Hearing held on the licensure of teen programs
by Jay Stevens
John Adams has a good summation of the hearing around Trudi Schmidt’s teen program licensure bill.
(If you haven’t seen my posts on this topic before, check them out.)
The interest in licensing teen programs was sparked by abuses that took place at Spring Creek Lodge Academy.
In 2005 the Legislature passed a bill creating the Montana Board of Private Alternative Adolescent Residential or Outdoor Programs (PAARP). Later that year the five-member board—which includes three industry representatives—went to work examining the benefits of licensing such schools. Last summer the panel released a 64-page report recommending that the Legislature grant it another two years to continue considering registration and licensure.
Schmidt wasn’t satisfied with the board’s recommendations, so she responded by introducing SB 288.
What Adams doesn’t mention, is that the 2005 bill was sponsored by Trout Creek Democrat Paul Clark, who himself runs a teen program. Considering that three of the five members of the board created in 2005 belong to the industry (and one seat belongs to a representative from Spring Creek), it’s no wonder they failed to accomplish anything.
A licensure program needs to be created and created now.
According to Adams’ piece, the hearing made evident the widespread support for Trudi Schmidt’s bill from former students, health professionals, and educators. Those that opposed the bill?
The only programs on the record opposing the legislation were Spring Creek Lodge Academy of Thompson Falls and Monarch School of Heron.
Only two people verbally testified in opposition to the bill. The first was Gary Spaeth, a lobbyist for the Montana Alternative Adolescent Private Programs (MAAPP), an organization Spaeth said represents “between 10 and 12” programs operating in Montana (Spaeth couldn’t recall which Montana schools were members of MAAPP, nor could Patrick McKenna, director of Monarch School and the organization’s president).
Spaeth wants the industry to be able to transfer licenses, like alcohol or solid waste. (Senator Kim Gillan: “I found that comment sort of a strange analogy given that we’re talking about children.”)
Spaeth is also against expanding the oversight board so that the industry is in the minority:
According to [Patrick] McKenna, having a lopsided number of board members who don’t represent the industry could stifle innovation at the expense of the teens in the programs.
But we’ve clearly seen the effects of an industry-dominated oversight board. Nothing got done.
Trudi Schmidt’s bill is popular and effective. Let’s get it done. Kids’ lives are at stake.
(There’s a link to the committee hearing audio. I haven’t listened to it yet, but I will and will bring you the highlights. Also, there’s a draft version of a modified version of Schmidt’s bill — LC 1003 — that’s sponsored by Democratic Senator Jim Elliot. I’ll be taking a look at that, too. So there’s more to come…)
-
1
Pingback on Feb 16th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
[…] Hearing held on the licensure of teen programs […]
Leave a comment
Recent Comments
Miles on A New Shelter for Vets or an E… success rate for In… on Thirty years ago ARCO killed A… Warrior for the Lord on The Dark Side of Colorado Linda Kelley-Miller on The Dark Side of Colorado Dan on A New Shelter for Vets or an E… Former Prosecutor Se… on Former Chief Deputy County Att… JediPeaceFrog on Montana AG Tim Fox and US Rep.…
4&20 blackbirds 
February 17, 2007 at 2:52 am
I would like to meet with you to discuss your perceptions regarding the work of the Montana PAARP board, the origin of HB 628 prior to the 2005 legislative session and the current licensing bills for programs in the 2007 legislative session. Some of the conclusions in your writings are incorrect. For example, the real reason the PAARP board recommended continued study time in its final report was that, primarily due to the very late appointment of board members, the board met 15 times to accomplish much work conducting registration, surveys, town hall meetings, examinations of existing regulations and visits to programs. The board completed the fact finding and finished the report just days prior to the deadline for presenting the report to the interim legislative Economic Affairs Committee. It did not have time to analyze the data to make further recommendations at that time. “No wonder they failed to accomplish anything” does not come close describing the work of the PAARP board.
Another example is your true statement that Senator Elliot’s bill does not include programs that are “an adjunct ministry of a church incorporated in the state of Montana.” It does, however, include all other faith based programs in the state. “Faith based” and “adjunct ministry” are not the same. This provision was amended into HB 628 by Rep Jeannie Windham because, due to the very contentious nature of an evenly divided house, it was necessary for the passage of the bill. It is a provision in the current SB 288 which, if left intact, will likely guarantee the demise of Sen Schmidt’s bill when it reaches the house. I can explain why (i.e. the politics and policy issues) if want to hear more.
HB 628 was never intended to be the final regulatory mechanism to establish ethics, standards or licensing for private programs. It was the first small step and probably the only step that could survive the 2005 session. There are similar factors at work during the current legislative session and, since the house and senate are likely to be unreceptive to one another (to say the least), much work will be required for either bill to pass.
Please contact me for more information( Ph 406-827-4440). I will be happy to visit you in Missoula to continue this discussion.
Sincerely, Paul Clark
PS “Elliot’s bill” is actually sponsored by Rep Bob Lake from Hamilton.
July 6, 2007 at 9:13 am
I’m not sure if this is the best place to ask or not, but we’re looking for a teen program and don’t want to end up with one that has had issues in the past.
Is there some central location where all of this information is made public? We’re particularly interested in some of the programs for troubled teens listed on http://www.eprogramsearch.com/ if you know right off that any of these are questionable, I’d appreciate it if you could pass along the word.
July 8, 2007 at 9:18 am
Jeremy – I perused the site you linked, and it doesn’t seem there are any Montana programs on there…at least that I could find. Perhaps that is because Montana doesn’t certify or regulate teen programs?
I would suggest you call the local authorities (like the county health department and the county sheriff’s office/city police) of any program that you are considering. If it’s got problems, it is going to show up in reports from agencies like those.
If the state regulates it, you might look at exactly what is regulated, so you know the value of its certification. Some places merely issue a license and that’s it.
I’ve had encounters with a few teen programs here in Montana – one is something I’d never consider sending even my dog to, as there is absolutely no structure and the place is run by religious zealots. The other is run by another religious group, and they do pretty good stuff. They focus on girls at risk.