On 2006-01-01 10:35:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Why has HLA never sponsored a longitudinal study to assess the effectiveness of their program? >>>
not interested in a study conducted by hla. must be an independent study if you want any objective data.
"
"Sponsored" means "paid for." I agree any study commissioned by HLA would have to be done by an irreproachable entity with no situational bias. That's what a valid study is.
If I were in HLA's position and I genuinely felt that our product was a good one, I'd pay for a research entity to perform the study so that I could use its positive results as marketing material.
Now, let me suggest why this hasn't been done: HLA knows that they have a bad product.
They simply don't want to expose themselves to scientific scrutiny because they know full well that their "success rate" is below 50% which indicates that pure chance would have the same outcome.
HLA-like RTC's have been shown to have roughly a 75% recidivism rate, meaning that only 25% of participants do well after the program. I would suggest this number is well below the success rate of groups that have gone "untreated." It is the same recidivism rate as penal institutions.
So, if you want to go strictly by SUCCESS RATE, HLA is less effective than non-intervention and equally as effective as sending your kid to prison.
The numbers speak for themselves. Can you imagine an EDCON selling HLA on a 25% success rate? "Yes, it's only $7,000 per month, could last as long as four years or more and is equally effective as prison in deterring future bad behavior."
Nobody would buy it. As it is now, only a very, very small number of parents go for deals like HLA.
