John D. Reuben and SavingTeens.org

[Anonymous]

So we agree that the report references kids who are severely mentally ill and that the kids in programs are merely a normal cross section of kids.  So the report doesnt apply in this case regardless of the tax deductions people are taking or poor marketing practices.  Program  kids dont fit within the boundary conditions defined by the Surgeon General.  So the report doesnt apply to TBS's.

Note: Tax deductions, by the way are handled by another branch (IRS I believe)

No, we do not.  The report begins:

Residential treatment centers are the second most restrictive form of care (next to inpatient hospitalization) for children with severe mental disorders

.

The TTI has always billed itself as "treatment" - R "T" C-  despite Aspen being forced out of that market.  Because Aspen was fairly recently forced to admit it does not provide mental health treatment in no way excludes them from the SG's report.  I also wonder how they can get away with being called a TBS, actually.  

Note:  RTC investigations (and the investigators have a sharp eye on Aspen and their marketers), by the way are handled by another branch (GAO I believe)

[Anonymous]

Glad they pointed out the problem with willy nilly admissions, John Reuben's son Michael is a case in point.  Michael obviously had severe mental health issues and his father placed him in Aspen programs which offer no mental health treatment, as we all know.  Had Michael gotten appropriate treatment for his mental issues instead of detention he might be alive and well.  There is a strong argument to be made that John D. Reuben is a terrible parent for not doing his homework, but Aspen should have referred Reuben to more suitable treatment.

[Ursus]

The TTI has always billed itself as "treatment" - R "T" C- despite Aspen being forced out of that market. Because Aspen was fairly recently forced to admit it does not provide mental health treatment in no way excludes them from the SG's report. I also wonder how they can get away with being called a TBS, actually.

The term "therapeutic boarding school" has been created but recently. However, there have been such entities in existence since at least the mid 1960s. Before that they were called reform schools.

These places have historically called themselves by a plethora of names, depending on the pertinent audience in question.

[Anonymous]

The TTI has always billed itself as "treatment" - R "T" C- despite Aspen being forced out of that market. Because Aspen was fairly recently forced to admit it does not provide mental health treatment in no way excludes them from the SG's report. I also wonder how they can get away with being called a TBS, actually.

The term "therapeutic boarding school" has been created but recently. However, there have been such entities in existence since at least the mid 1960s. Before that they were called reform schools.

These places have historically called themselves by a plethora of names, depending on the pertinent audience in question.

...Or the current legal troubles afflicting them, right, Ursus?

The Guest argument about the SG report not being applicable, etc., is absurd considering the thread it is posted on.  John Reuben's son had mental illness, that is a given, and he was placed in Aspen programs, received no legitimate treatment, and sadly died from his troubles.  Did John Reuben think his son would get mental health treatment at Aspen, and why?

[Ursus]

It is obvious that this report didnt include Therapeutic boarding Schools (TBS) because they didnt exist when the studies were done. I think if we dont agree on much we agree that the kids in programs are not severely mentally ill. (At least not before they were placed, Ha,Ha,Ha)

Good point! A lot of kids, exhibiting behavior entirely within the "normal" range for teenage comeuppance, but not within the range of their parents' tolerance, enter TBSs as pretty typical adolescents. No alarm bells here.

After a year or two of brain salad surgery, however, all in the name of fixing that teen with Shame & Blame™, some of these same kids exit their TBSs with severe depression and PTSD. Some even as victims of physical assault, injury, and rape. And some, tragically, even in a casket.

Doesn't sound like these kids got "fixed." It sounds like some kids get destroyed by their TBS experience.

[AuntieEm2]

The term "therapeutic boarding school" has been created but recently. However, there have been such entities in existence since at least the mid 1960s. Before that they were called reform schools.

Before that they were called "cults."

[Whooter]

It is obvious that this report didnt include Therapeutic boarding Schools (TBS) because they didnt exist when the studies were done. I think if we dont agree on much we agree that the kids in programs are not severely mentally ill. (At least not before they were placed, Ha,Ha,Ha)

Good point! A lot of kids, exhibiting behavior entirely within the "normal" range for teenage comeuppance, but not within the range of their parents' tolerance, enter TBSs as pretty typical adolescents. No alarm bells here.

After a year or two of brain salad surgery, however, all in the name of fixing that teen with Shame & Blame™, some of these same kids exit their TBSs with severe depression and PTSD. Some even as victims of physical assault, injury, and rape. And some, tragically, even in a casket.

Doesn't sound like these kids got "fixed." It sounds like some kids get destroyed by their TBS experience.

So we can see the surgeon Generals study doesnt apply to these places.  They referenced RTC which took in severely mentally ill kids.  They never studied TBS's.  This was outside their scope.
We also dont know how many kids came out feet first in a box or PTSD because that study hasnt been done either.

What we have are the studies before us on the table by Canyon research and Colgate University.

[Whooter]

The term "therapeutic boarding school" has been created but recently. However, there have been such entities in existence since at least the mid 1960s. Before that they were called reform schools.

Before that they were called "cults."

Ha,Ha  Exactly!!  Back then they tried to get the whole family involved, give up your worldly possessions and they would keep you as long as they could.

The programs today cant be called that because they have a predetermined beginning and end period, fixed costs and the rest of the family is left out of it.  You dont have to sell flowers at the airport!!! (Unless you want to).

[Anonymous]

Why was John Reuben's son admitted to ASR with the mental troubles his father claims he had at the time?

[Anonymous]

It is obvious that this report didnt include Therapeutic boarding Schools (TBS) because they didnt exist when the studies were done. I think if we dont agree on much we agree that the kids in programs are not severely mentally ill. (At least not before they were placed, Ha,Ha,Ha)

Good point! A lot of kids, exhibiting behavior entirely within the "normal" range for teenage comeuppance, but not within the range of their parents' tolerance, enter TBSs as pretty typical adolescents. No alarm bells here.

After a year or two of brain salad surgery, however, all in the name of fixing that teen with Shame & Blame™, some of these same kids exit their TBSs with severe depression and PTSD. Some even as victims of physical assault, injury, and rape. And some, tragically, even in a casket.

Doesn't sound like these kids got "fixed." It sounds like some kids get destroyed by their TBS experience.

So we can see the surgeon Generals study doesnt apply to these places.  They referenced RTC which took in severely mentally ill kids.  They never studied TBS's.  This was outside their scope.
We also dont know how many kids came out feet first in a box or PTSD because that study hasnt been done either.

What we have are the studies before us on the table by Canyon research and Colgate University.

Aspen has never made claims of treating mental illness, is that what you are saying?  Because your answer is very important.

[Ursus]

What we have are the studies before us on the table by Canyon research and Colgate University.

...Which are, if anything, more like "consumer satisfaction surveys" of a highly pre-selected pool. They are not "studies" according to commonly accepted rigorous scientific standards. I believe the Surgeon General's report euphemistically referred to this type of reportage as "uncontrolled studies":

The evidence for outcomes of residential treatment comes from research published largely in the 1970s and 1980s and, with three exceptions, consists of uncontrolled studies (see Curry, 1991).[/list]

Moreover, the Surgeon General goes on to say:

Given the limitations of current research, it is premature to endorse the effectiveness of residential treatment for adolescents. Moreover, research is needed to identify those groups of children and adolescents for whom the benefits of residential care outweigh the potential risks.[/list]

Funny, I don't recall either the Canyon or Colgate University "studies" discussing these potential risks. Shouldn't that have been part of the overall picture that a bona fide study -- of scientific merit -- would seek to address?

[Anonymous]

Despite strong caveats about the quality, sophistication, and import of uncontrolled studies

"uncontrolled studies" would include paid advertising like Ellen Behren's.  See, the SG report is still contemporary!  

Given the limitations of current research, it is premature to endorse the effectiveness of residential treatment for adolescents. Moreover, research is needed to identify those groups of children and adolescents for whom the benefits of residential care outweigh the potential risks.

Note the report does not cite mentally disturbed teens, it uses the all encompassing "residential treatment for adolescents".

[Whooter]

Given the limitations of current research, it is premature to endorse the effectiveness of residential treatment for adolescents. Moreover, research is needed to identify those groups of children and adolescents for whom the benefits of residential care outweigh the potential risks.

I tend to agree.  It would have been premature to endorse the effectiveness back in 1970.  So we see the study didn’t find the programs to be ineffective and they go on to say that if the children are selected properly then the benefits would outweigh the potential risks.

Note the report does not cite mentally disturbed teens, it uses the all encompassing "residential treatment for adolescents".

Lets look at the full quote again:
Residential treatment centers are the second most restrictive form of care (next to inpatient hospitalization) for children with severe mental disorders.


They didn’t look at Residential Treatment for kids with cancer or blood disorders or mild cases of mental illness, but they targeted RTC’s for kids with Severe Mental disorders.  I think we all can agree that the kids in programs dont suffer from extreme mental illness.

[AuntieEm2]

AuntieEm2 wrote:
Before that they were called "cults."

Ha,Ha Exactly!! Back then they tried to get the whole family involved, give up your worldly possessions and they would keep you as long as they could.

The programs today cant be called that because they have a predetermined beginning and end period, fixed costs and the rest of the family is left out of it.

Twisting words again. Thearapeutic boarding schools today still operate as cults.

In my experience with my niece, there was no predetermined beginning and end period--or more accurately, the beginning and end dates we were given were lies. We were told three months. Then six months. Then a year. Then a year and half. Then two and a half years. Then she'd be graduating any day. Then she graduated, but no, could not come home until she had completed a life skills program. (Life skills? Wasn't that what her parents had just spent a half a million dollars to teach her? Half a million dollars and she can't do algebra or cook a meal or shop for groceries or write a resume?)

Three months was the lie. Three years was the fact. Fixed costs were anything but.

I realize that no one working for or affiliated with a program would want to see themselves as connected to a cult. But the evidence is there.

It is well-documented that programs have their roots in the notorious Synanon cult and other cults. The "raps" and confrontational group therapy models used in programs are cult-perfected practices. As in cults, children have no liberty to leave when they've had enough. And like cults, the main purpose of the organization is to separate people from their families and families from their money. Follow the cash; it's a short distance to a cult.

You are so right about one thing: the family is "left out of it." Yes, these cults do keep the entire rest of the family far, far away from the child. They are exceptionally anti-family.

[Whooter]

AuntieEm2 wrote:
Before that they were called "cults."

Ha,Ha Exactly!! Back then they tried to get the whole family involved, give up your worldly possessions and they would keep you as long as they could.

The programs today cant be called that because they have a predetermined beginning and end period, fixed costs and the rest of the family is left out of it.

Twisting words again. Thearapeutic boarding schools today still operate as cults.

In my experience with my niece, there was no predetermined beginning and end period--or more accurately, the beginning and end dates we were given were lies. We were told three months. Then six months. Then a year. Then a year and half. Then two and a half years. Then she'd be graduating any day. Then she graduated, but no, could not come home until she had completed a life skills program. (Life skills? Wasn't that what her parents had just spent a half a million dollars to teach her? Half a million dollars and she can't do algebra or cook a meal or shop for groceries or write a resume?)

Three months was the lie. Three years was the fact. Fixed costs were anything but.

I realize that no one working for or affiliated with a program would want to see themselves as connected to a cult. But the evidence is there.

It is well-documented that programs have their roots in the notorious Synanon cult and other cults. The "raps" and confrontational group therapy models used in programs are cult-perfected practices. As in cults, children have no liberty to leave when they've had enough. And like cults, the main purpose of the organization is to separate people from their families and families from their money. Follow the cash; it's a short distance to a cult.

You are so right about one thing: the family is "left out of it." Yes, these cults do keep the entire rest of the family far, far away from the child. They are exceptionally anti-family.

Thats unfortunate AuntieEm.  We had a totally different experience.  We were told 12 to 16 months and we finished up in 14 months.  We knew the costs up front.  It was transparent and the therapists inside the program communicated to the kids therapist outside.  We didnt see any evidence of cultish behavior.  This says 2 things to me:  That programs have changed since your niece attended or there is variation from program to program.