A open invitation to tour and talk to any NATSAP school

[Anonymous]

Drug use is Rampant in junior and senior high school.

Drug use is down amongst school aged people and has been trending down since 1993. The most statistically significant group fro drug related hospital admissions is 35-50 year olds. according to the DoJ from their latest uniform Crime report.

Increasing numbers of young people are struggling with addictive disorders

No they are not. Smoking is down over the last 25 years, alchohol abuse is down, illegal drug arrests and hospitalizations are down. Every measure of addictive behaviour is down for young people and up for the baby boomer generation.

The most recent comprehensive statistics on drug abuse are from the 2005 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), which you can find at http://oas.samhsa.gov/NSDUH/2k5NSDUH/2k5results.htm

From the discussion of trends among youth:

"NSDUH shows declines from 2002 to 2005 among youths aged 12 to 17 for past month rates of use (i.e., current use) of alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana, hallucinogens (such as Ecstasy and LSD), and the nonmedical use of prescription-type psychotherapeutic drugs. The past month use of cocaine and inhalants, however, showed no change among youths during that time period. Among young adults aged 18 to 25, the rates of current use of alcohol and marijuana were similar in 2002 and 2005. Cigarette use and Ecstasy use declined among young adults, but cocaine use and nonmedical use of prescription drugs increased."

From the data on adults 26 and older:

"Among adults aged 26 or older, 5.8 percent reported current illicit drug use in 2005. In this age group, 4.1 percent used marijuana, and 1.9 percent used prescription-type drugs. Moreover, fewer than 1 percent used cocaine (0.8 percent), hallucinogens (0.2 percent), and inhalants (0.1 percent). Rates of lifetime, past year, and past month illicit drug use among adults aged 26 or older were unchanged between 2004 and 2005."

"Among adults aged 50 to 59, the rate of current illicit drug use increased between 2002 and 2005 (Figure 2.8 ). For those aged 50 to 54, the rate increased from 3.4 to 5.2 percent, but this increase was not statistically significant. Among those aged 55 to 59, the rate increased significantly from 1.9 to 3.4 percent. This may reflect the aging into these age groups of the baby boom cohort, which has a relatively higher rate of lifetime illicit drug use than older cohorts have."

Other studies show in recent years a significant increase in nonmedical abuse of prescription drugs, particularly tranquilizers and opiods, by older adults (55+).

So what is the takeaway here? Drug use is declining among teens, except among cokeheads and huffers; it is staying flat among young adults 18-25 for some drugs, but increasing for others (coke & prescription drugs); and it is staying flat among adults 26+ for some drugs, but increasing for others -- especially prescription drugs, and especially in the over 50 group.

Notice that among these three age groups, 12-17, 18-25 and 26+, the group with the best statistical trends ("best" meaning "less drug use") is the 12-17 group.

So the generation at the end of the baby boom -- people who were teens in the 1970s -- are now themselves parents of teens. While those boomers continue to abuse drugs (just not the same drugs they abused in the '70s), they freak out when their teens do as they did -- and they send them to 'programs.'

[Nihilanthic]

I wonder if this is just meant to be inflamatory.

Nobody who sticks to the FACTS is going to be phased by this, and the people who just want emotional validation will believe anything, including this - and let our reaction to this be twisted to help reinforce it.

I guess the only thing we can do is keep repeating the same old thing with the facts, and the lack thereof :roll: or TRY to get this on the news and hope everyone has enough brain cells left to get it.

[MightyAardvark]

Deleted

[Anonymous]

From a 2001 report, slightly revised in early 2002, by
Jay P. Greene, Ph. D.. Senior Fellow, The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research:

The national graduation rate for the class of 1998 was 71%.

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) finds a national high school completion rate of 86% for the class of 1998. The discrepancy between the NCES? finding and this report?s finding of a 71% rate is largely caused by NCES? counting of General Educational Development (GED) graduates and others with alternative credentials as high school graduates, and by its reliance on a methodology that is likely to undercount dropouts.

[MightyAardvark]

Deleted

[Nihilanthic]

71 and 86 % completion is higher than a 30% dropout...

Still, focusing on this one thing doesnt somehow validate all the drug hysteria and all the OTHER bullshit programs pull.

[Anonymous]

High school dropouts run the risk of being poor.

Fear that your kids might grow up to be poor is not grounds for incarcerating them in a private prison.

But snobby families where Mommy and Daddy work 90 hours a week each and are never home for the kids, whose kids are therefore having a tougher time with adolescence, are prone to thinking it is.

We're back to the 13th century.  If your kid doesn't toe the line, stick him in a monastery which will shove him in a cloister until he shapes up.

Shakespeare's "Midsummer Night's Dream," anyone?  Remember the heroine getting a choice between a loveless arranged marriage or being stuck in a convent for life?

Control-freak parents have always existed, only the surface trappings have changed.  They see their children as possessions and social accessories, not people.

In every society, in every age, these parents brutalize their children  whenever the rest of us in society allow them to.

Julie

[Anonymous]

Here's what that kind of hysteria produces, among other things.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6r9neE89Fg

On November 5, 2003, police raided a high school in Goose Creek, South Carolina, in an effort to purge the school of drugs. After rounding up the students and searching their lockers, no drugs were found and no charges have been filed.

School and police cameras captured officers bursting into the school hallway and waving their guns at students. As you will see in this video clip, police pointed guns at the students' heads, handcuffed them, and made them lie on the floor or kneel with their faces to the wall while an officer with a drug-sniffing dog searched backpacks and belongings.

"I assumed that they were trying to protect us, that it was like Columbine, that somebody got in the school that was crazy or dangerous," one student said. "But then a police officer pointed a gun at me. It was really scary."

If this video outrages you, please help MPP end the war on marijuana users, so that dangerous, abusive, and un-American police raids like this become a thing of the past. For more information, visit www.mpp.org

[Anonymous]

The 2002?03 public high school graduation rate for the averaged freshman class 4 years earlier was 73.9 percent. The rate ranged from a low of 59.6 percent in the District of Columbia to a high of 87.0 percent in New Jersey.   (From the National Center for Education Statistics.  see comments in earlier post about statistics.  also go to site (use search engine) to read details of report, methosologies))

[Anonymous]

http://ap.lancasteronline.com/4/youtube_drug_policy


Anti-Drug Videos Uploaded to YouTube
By Ted Bridis
Associated Press Writer

Published: Sep 19, 2006 12:52 PM EST

WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House is distributing government-produced, anti-drug videos on YouTube, the trendy Internet service that already features clips of wacky, drug-induced behavior and step-by-step instructions for growing marijuana plants.

The decision to distribute public service announcements and other videos over YouTube represents the first concerted effort by the U.S. government to influence customers of the popular service, which shows more than 100 million videos per day.

The administration said it was not paying any money to load its previously produced videos onto YouTube's service, so the program is effectively free. Already by Tuesday, when the White House formally announced its video efforts, thousands of YouTube users had watched some of the government's videos.

"If just one teen sees this and decides illegal drug use is not the path for them, it will be a success," said Rafael Lemaitre, a spokesman for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.

By contrast, a two-minute video of a burning marijuana cigarette produced by High Times magazine has been viewed more than 17,000 times since March. "You have a lot of illicit, if not illegal, world views and cultures represented on the Web," said Rick Cusick, the magazine's associate publisher.

The government's YouTube videos include a previously televised, 30-second ad of a teenager running from a snarling dog and bemoaning pressure from his friends to smoke marijuana.

"Then today, they said I should try to out run Tic Tic, the lumber-yard dog," the teen says. "And I don't think I can. I'm an idiot."

President Bush's top drug-policy adviser, John Walters, said the agency was using emerging technologies to try to reach its audience. "Public institutions must adapt to meet the realities of these promising technologies," he said.

YouTube Inc., a San Mateo, Calif.-based startup, has become one of the Internet's hottest properties since two 20-something friends started the company 19 months ago. The free service allows users to share and view videos, most of which are amateurishly produced and include clips of young people singing and dancing ? usually badly.

The government's short public service announcements ? all of which were produced previously for television ? are highly polished. They will compete for viewership against hundreds of existing, drug-related videos that include shaky footage of college-age kids smoking marijuana and girls dancing wildly after purportedly using cocaine. Other YouTube videos describe how to grow marijuana and how to cook with it.

"Welcome to the great experiment," said Lee Rainie, director of the Pew Internet & American Life Project. He predicted computer-savvy critics of U.S. drug policies will quickly edit the government's videos to produce parodies and distribute those on YouTube. "This seems pretty new and pretty adventurous."

The government linked its videos with the terms "war on drugs,""peer-pressure,""marijuana,""weed,""ONDCP" and "420," so anyone searching for those words on YouTube could find its anti-drug messages. All the videos were associated with a YouTube account named "ONDCPstaff" and identified as an 18-year-old living in Washington. The figure 420 is a popular reference for marijuana, and officials said the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy was created 18 years ago.

Michael Bugeja, who studies how different groups use the Internet, said the White House plan is misdirected because online video services don't afford serious consideration to weighty topics.

"It's the wrong forum and the wrong target," said Bugeja, an author and director of the journalism school at Iowa State University.

?

On the Net:

http://www.YouTube.com/ONDCP

[Deborah]

Santa Attempts to Modify ODD Program's Behavior..... Trying to control the greedy pigs lined up at the trough of TT.
You really think you're going to modify the behavior of the these renegade mavericks? Best just disassociate now if your reputation depends on the practices of your fellow programmers.
"New Profession".... is that anything like "New World Order"?

President?s Corner ? Dr. John Santa, Ph.D.
A New Professionalism, Collegiality, Competition, and Marketing
In the last President?s corner I talked about the rapid growth we have experienced in residential treatment. I tried to make the case that the growth has resulted from a real need and a failure of other professions to take care of youngsters who are immature, lack containment, and need an out of home placement. In the past eight years NATSAP has helped nurture a new profession based on the intervention and care for these immature, emotionally or behaviorally disturbed children and their families. This new profession goes beyond our educational backgrounds. We are more than psychologists, teachers, social workers, or outdoor educators in our residential settings, and we are developing a knowledge that begins to create the basis of a new profession.

As knowledge accumulates, NATSAP has created opportunities to share this information by hosting study groups to define ethical approaches and best practice standards. We have sponsored national and regional
conferences to build opportunities for sharing information and exchanging ideas. We have now launched a professional journal with the inaugural edition due in January of 2006, aimed at collecting and codifying the
growing information we have gathered about effective treatment. The open collaboration and generous sharing of information is beginning to define our new profession.

Those of us who experience emotional growth programs of twenty years ago will note several substantial differences. The early approaches were truly alternative and charismatic in nature as opposed to professional. Each program was unique and depended heavily on the intuitions, guidance, and often the genius of the founder. Programs could best be described as islands of information with little communication and much distrust and secrecy among the different programs. In many ways the early programs, while creative and entrepreneurial in nature, were both anti-professional and non-professional. They prided themselves in providing an alternative to both medical and standard educational approaches to working with out of control teenagers.
**Ahh, attempting to give the impression that programs are no longer Synanon/CEDU based. Hmm... how many are using 'evidence-based' therapies??

The past fifteen years has seen a rapid growth of programs as well as a shift towards a more professional and information sharing environment. NATSAP as an organization is both the result of the increase in
professionalism among programs, and a catalyst for fostering the development of our new profession.

As our new profession develops, we must examine what it means to be a professional. We must also ask ourselves what are the boundaries and edges of this new collaborative profession. Where do we bump into the
economic, and competitive forces that do not foster collegiality and the growth of a new profession?

Several areas create a high risk for undermining our new profession. In marketing it is often tempting to offer rumors or limited information about other programs in order to make the case that your program is the best answer for a particular client. Or, we pass gossip to each other and consultants. Such gossip at times makes us feel we are insiders, or it places us in a superior position in the eyes of a consultant, or sometimes we are just in a foul spirited mood and are leaking our feelings in the hopes that this will somehow make us feel better.

To be honest, I think that Aspen programs have been the unfair target for some of our gossip as we struggle to deal with the fear of change, growth, and corporations entering our profession. But I have the feeling that
gossip about each other is endemic and destructive to professionalism, trust, and collegiality.
 :rofl: Good luck buddy. Focus on the bottomline will continue to put profit before professionalism.

Another way that marketing has interfered with creating a professional community is when we have a conference and our members pay more attention to the marketing opportunity of having consultants available than to the opportunity to develop relationships among our members. We must look closely at situations in which we leave our conference in order to entertain consultants.
 :rofl: Duh!! They aren't interested in rubbing backs with their competitors while the Ed Cons drink martinis in the lobby.

For example two years ago at the NATSAP conference we had a dinner to honor Kimball DeLaMare as the first recipient of the award for outstanding contributions in our field. Only a third of the members remained for the dinner and nearly two thirds left to market. I don?t think it means we must never look at or talk to a consultant at our conference. Obviously, many of us have close personal relationships with consultants. It makes perfectly good sense to maintain friendships, but we must also make the development of collegial relationships a priority. And we must constantly question and examine our motives.

Staff recruiting is another obvious area in which we can undue trust, mutual respect and the development of professionalism. At the last NATSAP conference several of my therapists came back quite flattered, but a little chagrined at being openly recruited by other programs. Others have told me of having letters sent to them directly enticing them to leave their current program and go to a new program. Obviously, staff poaching will create distrust and decrease collegiality. How should recruitment be handled in a way that is open and yet respects each other?s business? I am not sure any profession has this problem figured out, but we must discuss it and begin to establish agreement as to what is OK and what is not.
 :rofl: Oh Santa.... all I want for Christmas is full control...

Finally, as a profession we have a fiduciary responsibility for those whom we serve, and we must safeguard and care for the emotional well being of vulnerable children and their families. We must guard against greed,
excess, corruption, and social irresponsibility even more than Enron, or the White House.
 :rofl: Um huh. Not in this lifetime, in this industry.

[Anonymous]

I know that you'll never see WWASPS and NATSAP playing kissie-kissie!

[AtomicAnt]

What is amazing is how much is being admitted to here for those who can read critically. He admits programs were originally founded by people who are 'charismatic' (read manipulative) and that their personal visions and character defined the programs (instead of any sound scientific developments). In other words, a bunch of sociopaths came up with a successful con.

The model is so successful that it has expanded and attracted the attention of deep pocket investors like Aspen. That is a threat to the little independent fucks. So this guy is calling for the cult leaders to make nice with each other, act like the professionals they clearly are not, and market their shit as innovative 'treatment' instead of just made up cult-like brainwashing.

What is scary is the very real possibility that this whole industry could go mainstream. We live in a country where self-righteous anger is fed by media hysteria and the result is a get tough stance against crime, drugs, kids, liberals, homosexuals, pretty much anyone who doesn't fit in with a twisted, narrow, spoon-fed view of the world. Politicians feed on this for votes. Corporate interests feed on it for profit. This misguided, poisonous view of the world keeps expanding and the free country we used to live in is becoming less tolerant and free.

[Deborah]

What is amazing is how much is being admitted to here for those who can read critically. He admits programs were originally founded by people who are 'charismatic' (read manipulative) and that their personal visions and character defined the programs (instead of any sound scientific developments). In other words, a bunch of sociopaths came up with a successful con.

The model is so successful that it has expanded and attracted the attention of deep pocket investors like Aspen. That is a threat to the little independent fucks. So this guy is calling for the cult leaders to make nice with each other, act like the professionals they clearly are not, and market their shit as innovative 'treatment' instead of just made up cult-like brainwashing.

What is scary is the very real possibility that this whole industry could go mainstream. We live in a country where self-righteous anger is fed by media hysteria and the result is a get tough stance against crime, drugs, kids, liberals, homosexuals, pretty much anyone who doesn't fit in with a twisted, narrow, spoon-fed view of the world. Politicians feed on this for votes. Corporate interests feed on it for profit. This misguided, poisonous view of the world keeps expanding and the free country we used to live in is becoming less tolerant and free.

Great summary.
I was talking to a psychologist yesterday who told me there were no 'evidence based' therapies for this genre. The closest thing would be DBT, similar to or related to CBT. What does your ex say about that AA?
In all of my research I have found nothing to indicate efficacy when aggregating distressed kids.
I did read a report about a city that initiated wrap-around services with great success. They sent 5 therapist to work with the family until they were stable, then down to 1. This was over the course of several months.  Sounds like it might be prohibitively expensive, but they said the cost for this service was considerably cheaper than putting the boy in an RTC.
Found the story:
http://www.nyjournalnews.com/rtc/3part3.htm
Even with therapists assigned to work with Daniel around-the-clock, the cost of his care decreased from as high as $8,890 a month while he was in a residential treatment center to $2,000 to $4,000 when he was at home.

[AtomicAnt]

I don't what CBT and DBT stand for.

I read the article in the link (skimmed really). This is the same kind of work my ex does. She used to work for NYC's Mobile Crisis Unit and now she works for NYC's Department of Human Resources. If you read about Milwaukee's Wraparound program, it falls under HR. She works mostly with adults and goes to their homes.

http://www.county.milwaukee.gov/Wraparo ... ee7851.htm