Idaho Republicans just made their teen residential treatment bill even worse
An amended version of a bill to get rid of state licensing for residential drug and alcohol treatment facilities for teenagers has made the legislation even worse.
The one Coeur d’Alene facility that it’s aimed at benefiting, the Good Samaritan Rehabilitation Center, is now specifically named in the bill, and the minimal oversight requirements that were in the original bill have been removed.
“We are supposed to be moving forwards from this and not reverting to fewer protections for youth,” Ruth York, executive director of the Idaho Federation of Families for Children’s Mental Health, said in a press release opposing the amended bill.
The amended version of the bill also creates a pilot program with a reporting requirement that does not come until three years from now.
That means the Good Samaritan Rehabilitation Center could operate for the next three years with virtually no oversight. Good Samaritan is run by pastor Tim Remington, who is now a state representative. He was appointed by Gov. Brad Little to fill the vacancy after the expulsion of John Green, who was convicted of a federal felony.
Good Samaritan, which currently treats adults for drug and alcohol use issues, could house children and adults together, which was one of the concerns brought before the House Health and Welfare Committee last month. Further, Good Samaritan also treats adults with pornography and sex addiction, according to its website, an even bigger concern for allowing adults and children to be treated together.
After hours of testimony from parents, child advocates, counselors, a former drug user, a psychiatrist and lawyers urging legislators to kill this bill because it doesn’t do enough to protect children from potential abuse, Health and Welfare Committee members voted to advance the bill with amendments — on straight party lines, with Republicans in support.
Bill sponsors Sen. Mary Souza, R-Coeur d’Alene, and Rep. Ron Mendive, R-Coeur d’Alene, amended the bill by removing about 30 lines from the original that provided a bare minimum of requirements.
The amended bill was read for a second time in the House on Wednesday and filed for a third reading, after which it would go to the Senate.
The lines removed from the original bill would have required any residential treatment facility for teens to report to local law enforcement, be located within 50 miles of a medical facility, to conduct criminal background checks, and to require a prescription from a medical doctor and notification of the school counselor to enter a residential program.
In her testimony to the Health and Welfare Committee, Souza touted these safeguards as a “community solution.” However, the amended bill removes all that.
If passed, the bill would allow such facilities to operate without any requirements for training, treatment, clinically based standards of care, quality, expertise, or monitoring of staff or staffing levels. Without licensing, there would be no direction, oversight or reporting on whether a facility practices such things as the use of restraints, seclusion and corporal punishment.
“We have decades of research showing simply adapting adult programs to adolescent programs is ineffective,” Sheila Sturgeon Freitas, a clinical psychologist, said in the Idaho Federation for Families’ press release. “Clinical review is needed to ensure treatment is appropriate and meets the developmental needs of adolescents.”
There are also no guidelines over parental rights and visitation, and there is no requirement for liability insurance.
“There is no requirement that the facility provide information to the parents about the facility’s unlicensed status and lack of clinical oversight prior to beginning the program,” Jen Griffis, a parent who has experience accessing residential treatment for her child, said in the release from the Idaho Federation of Families.
After I listened to the testimony from one person after another opposing the original bill — testimony that Republican legislators ignored — I didn’t think it was possible the legislation could get any worse.
Unfortunately, after the amendments, bad legislation became horrible.
This story was originally published February 28, 2020 at 12:51 PM.
