Author Topic: CARF and Responsibility  (Read 22941 times)

Offline 10oriocookies

  • Hill 10 Situation
  • Posts: 551
  • "Sandy!!!!??????"
Re: CARF and Responsibility
« Reply #60 on: July 08, 2014, 22:27 »
I believe CARF to be a money making machine rather than an organization that cares about the type of rehab in accredits. For example: CARF accredits the drug rehab owned and managed by the Church of Scientolgy called Narconon. Their treatment consists solely of learning Scientolgy scriptures (which were intended to train their churches clergy) with no licensed counselors, psychologists or psychologists on their staff. In one Narconon center 3 people died within a 9 month period and I reported this to CARF. The response I got was that it’s not their problem. Narconon boasts a 76% success rate and to this day cannot back up these numbers with a third party study. There are so many lawsuits against Narconon currently for fraud, breach of contract and a number of other shady business practices that any normal accrediting agency wouldnt touch them with a 10 foot pole. CARF instead re-accredited Narconon Arrowhead for another 3 years.




My comment on the article.
ET went home.

Offline ethercat

  • Global Moderator
  • High Value Target
  • Posts: 3,770
Re: CARF and Responsibility
« Reply #61 on: July 09, 2014, 09:43 »
My comment, which has not been approved either:

Quote
Thank you for this insightful article on the importance of understanding what accreditation means and the value of doing research before choosing a rehab

(I am including supporting links throughout my comment, but I'd like to make it clear that the site I've linked to is not a commercial site, not selling anything, but is instead intended to give people information that will help them when making a decision about a rehab.)

By and large, I agree with what you've written here, Dr. Sack.  However, it is apparent to some of us who advocate against the Narconon program and facilities (a scientology-based rehab) that CARF is somewhat lacking in its commitment to assuring quality, at least when it comes to Narconon. 

Narconon of Oklahoma has long been accredited by CARF, which is accepted in lieu of state licensing in Oklahoma, and yet has had any number of problems due to their use of L. Ron Hubbard methods rather than evidence-based methods which are accepted practices among the rehab community. 

Most recently, they are being sued by the National Association of Forensic Counselors (NAFC), along with 81 other defendents who are now, or have been in the past, associated with Narconon, over fraudulent claims that employees had Certified Chemical Dependency Counselor (CCDC), Master Addictions Counselor (MAC), and other certifications offered by NAFC; and for the unauthorized use of NAFC's trademarks by these people and facilities.

They are also being sued by the loved ones of 3 people who died suddenly at their facility in less than 1 year, Gabriel Graves, Hillary Holton, and Stacey Murphy.  The lawsuits and complaints by others are numerous, as well.

CARF also has accredited Best Drug Rehabilitation (BDR) in Michigan, run by Per Wickstrom, formerly of Narconon Stonehawk which is now closed.  Best Drug Rehab uses the same scientology teachings that Narconon of Oklahoma does.  Like Narconon of Oklahoma, NAFC's lawsuit includes Best Drug Rehab as a defendant for fraudulent use of certifications and trademarks also.  Complaints against them are numerous as well, with at least 12 complaints about Best Drug Rehab to the Michigan Attorney General's office between 2011 and 2013.  There are many other types of complaints against BDR also.

CARF has been informed several times I know of about these problems, and yet every communication to them that I know of has been met with the same form letter and no apparent action taken.  Narconon of Oklahoma and Best Drug Rehab are anything but “current research, evidence-based practice, peer-reviewed scientific and health publications, clinical practice guidelines and/or expert professional consensus.”  I do not know if CARF's scrutiny of other facilities is as lax as it is with Narconon and BDR, but based on what I know, my impression of their accreditation is not favorable.

Thank you for warning people that accreditation does not always mean quality care.  It is so important for people to research where they send their loved ones at a vulnerable time in their life.  Dr. Sack, I urge you to look further into what I've posted about CARF, Narconon, BDR, and the value of CARF accreditation.  Thank you for reading.
   Narconon Reviews
   Independent Reviews of the Narconon Drug Rehab Programs
   Answers to Frequently Asked But Seldom Answered Questions

Offline SocialTransparency

  • High Value Target
  • Posts: 1,326
Re: CARF and Responsibility
« Reply #62 on: July 11, 2014, 14:53 »
My comment, which has not been approved either:

Quote
Thank you for this insightful article on the importance of understanding what accreditation means and the value of doing research before choosing a rehab

(I am including supporting links throughout my comment, but I'd like to make it clear that the site I've linked to is not a commercial site, not selling anything, but is instead intended to give people information that will help them when making a decision about a rehab.)

By and large, I agree with what you've written here, Dr. Sack.  However, it is apparent to some of us who advocate against the Narconon program and facilities (a scientology-based rehab) that CARF is somewhat lacking in its commitment to assuring quality, at least when it comes to Narconon. 

Narconon of Oklahoma has long been accredited by CARF, which is accepted in lieu of state licensing in Oklahoma, and yet has had any number of problems due to their use of L. Ron Hubbard methods rather than evidence-based methods which are accepted practices among the rehab community. 

Most recently, they are being sued by the National Association of Forensic Counselors (NAFC), along with 81 other defendents who are now, or have been in the past, associated with Narconon, over fraudulent claims that employees had Certified Chemical Dependency Counselor (CCDC), Master Addictions Counselor (MAC), and other certifications offered by NAFC; and for the unauthorized use of NAFC's trademarks by these people and facilities.

They are also being sued by the loved ones of 3 people who died suddenly at their facility in less than 1 year, Gabriel Graves, Hillary Holton, and Stacey Murphy.  The lawsuits and complaints by others are numerous, as well.

CARF also has accredited Best Drug Rehabilitation (BDR) in Michigan, run by Per Wickstrom, formerly of Narconon Stonehawk which is now closed.  Best Drug Rehab uses the same scientology teachings that Narconon of Oklahoma does.  Like Narconon of Oklahoma, NAFC's lawsuit includes Best Drug Rehab as a defendant for fraudulent use of certifications and trademarks also.  Complaints against them are numerous as well, with at least 12 complaints about Best Drug Rehab to the Michigan Attorney General's office between 2011 and 2013.  There are many other types of complaints against BDR also.

CARF has been informed several times I know of about these problems, and yet every communication to them that I know of has been met with the same form letter and no apparent action taken.  Narconon of Oklahoma and Best Drug Rehab are anything but “current research, evidence-based practice, peer-reviewed scientific and health publications, clinical practice guidelines and/or expert professional consensus.”  I do not know if CARF's scrutiny of other facilities is as lax as it is with Narconon and BDR, but based on what I know, my impression of their accreditation is not favorable.

Thank you for warning people that accreditation does not always mean quality care.  It is so important for people to research where they send their loved ones at a vulnerable time in their life.  Dr. Sack, I urge you to look further into what I've posted about CARF, Narconon, BDR, and the value of CARF accreditation.  Thank you for reading.

Very nice retort!

Offline snippy

  • Supressive Person
  • Posts: 396
Re: CARF and Responsibility
« Reply #63 on: July 11, 2014, 23:21 »
 L-O-:

Offline ethercat

  • Global Moderator
  • High Value Target
  • Posts: 3,770
Re: CARF and Responsibility
« Reply #64 on: July 12, 2014, 11:41 »
   Narconon Reviews
   Independent Reviews of the Narconon Drug Rehab Programs
   Answers to Frequently Asked But Seldom Answered Questions

Offline DeathHamster

  • Actual Trouble Source
  • Posts: 298
Re: CARF and Responsibility
« Reply #65 on: July 14, 2014, 19:56 »
When Narconon Chilocco first got their CARF accreditation, Oklahoma was "Yeah, so?" and then they added up the bill for the legal fight...

Narconon credential meaningless to state June 13, 1992, Tulsa World
Board Ran Up Huge Legal Bills Before Giving Narconon Exemption August 20, 1992, Wayne Greene, Tulsa World

More articles:
Category:CARF (Also under the sub-category Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities)