Losers!

[Anonymous]

Based on a few people I know who have been to one

I was expecting this type of response based on your posts, which make it clear you have never been in a program or even toured one, let alone have the experience necessary to give advice to other people about programs.

We need to step back and look at a broader view, a view of all who have graduated/ dropped out and compare their experiences with the national averages of other institutions to see how they sized up.

You don't get it, do you? There will never be any numbers to compare. WWASP claims a 96% success rate on their website. Why don't you call them up and ask them how they came up with that figure. :lol:

>If my airbag failed to deploy in a Ford Taurus, would it be short sighted of me to want all cars removed from the road and ban anyone from driving based on my experience?

It wouldn't be up to you. If it was a problem with the vehicle, Ford would have to investigate and possibly recall millions of vehicles at great cost to them. Why? Because they are part of a regulated industry. Parents have filed many lawsuits against WWASP and other programs for abuse, and nothing is done. That's the difference between a regulated industry and a completely unregulated industry. One has standards, the other doesn't. Look at how many consumer vehicle report agencies are out there. How many dateline episodes have you seen about 'what car rated highest for safety', etc? When it comes to programs, we are simply supposed to take their word for it? Come on, wake up!

Shouldnt we first consider that cars may help people, Fire truck, ambulances etc. or should we step back and look at a larger picture, maybe collect some data and see how many other people are being hurt etc.

It does make sense to keep data, doesn't it? The auto industry keep detailed statistics about what works and what doesn't, as do most legitimate organizations. So why don't these RTC's and Behavior Mod places do it? It doesn't take much to make a call to the parents a year after the kid leaves and ask them to take a survey. Why doesn't a third-party agency do this? What are they hiding? Hmmm.

[TheWho]

On 2005-12-07 10:22:00, Anonymous wrote:

"

Based on a few people I know who have been to one

I was expecting this type of response based on your posts, which make it clear you have never been in a program or even toured one, let alone have the experience necessary to give advice to other people about programs.

We need to step back and look at a broader view, a view of all who have graduated/ dropped out and compare their experiences with the national averages of other institutions to see how they sized up.

You don't get it, do you? There will never be any numbers to compare. WWASP claims a 96% success rate on their website. Why don't you call them up and ask them how they came up with that figure. :lol:

>If my airbag failed to deploy in a Ford Taurus, would it be short sighted of me to want all cars removed from the road and ban anyone from driving based on my experience?

It wouldn't be up to you. If it was a problem with the vehicle, Ford would have to investigate and possibly recall millions of vehicles at great cost to them. Why? Because they are part of a regulated industry. Parents have filed many lawsuits against WWASP and other programs for abuse, and nothing is done. That's the difference between a regulated industry and a completely unregulated industry. One has standards, the other doesn't. Look at how many consumer vehicle report agencies are out there. How many dateline episodes have you seen about 'what car rated highest for safety', etc? When it comes to programs, we are simply supposed to take their word for it? Come on, wake up!

Shouldnt we first consider that cars may help people, Fire truck, ambulances etc. or should we step back and look at a larger picture, maybe collect some data and see how many other people are being hurt etc.

It does make sense to keep data, doesn't it? The auto industry keep detailed statistics about what works and what doesn't, as do most legitimate organizations. So why don't these RTC's and Behavior Mod places do it? It doesn't take much to make a call to the parents a year after the kid leaves and ask them to take a survey. Why doesn't a third-party agency do this? What are they hiding? Hmmm.

"

"It doesn't take much to make a call to the parents a year after the kid leaves and ask them to take a survey. Why doesn't a third-party agency do this? What are they hiding? "
Careful dont assume things about people
I have toured many.  My child finished up a couple of years ago, great idea about the survey!!  See stuff like this works.  Anyway, doesnt matter why there isnt any data, if there is a conspiricy or not, how does one conclude for sure?  They cant, you need to have data.
Lets get them regulated !!  great start, that was exactly my point with the car industry, but the schools need to be foreced into it, they are not going to volunteer!!  Would most teens voluteer to get their drivers test, no would they be bad people if they didnt, no.  There needs to be a law to force people and or institutions to comply and that plants the seed for unbiased and regulated data collection.  But just because there is no data doesnt mean hand full of people can decide what is right, good or bad.

[Anonymous]

Basically, the problem is that people who post here more often than not think they're a lot smarter than they are. The jackass that posted that last little airbag anecdote probably sat there licking his lips while he was writing it. "Oh man! This is GOLD! This'll tell 'em how it is." And he was probably so proud of himself when he posted it.

And in all reality he just sounded like the complete half-wit that he is. Quit trying to sound all intelligent and get back to rotating my tires.

[Anonymous]

My child finished up a couple of years ago

What program you sent your child to, and how did it work out?

[Anonymous]

On 2005-12-07 13:06:00, Anonymous wrote:

"Basically, the problem is that people who post here more often than not think they're a lot smarter than they are. The jackass that posted that last little airbag anecdote probably sat there licking his lips while he was writing it. "Oh man! This is GOLD! This'll tell 'em how it is." And he was probably so proud of himself when he posted it.



And in all reality he just sounded like the complete half-wit that he is. Quit trying to sound all intelligent and get back to rotating my tires.  "

OH MAN, YOU TELL 'EM!  :roll:

[TheWho]

On 2005-12-07 13:06:00, Anonymous wrote:

"Basically, the problem is that people who post here more often than not think they're a lot smarter than they are. The jackass that posted that last little airbag anecdote probably sat there licking his lips while he was writing it. "Oh man! This is GOLD! This'll tell 'em how it is." And he was probably so proud of himself when he posted it.



And in all reality he just sounded like the complete half-wit that he is. Quit trying to sound all intelligent and get back to rotating my tires.  "

I guess you are on to me, I really have a low I.Q., the airbag analogy was a huge break thru for me, thought I would get respect with that one.

[TheWho]

On 2005-12-07 13:34:00, Anonymous wrote:

"

My child finished up a couple of years ago

What program you sent your child to, and how did it work out? "

ASR, Did really well, a small adjustment period afterwards, it turned out to be a good thing.

[Anonymous]

ASR, Did really well, a small adjustment period afterwards, it turned out to be a good thing.

What is ASR? Could you elaborate a little more, why don't you offer us your experience...?

[TheWho]

On 2005-12-07 14:13:00, Anonymous wrote:

"

ASR, Did really well, a small adjustment period afterwards, it turned out to be a good thing.

What is ASR? Could you elaborate a little more, why don't you offer us your experience...?"

Academy at Swift River, small school in the Berkshires of Massachusetts.  They are part of the Aspen group, 14 - 16 months on average as a stay.

[Anonymous]

A call to the PARENTS?
After a YEAR?
A SURVEY?

How about a team of qualified and skilled professionals sit down with the PARTICIPANTS and ask enough questions to determine what methods were used to modify their behavior and if it was ethical, if it REALLY 'worked', or if their parents actually paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for a Holding Tank complete with Acting School.

Many suvivors don't come to reality until 5+ years out of their programming facility. So, to really know the truth you wouldn't stop with 1 year 'graduates'.

Who or what agency stands to gain from such data? Who would pay for this daunting task?
While we're waiting for that interested third-party to manifest, we could start compiling questions for ex-residents, for shits and grins.

Was the program 'successful' in modifying your behavior?
In your own words, how do you feel they accomplished this?
Do you ever have nightmares about the program?
Upon your release did you have problems 'fitting in', or ever feel like you were inherently flawed?
Have you been dx's with PTSD or any other 'disorder' since being released?
Are you on meds or in therapy?
Is it hard for you to genuinely trust others?
Do you ever feel rage or total helplessness around authority figures?
Do you hold resentment toward your parents or programs staff?
Do you have any problems associated with advocating for yourself?
Do you really abstain for drug/alcohol use, or have you just learned how to snow your parents?
Would you place your own child in a program?

The list could go on and on covering specific punishments; withholding of food, contact with family; etc.etc.etc.
And to get genuninely honest answers, the interviewee should be hooked up to a lie detector machine.
Their conditioning is such that they are confused. They have been punished for saying what they think and feel. They are required to always 'look on the sunny side' or suffer severe consequences- the creation of Stepford children, brilliant actors. Chances are really good that even if the program was abusive (covertly or overtly) their conditioned response would be to lightly make mention and quickly get off the subject or minimize. That's if they even recognize their 'treatment' as abuse.

Yes, accurate data could be very useful.
Until then, the accounts of abuse and deaths will have to suffice for the discerning parent who may not understand that they're rolling the dice with their child's well-being when they consider a warehouse facility.

[TheWho]

On 2005-12-07 14:50:00, Anonymous wrote:

"A call to the PARENTS?

After a YEAR?

A SURVEY?



How about a team of qualified and skilled professionals sit down with the PARTICIPANTS and ask enough questions to determine what methods were used to modify their behavior and if it was ethical, if it REALLY 'worked', or if their parents actually paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for a Holding Tank complete with Acting School.



Many suvivors don't come to reality until 5+ years out of their programming facility. So, to really know the truth you wouldn't stop with 1 year 'graduates'.



Who or what agency stands to gain from such data? Who would pay for this daunting task?

While we're waiting for that interested third-party to manifest, we could start compiling questions for ex-residents, for shits and grins.



Was the program 'successful' in modifying your behavior?

In your own words, how do you feel they accomplished this?

Do you ever have nightmares about the program?

Upon your release did you have problems 'fitting in', or ever feel like you were inherently flawed?

Have you been dx's with PTSD or any other 'disorder' since being released?

Are you on meds or in therapy?

Is it hard for you to genuinely trust others?

Do you ever feel rage or total helplessness around authority figures?

Do you hold resentment toward your parents or programs staff?

Do you have any problems associated with advocating for yourself?

Do you really abstain for drug/alcohol use, or have you just learned how to snow your parents?

Would you place your own child in a program?



The list could go on and on covering specific punishments; withholding of food, contact with family; etc.etc.etc.

And to get genuninely honest answers, the interviewee should be hooked up to a lie detector machine.

Their conditioning is such that they are confused. They have been punished for saying what they think and feel. They are required to always 'look on the sunny side' or suffer severe consequences- the creation of Stepford children, brilliant actors. Chances are really good that even if the program was abusive (covertly or overtly) their conditioned response would be to lightly make mention and quickly get off the subject or minimize. That's if they even recognize their 'treatment' as abuse.



Yes, accurate data could be very useful.

Until then, the accounts of abuse and deaths will have to suffice for the discerning parent who may not understand that they're rolling the dice with their child's well-being when they consider a warehouse facility."

This is a great start,  the questions on the questionnaire could be expanded and actually given to the kids prior to entering a facility and then at 1 year increments after graduation, to see how their views have changed.  As you mentioned there seems to be a 5 year critical point, this could be verified by a shift in data at that point.  Some schools may graduate kids who have a shift at year 3, which would prompt someone to ask the question what is different with the 2 schools etc.
Success rates/failures could be monitored by number of years in college, times returned, jail time , living back with family etc.
I think the lie detector hook-up might be a hard sell, say a kid claims he was abused but refuses to be hooked-up, the data would have to be discarded and you would loss some valuable data that way.  Any type of data collection from people is going to contain false reports, but as you collect more and more data points the skewed data tends to fall out and the truth rises to the top (but we are talking years)

for example during the period July 1, 1999 to June 30,2000 there were 2,124 Homicides and 1,922 Suicides of youth ages 5-19 in the United States.  Do RTC account for more than their portion?  Right now we dont know

Another Statistic:"In 1999?2000, an estimated 1.5 million violent incidents occurred in public elementary and secondary schools. Seventy-one percent of public schools experienced one or more violent incidents and 36 percent of schools reported one or more such incidents to the police.

Where do RTC's fall within this range?  Are they doing better or worse? We just dont know and I dont think that is acceptable, we need to find out and the only way anyone will listen is to compare the data.

Until that time we can only rely on what other parents and students who have been there have to say and figure out credible their story is.

I think we agree

[Deborah]

I'm not sure if we agree.

I don't think I'm on board with your view of 'success'. Why would 'number of years in college' be listed. Who has determined that college is necessary for success, IF success is defined as peace and contentment with self and others?

This appears to be at least one significant factor in parents incarcerating their kids. They also put college education under the Success heading and when their kid veers off that pre-determined path, off they go to RTC. Would it be the end of the world if a kid chose not to attend college?

I also would not necessarily catagorize 'living back at home' unsuccessful- particularly in the current economy. Not sure what you're implying.

As to the lie detector. I'm very curious how this would work when someone has had their thoughts modified. For instance, my son, when asked to list abuses for discovery,  would say "so and so happened but that wasn't abuse, it was a consequence". Well, it was abuse, by the most conservative definition. But he had been conditioned/trained to think of it as normal and appropriate. I don't know how that would work, but would be curious to see how the detector responded. Would it show him to be lying if he'd been led to believe that the abuses he endured were normal and not abuse. Now that's a study I'd be interested in seeing.

I understand that it's important to you to compare the deaths/accidents/abuse in RTCs to those in other social institutions, but I consider it a moot point. Parents pay upwards to 60, 70K a year to put their kid in a 'therapeutic' bubble, to isolate and protect them from the risks of living in the real world with all its inherent dangers; while having their behavior, thoughts, feelings modified. I'd say for that kind of money, there shouldn't be even one death, minimal injuries that are not associated with risky activities the child is forced to participate in, and certainly no abuse.

Injuries and abuse aside, there were 14+ deaths in RTCs in 2000- right up there with appendicitis. Too many. I do have to wonder how many of those kids would be dead today if they hadn't been placed outside their homes. That is impossible to ascertain with any study or survey for the obvious reason that they are dead.... and RTCs will remain a risk parents take with their kids life in their quest for protection, perfection and success- as they define it.

[TheWho]

On 2005-12-07 18:13:00, Deborah wrote:

"

I'm not sure if we agree.



I don't think I'm on board with your view of 'success'. Why would 'number of years in college' be listed. Who has determined that college is necessary for success, IF success is defined as peace and contentment with self and others?



This appears to be at least one significant factor in parents incarcerating their kids. They also put college education under the Success heading and when their kid veers off that pre-determined path, off they go to RTC. Would it be the end of the world if a kid chose not to attend college?



I also would not necessarily catagorize 'living back at home' unsuccessful- particularly in the current economy. Not sure what you're implying.



As to the lie detector. I'm very curious how this would work when someone has had their thoughts modified. For instance, my son, when asked to list abuses for discovery,  would say "so and so happened but that wasn't abuse, it was a consequence". Well, it was abuse, by the most conservative definition. But he had been conditioned/trained to think of it as normal and appropriate. I don't know how that would work, but would be curious to see how the detector responded. Would it show him to be lying if he'd been led to believe that the abuses he endured were normal and not abuse. Now that's a study I'd be interested in seeing.



I understand that it's important to you to compare the deaths/accidents/abuse in RTCs to those in other social institutions, but I consider it a moot point. Parents pay upwards to 60, 70K a year to put their kid in a 'therapeutic' bubble, to isolate and protect them from the risks of living in the real world with all its inherent dangers; while having their behavior, thoughts, feelings modified. I'd say for that kind of money, there shouldn't be even one death, minimal injuries that are not associated with risky activities the child is forced to participate in, and certainly no abuse.



Injuries and abuse aside, there were 14+ deaths in RTCs in 2000- right up there with appendicitis. Too many. I do have to wonder how many of those kids would be dead today if they hadn't been placed outside their homes. That is impossible to ascertain with any study or survey for the obvious reason that they are dead.... and RTCs will remain a risk parents take with their kids life in their quest for protection, perfection and success- as they define it.



















"

One really cant measure success for others.  Some parents just want to see their kid alive for another 6 months.  Sometimes the kids want to attend a trade school or get their GED which is great, its all individual, success is a personal measurement.
The lie detector issue is bizarre, it shouldnt be used, the data will speak for itself.

So far I agree with you, where we part a little is when you mention 14+ have died in 2000 and how many of these would have lived if they remained home and that the number is too high.  I agree but we will never know.  How many of the graduates who lived would have died if not for the, as you call it "'therapeutic' bubble"?  Are the kids entering these schools at a higher risk of harming themselves then your average high school student?  Less risky? We dont know.  So how does one approach this?
If one child dies do we shut every school down?
2 die, 3?  and what do we base our decisions on? If parents pay 70k they should expect 0 deaths, but the ones who are there on state money can accept a couple of deaths, that I dont buy.  I dont think the money is a factor, who cares what it costs, the schools dont set the price the parents do.  They charge exactly what the parents are willing to pay and not a penny less, the same as anything else in America, milk, gas, weed.  The prices are set by the people, they stop buying and the price goes down.

Over time the data will speak for itself, even if it has flaws and people are not being honest.  Once you start comparing the results to previous years and other institutions the problem areas stick out and you go after them.

[TheWho]

Oh thanks, Deborah, for your response.  I think we basically agree that its hard to make sense of just individual cases without relating it somehow to a larger piece.

[Deborah]

***How many of the graduates who lived would have died if not for the, as you call it "'therapeutic' bubble"? Are the kids entering these schools at a higher risk of harming themselves then your average high school student? Less risky? We dont know.

No, we don?t. And it seems a waste of time, to seek answers to questions that can?t be objectively or definitively answered.  How could you possibly ever show that those who were placed would?ve died otherwise? You can?t. How would you determine if they are at higher or lower risk than the average teen? You could only guess, based on your observations, perceptions and the level of fear you feel about their ?symptoms?. I can?t see that that would be any different than the status quo. If your child exhibits x,y,z behaviors they are at risk of being deadinsaneorinjail without a program.  

Life holds no guarantees. A child could be stricken with an incurable disease the day they returned from a program, or be killed in a car accident or stab themselves in the chest while opening a box that contains their mail order skateboard- happened to a friend's son who didn't actually die but could've if he had removed the knife. The therapeutic bubble can provide no guarantees either. And that is a fact that is proven here at Fornits on a daily basis.

A point of clarity, in case you were confused. I didn?t imply that deaths in state run facilities or placements in programs funded by the state were acceptable.  And I beg to differ regarding the money not being important. People are willing to pay unreasonable amounts of money, incur debt they can't afford for anything that appeals to them, that they feel they need or have been led to believe that they need, until or unless they realize they didn?t get their money?s worth. In other words, scammed. If it weren't an issue, how many program owners would be filing into the state office to get licensed if parents and Ed Cons refused to place another kid in an unlicensed facilities? Where money is involved you'll likely find compromises in integrity and ethics.

Over time the data on deaths, injuries (physical and psychological), and abuses could be sufficient, if they were compiled in an easily readable format for parents. Unfortunately, it currently requires significant research, if parents even think to do that.