This is an initial entry for guidelines for increasing the influences for what we call “Positive Intervention^sm.” We will be identifying and publicizing schools and programs that meet this subset of our guidelines, calling them Positive Intervention^sm schools and programs.

The concept here is, in simplest terms, is to  base therapeutic / change intervention on goals that are marks of successful, healthy people and avoid that which seems punitive and which disrespects the student/client.

To be more precise, a  Positive Intervention^sm school or program includes three elements:  (1) A defined goal or set of goals based upon characteristics reasonably believed to be the marks of all successful people are core issues in treatment / intervention planning and (2) there are no methods routinely applied of a punitive nature or intended just to assert dominance and power and when programs need to discipline or otherwise assert control, they consistently do so with respect, and (3) a consistent programmed approach to affirming the students / clients. Note, however, that treatment goals to overcome identified problems or diagnoses (in addition to consistency with 1 above) and firm methods to maintain discipline and therapeutically experience consequences of behavior may occur in Positive Intervention^sm schools and programs (and usually do).

One notion is that health is not simply the absence of illness. Another is that therapeutic intervention need not be punitive or putting the student / client in a subservient postion.  In addition, to  designate a school or program a Positive Intervention^sm school or program,  we also require adherence to guidelines listed in this website on relationships, staff example, and healthy development.   A Positive Intervention^sm school or program will treat a diagnosis, a negative behavior, or other problem simply as obstacles to achievement of goals that are marks of success. It is a school or program that affirms despite the student's / client's shortcomings.

Goals that are marks of success include such programming as Positive Youth Development or Developing Capable People , two approaches toward similar results that are already connected.  Positive Youth Development lists the “Five Cs” as the target characteristics;  Developing Capable People lists the “Significant Seven.”    We believe youth who exhibit either of these sets of characteristics very likely exhibit the other.  Reinforcing the existing strengths of the individual and working toward the characteristics that these two sets of principles identify as marks of healthy, successful people are the principal areas of emphasis in Positive Intervention^sm. Covey's Seven Habits may also qualify.

We are still looking for a more succinct way of defining “Positive Intervention^sm” that does not refer back to our Guidelines, is clear enough for the general public to understand what is at issue on hearing the definition, and does not use technical language.  Suggestions are invited at FamilyLightResponse@yahoo.com  . 

This is an area where we know of no schools or programs that perfectly adhere to these specific guidelines, although some appear to come close.  We hope to see full compliance by some programs in the near future.  The absence of programming that is committed to the principles of Positive Intervention^sm is frankly disturbing to us.  If this website accomplishes only one thing, it is our hope that making Positive Intervention^sm the standard of the industry would be that accomplishment.

There is a tradition in schools and programs involved in behavioral change and therapeutic intervention that involves that school or program starting off with a demonstration of power and control as the base line for how the school/program and students / clients will relate to each other.  Schools and programs that do this are often referred to pejoratively as “tough love” programs. (We think that mis-describes the problem and misuses the term “tough love.”)  They are also described as “break ‘em down then build ‘em up” programs.  This tradition lives on to various degrees in most behavioral programs.  What we call Positive Intervention^sm is intended to be the antithesis.  We hope to see this tradition replace the “break ‘em down” tradition.  It is possible to see elements of both in the same school or program.

We totally understand and respect what motivated this tradition originally and why it was important at one time.  (We will be adding an article in Topics of Interest in 2009 that describes this tradition, its origins, its original significance, and its abuses)  That tradition lives today, and we think it has mostly outlived its usefulness.    The tradition is so strong that it is difficult to find a school or program involved in therapeutics or behavioral change that does not maintain that tradition.  We think the schools and programs need to reconsider this. 

We understand that there are young people going to such programs who need to encounter non-negotiable limits, and that necessary and appropriate assertion of control will have some of the marks of the traditional approach.  We don’t think that applies to every child or adolescent who needs help with a psychological or behavioral problem.  This tradition is what has energized Congressman Miller to push legislation to try to destroy all of this programming. He is a misguided fanatic, but the schools and programs have handed him the resources to attack through excessive reliance on gratuitous assertion of power and put down. NATSAP and program owners that do not like Miller’s proposed legislation should take another look at the famous Pogo cartoon where Pogo says, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”  (We should add that we would welcome passage of the Miller Bill after it was amended subject to adding some further amendments to prevent some unintended consequences.  But we do think pressure on the states to better regulate these programs is in order.)

We believe it is appropriate for schools and programs to be prepared to take sufficient action as is needed to take charge when students /clients demonstrate defiance and aggressive behavior.  We know from experience that even in the face of the most outrageous behavior it is possible to assert appropriate control while also projecting respect, encouraging positive relationships, and otherwise adhering to our guidelines.  It is not necessary to approach people just arriving in a program punitively, with hostility, or with gratuitous force or in a way that humiliates.  It is usually not necessary to approach new arrivals with an expectation that there will be outrageous behavior, although sometimes it is. 

We would be OK with having a few schools and programs maintaining some aspects of the older tradition if there were effective clinical pre-screening of students / clients.  Even those schools and programs need to become committed to moving toward what we call Positive Intervention^sm.  We are OK with some of the attributes of the older tradition to be utilized very broadly with students /clients who challenge limits once enrolled.  We know that for many students firmness contributes to emotional safety and security.  Doing what we call for is a balancing act. It is difficult.  With what these programs are charging the difficult is a reasonable expectation.  

It is not realistic to expect any school or program to fully meet our Positive Intervention^sm guidelines at this time.  We believe that Forest Heights Lodge, Maple Lake Academy, Wediko School, Tyler Ranch, Sober College, and New Summit Academy all are within the spirit of Positive Intervention.    We note that Shortridge Academy claims to base its entire program on Positive Youth Development, a claim we are not yet prepared to fully evaluate . We invite comments on other programs that adhere to Positive Intervention^sm guidelines to be shared with us at FamilyLightResponse@yahoo.com  .   

Feedback is invited. We will  publish selected feedback.  Email FamilyLightResponse@yahoo.com

Disclaimer: No  program review, no matter how positive, is a blanket endorsement. No criticism is a blanket condemnation.  When we express our level of confidence in a school or program, that is our subjective opinion with which others might reasonably disagree.  When we assert something as fact, we have done our best to be accurate, but we cannot guarantee that all of our information is accurate and up to date. When we address compliance with our guidelines, you need to remember that these are only OUR guidelines -- not guidelines from an official source.  We have also set the bar very high, and do not expect any school or program to be in total compliance.  It is not appropriate to draw a conclusion of impropriety (or even failure to live up to conventional wisdom) from our lack of confidence in a school or program or from less than perfect conformity to our guidelines.  Some will say we expect too much. Readers are responsible for verifying accuracy of information supplied here prior to acting upon it. We are not responsible for inaccuracies.

Last revised 10-26-08