legislature (House Bill 3922) which, if passed, will forbid parents to slap or spank a child. Present and former residents/staff of the Rotenberg Center have stated that the school offers electric shockers on loan to parents expecting their kids home for vacations or weekends: so that parents can electrocute their children during these times but not (if the new bill passes) do anything as horrendous as actually spanking them. ...

[locanicole]

Well, why not? In a country where some people think that torture is a debatable and justfiable activity to engage in, why wouldn't we. It's so obvious that this is harmful and ultimately, extremely COUNTERPRODUCTIVE, but hey, if you can brutalize a couple of kids and show how they have been scared STRAIGHT (for the time being)...who cares about long-term psychological damage. We live in the now, we're selfish, we want results NOW,not mouthy kids who don't listen...