In the southern Utah wilderness six teenagers, two staff members and a
camera crew are trekking across the frozen plateau. The teens are part
of a hand-selected group from Great Britain. They are experiencing
first-hand the rigors of wilderness therapy as practiced by Utah based
RedCliff Ascent.
A British production company selected RedCliff for a documentary called "Brat Camp." The show aired nationally on ABC Family, as well as networks in Great Britain and Australia. It has generated a storm of controversy on Internet message boards throughout the world.
RedCliff is experiencing "the white hot glare of publicity." How will the company's decision to allow a film crew affect what happens to the kids? How might it affect what happens to other addiction therapy programs?
With "reality TV" topping the ratings charts increasing numbers of wilderness therapy programs are being approached by producers anxious to break new ground. But should the cameras be allowed to focus on these kids?
Dr. Thomas Kimball is an Associate Professor at the Center for the Study of Addiction at Texas Tech University in Lubbock, Texas. "As a therapist I'm a people researcher so to watch 'Brat Camp' was fascinating. I have serious concerns about us portraying minors who need help on TV and portraying it as entertainment, especially minors that aren't able to give consent in meaningful ways."
Thomas says reality television shows play to a side of human nature everyone has.
"We're fascinated by things that are ugly. We look when there's a car accident. Traffic backs up and we watch it. That's why reality TV is so hot. It feeds our need to look in on people's lives."
How did a tiny wilderness therapy company headquartered in Springville, Utah capture the attention of a British television production company?
Tamara Abood, producer for London-based TwentyTwenty Productions says it started with a water cooler conversation. "We said we wanted to do something about teenagers and teenage behavior. A network executive had heard of wilderness therapy but he didn't know what it was."
That led to Internet research and RedCliff Ascent. "We narrowed it down to a handful we were keen to visit in person," Abood says. "RedCliff was the first one we visited. We knew instantly they were the program for us. They have a devoted staff. You got a clear feeling that you were dealing with committed professionals. That was vital."
The producers were convinced. RedCliff owners were not. "They weren't interested when we went to see them," Abood recalls. "Our tack was this could do a lot of good if people see what it is you do. It has the scope to help, to educate and inform."
Stephen C. Schultz is spokesman for RedCliff. "Our biggest concern was the privacy of our students and the potential impact on the therapeutic process. We wondered how are the kids going to react? Are they going to play to the camera?"
Schultz says this isn't the first time RedCliff has been contacted by media. "We've had interaction with A&E in the past and different media folks. It's very apparent that people come in with a slant or an agenda. We didn't know up front, what TwentyTwenty's slant was going to be. We were worried it would be exploitative in nature."
"They were naturally quite skeptical about letting a film crew through their doors," Abood says. "We're used to filming in sensitive situations. We would simply be there as observers. We simply wanted to watch and learn."
"We weren't looking to find someone - we weren't soliciting," notes Dr. Daniel M. Sanderson. "Doc Dan" as his colleagues refer to him, is a clinical psychologist who serves as RedCliff's Clinical Director.
Sanderson says, "There have been previous attempts to do a cursory view of what takes place at RedCliff. We've had crews out on a few occasions. The difficulty is they were only able to provide a snapshot. It was tough to show the process of transition as it typically unfolds. Our experience was not really all that positive."
RedCliff owners and the producers, Abood and colleague Sam Whittaker, discussed the project for weeks. Sanderson says ultimately the clinical staff made the final decision. "We had a number of discussions and decided to give it a shot. The thing that swayed us more than anything else is we were promised we would have therapeutic control over how things would go," he says. "We told the company we would not alter the program or stage events. We were going to do whatever was necessary to make sure it was in the child's best interest. We were there to provide treatment."
Producers Abood and Whittaker accepted the arrangement. In their previous work on sensitive subjects such as terrorism survivors and juvenile diabetics they had practiced a restrained approach.
"You get used to being in environments where people are telling you sensitive and painful things," Abood explains. "It's about treading carefully and being humane in the way that you deal with people and understanding where the lines of good taste and sensitivity are. You can go there and go no further."
Schultz explains, "They were willing to learn all they could. Sam spent time out here seeing teams, going to the field, talking to people. They did the research and talked to organizations. It was not only what they were saying but they were doing the right things to research and really find out what we were about."
Tamara says, "The key ground rule we got from RedCliff was 'We do what we do. Don't ask us to do things differently for the sake of TV.'"
With the rules clearly in place, both sides agreed to give the production a try.
The Goal
For Abood and Whittaker, the production goal was clear. The concept of wilderness therapy was virtually unheard of in Britain. "The geography doesn't really lend itself to wilderness," Abood explains.
She says anti-social teenage behavior and family break down was grabbing headlines and political attention. "The idea was to show how our cousins across the water tackle these issues. We wanted to educate and inform families and perhaps help them to tackle their own issues."
Schultz explains RedCliff's perspective. "Simply put, at the time there was an unexplored market in the U.K. Nothing like this was over there. This was an opportunity to have kids and families learn about new treatments. We could open a new market with minimal risk and backlash."
While that may have been the theory the production took on a whole new dimension when RedCliff owners learned it would air in the United States. British broadcasters made a deal with ABC Family to air the production on the U.S. cable station. Schultz says the Family Channel was testing viewer interest in the States.
Risk and backlash were now very much a concern for RedCliff officials.
Dr. Sanderson says his goal for the production remained the same. "I wanted to have RedCliff portrayed in an accurate fashion. I wanted RedCliff to be seen as a viable treatment option, that we are head and shoulders above most of the other programs that are available."
Selecting the Students
The company sent Sanderson to London to help screen potential students. Some parents responded to the casting call as just that - an opportunity to get their child on TV. "Those kids were eliminated," Doc Dan recalls. The producers narrowed the applicants to 12. "All of the potential applicants met with a U.K. psychologist," Sanderson explains. "Then the executives went through and selected the ones they thought would be most appropriate."
If the producers hadn't involved a psychologist Sanderson says he would have wanted RedCliff's own admissions counselors to make the determination. Even with input from a mental health professional, Sanderson admits some of the kids that made the TV cut would have never been accepted into the program.
"The only way they were here is because someone else was paying their way," he says. "Their parents weren't as invested."
Citing Karl Menninger's core principles, Sanderson says, "paying for therapy is what keeps the relationship on an even keel. There needs to be mutual investiture. Parents that are mortgaging their houses to keep their children in therapy are emotionally invested."
Doc Dan says he believed taking the students producers selected was better than hand picking them. "We could show some amazing things happening to kids we didn't solicit. Any kid that comes here somehow we're going to be able to illuminate what is going on and we will see progression."
Sanderson met the parents to provide them with an overview of the program and answer questions. That was the first opportunity for producers and RedCliff staff to learn a principle both sides would struggle with throughout the production.
"Everything we did took a lot longer than the television crew anticipated," Doc Dan discovered. "The crew was wanting to hurry the parent meetings along. We didn't get to do the typical one-hour session. It would have helped me get a better conceptualization of what was going on with their children, a sense of family dynamics." Back in the States, 16-year-old Jessica was on her way to a rendezvous she says changed her life. Now 18, Jessica describes her life at that time. "I was wanting to experience the world and do everything I could regardless of the consequences." Specifically, Jessica was heavily addicted to meth. "My parents saw RedCliff as their only hope."
Jessica's mother, Erin, learned about RedCliff on the Internet. "We were trying to find a alternative method rather than taking her to a hospital lock-down scenario. She needed something that would jar her to the bone."
Jessica had been at RedCliff just five days before being put in the "Brat Camp" group.
Although she had signed a consent form authorizing the company to use Jessica's picture in various materials, Erin says, "It's kind of a mixed bag. You feel personally invaded a little that they will air your kid nationally. But our feeling was it would be for the greater good."
Logistics:
Besides protecting the privacy of his students, Stephen Schultz admits he was concerned about having a film crew in the rugged Utah backcountry. "We weren't going to do anything different for the kids just because a crew is there. Is the crew in shape enough to hike with the kids? How do we take care of them and their equipment if the weather turns bad?"
RedCliff officials assigned a senior staffer to watch over the film crew. A large army-type tent in a central local served as a sleeping area. The staff member made sure the crew had food and appropriate shelter for themselves and their gear. Generators supplied power to re-charge camera batteries and other equipment.
"When they originally showed up they came with outdoor gear that was nice but most of the time they were standing around, not hiking, so they were freezing," Doc Dan recalls. "They had to get different gear."
Abood says she started production with a six-person crew: two camera operators, two sound people, and two producers/directors. "By the end of three months of shooting there were just the two of us. Sam shot and I did sound."
Timing: Less than Perfect
Initially the production team figured about six weeks worth of shooting. The reality was much different. "The shoot took almost twice as long as we had anticipated," Abood says. Over budget with no immediate end in sight Abood and Whittaker were committed to finish the project even though it meant doing all the work themselves.
"The reality is we have some responsibility as program makers and we can't simply take a group of children out there and say, 'Well, our money's running out so you're going to have to cut it short.'"
A hallmark of RedCliff's program is that it is open-ended with no fixed graduation point. "All of the students from the U.K. were not at the same levels. They did not progress at the same rate," says Doc Dan. "We constantly had to remind the producer in the U.K. that this is the way we do it. We're not graduating any one earlier."
The production team suffered another setback. Tamara Abood explains, "When we arrived with the British children they were very badly behaved and Doc Dan decided to split them and limit the bad behavior by mitigating the pack mentality."
"From our perspective that became very difficult logistically. We hadn't anticipated that. It became very difficult to try and film two groups with one crew. Although it would have been fantastically convenient for us, Doc Dan only put the group back together when therapeutically it was good for the group."
A British production company selected RedCliff for a documentary called "Brat Camp." The show aired nationally on ABC Family, as well as networks in Great Britain and Australia. It has generated a storm of controversy on Internet message boards throughout the world.
RedCliff is experiencing "the white hot glare of publicity." How will the company's decision to allow a film crew affect what happens to the kids? How might it affect what happens to other addiction therapy programs?
With "reality TV" topping the ratings charts increasing numbers of wilderness therapy programs are being approached by producers anxious to break new ground. But should the cameras be allowed to focus on these kids?
Dr. Thomas Kimball is an Associate Professor at the Center for the Study of Addiction at Texas Tech University in Lubbock, Texas. "As a therapist I'm a people researcher so to watch 'Brat Camp' was fascinating. I have serious concerns about us portraying minors who need help on TV and portraying it as entertainment, especially minors that aren't able to give consent in meaningful ways."
Thomas says reality television shows play to a side of human nature everyone has.
"We're fascinated by things that are ugly. We look when there's a car accident. Traffic backs up and we watch it. That's why reality TV is so hot. It feeds our need to look in on people's lives."
How did a tiny wilderness therapy company headquartered in Springville, Utah capture the attention of a British television production company?
Tamara Abood, producer for London-based TwentyTwenty Productions says it started with a water cooler conversation. "We said we wanted to do something about teenagers and teenage behavior. A network executive had heard of wilderness therapy but he didn't know what it was."
That led to Internet research and RedCliff Ascent. "We narrowed it down to a handful we were keen to visit in person," Abood says. "RedCliff was the first one we visited. We knew instantly they were the program for us. They have a devoted staff. You got a clear feeling that you were dealing with committed professionals. That was vital."
The producers were convinced. RedCliff owners were not. "They weren't interested when we went to see them," Abood recalls. "Our tack was this could do a lot of good if people see what it is you do. It has the scope to help, to educate and inform."
Stephen C. Schultz is spokesman for RedCliff. "Our biggest concern was the privacy of our students and the potential impact on the therapeutic process. We wondered how are the kids going to react? Are they going to play to the camera?"
Schultz says this isn't the first time RedCliff has been contacted by media. "We've had interaction with A&E in the past and different media folks. It's very apparent that people come in with a slant or an agenda. We didn't know up front, what TwentyTwenty's slant was going to be. We were worried it would be exploitative in nature."
"They were naturally quite skeptical about letting a film crew through their doors," Abood says. "We're used to filming in sensitive situations. We would simply be there as observers. We simply wanted to watch and learn."
"We weren't looking to find someone - we weren't soliciting," notes Dr. Daniel M. Sanderson. "Doc Dan" as his colleagues refer to him, is a clinical psychologist who serves as RedCliff's Clinical Director.
Sanderson says, "There have been previous attempts to do a cursory view of what takes place at RedCliff. We've had crews out on a few occasions. The difficulty is they were only able to provide a snapshot. It was tough to show the process of transition as it typically unfolds. Our experience was not really all that positive."
RedCliff owners and the producers, Abood and colleague Sam Whittaker, discussed the project for weeks. Sanderson says ultimately the clinical staff made the final decision. "We had a number of discussions and decided to give it a shot. The thing that swayed us more than anything else is we were promised we would have therapeutic control over how things would go," he says. "We told the company we would not alter the program or stage events. We were going to do whatever was necessary to make sure it was in the child's best interest. We were there to provide treatment."
Producers Abood and Whittaker accepted the arrangement. In their previous work on sensitive subjects such as terrorism survivors and juvenile diabetics they had practiced a restrained approach.
"You get used to being in environments where people are telling you sensitive and painful things," Abood explains. "It's about treading carefully and being humane in the way that you deal with people and understanding where the lines of good taste and sensitivity are. You can go there and go no further."
Schultz explains, "They were willing to learn all they could. Sam spent time out here seeing teams, going to the field, talking to people. They did the research and talked to organizations. It was not only what they were saying but they were doing the right things to research and really find out what we were about."
Tamara says, "The key ground rule we got from RedCliff was 'We do what we do. Don't ask us to do things differently for the sake of TV.'"
With the rules clearly in place, both sides agreed to give the production a try.
The Goal
For Abood and Whittaker, the production goal was clear. The concept of wilderness therapy was virtually unheard of in Britain. "The geography doesn't really lend itself to wilderness," Abood explains.
She says anti-social teenage behavior and family break down was grabbing headlines and political attention. "The idea was to show how our cousins across the water tackle these issues. We wanted to educate and inform families and perhaps help them to tackle their own issues."
Schultz explains RedCliff's perspective. "Simply put, at the time there was an unexplored market in the U.K. Nothing like this was over there. This was an opportunity to have kids and families learn about new treatments. We could open a new market with minimal risk and backlash."
While that may have been the theory the production took on a whole new dimension when RedCliff owners learned it would air in the United States. British broadcasters made a deal with ABC Family to air the production on the U.S. cable station. Schultz says the Family Channel was testing viewer interest in the States.
Risk and backlash were now very much a concern for RedCliff officials.
Dr. Sanderson says his goal for the production remained the same. "I wanted to have RedCliff portrayed in an accurate fashion. I wanted RedCliff to be seen as a viable treatment option, that we are head and shoulders above most of the other programs that are available."
Selecting the Students
The company sent Sanderson to London to help screen potential students. Some parents responded to the casting call as just that - an opportunity to get their child on TV. "Those kids were eliminated," Doc Dan recalls. The producers narrowed the applicants to 12. "All of the potential applicants met with a U.K. psychologist," Sanderson explains. "Then the executives went through and selected the ones they thought would be most appropriate."
If the producers hadn't involved a psychologist Sanderson says he would have wanted RedCliff's own admissions counselors to make the determination. Even with input from a mental health professional, Sanderson admits some of the kids that made the TV cut would have never been accepted into the program.
"The only way they were here is because someone else was paying their way," he says. "Their parents weren't as invested."
Citing Karl Menninger's core principles, Sanderson says, "paying for therapy is what keeps the relationship on an even keel. There needs to be mutual investiture. Parents that are mortgaging their houses to keep their children in therapy are emotionally invested."
Doc Dan says he believed taking the students producers selected was better than hand picking them. "We could show some amazing things happening to kids we didn't solicit. Any kid that comes here somehow we're going to be able to illuminate what is going on and we will see progression."
Sanderson met the parents to provide them with an overview of the program and answer questions. That was the first opportunity for producers and RedCliff staff to learn a principle both sides would struggle with throughout the production.
"Everything we did took a lot longer than the television crew anticipated," Doc Dan discovered. "The crew was wanting to hurry the parent meetings along. We didn't get to do the typical one-hour session. It would have helped me get a better conceptualization of what was going on with their children, a sense of family dynamics." Back in the States, 16-year-old Jessica was on her way to a rendezvous she says changed her life. Now 18, Jessica describes her life at that time. "I was wanting to experience the world and do everything I could regardless of the consequences." Specifically, Jessica was heavily addicted to meth. "My parents saw RedCliff as their only hope."
Jessica's mother, Erin, learned about RedCliff on the Internet. "We were trying to find a alternative method rather than taking her to a hospital lock-down scenario. She needed something that would jar her to the bone."
Jessica had been at RedCliff just five days before being put in the "Brat Camp" group.
Although she had signed a consent form authorizing the company to use Jessica's picture in various materials, Erin says, "It's kind of a mixed bag. You feel personally invaded a little that they will air your kid nationally. But our feeling was it would be for the greater good."
Logistics:
Besides protecting the privacy of his students, Stephen Schultz admits he was concerned about having a film crew in the rugged Utah backcountry. "We weren't going to do anything different for the kids just because a crew is there. Is the crew in shape enough to hike with the kids? How do we take care of them and their equipment if the weather turns bad?"
RedCliff officials assigned a senior staffer to watch over the film crew. A large army-type tent in a central local served as a sleeping area. The staff member made sure the crew had food and appropriate shelter for themselves and their gear. Generators supplied power to re-charge camera batteries and other equipment.
"When they originally showed up they came with outdoor gear that was nice but most of the time they were standing around, not hiking, so they were freezing," Doc Dan recalls. "They had to get different gear."
Abood says she started production with a six-person crew: two camera operators, two sound people, and two producers/directors. "By the end of three months of shooting there were just the two of us. Sam shot and I did sound."
Timing: Less than Perfect
Initially the production team figured about six weeks worth of shooting. The reality was much different. "The shoot took almost twice as long as we had anticipated," Abood says. Over budget with no immediate end in sight Abood and Whittaker were committed to finish the project even though it meant doing all the work themselves.
"The reality is we have some responsibility as program makers and we can't simply take a group of children out there and say, 'Well, our money's running out so you're going to have to cut it short.'"
A hallmark of RedCliff's program is that it is open-ended with no fixed graduation point. "All of the students from the U.K. were not at the same levels. They did not progress at the same rate," says Doc Dan. "We constantly had to remind the producer in the U.K. that this is the way we do it. We're not graduating any one earlier."
The production team suffered another setback. Tamara Abood explains, "When we arrived with the British children they were very badly behaved and Doc Dan decided to split them and limit the bad behavior by mitigating the pack mentality."
"From our perspective that became very difficult logistically. We hadn't anticipated that. It became very difficult to try and film two groups with one crew. Although it would have been fantastically convenient for us, Doc Dan only put the group back together when therapeutically it was good for the group."
No comments:
Post a Comment