My son at Aspen Ranch

[Anonymous]

"Point Scoring. Point scoring is a method of communication that prioritizes making certain points favorable to the speaker, and attacking opponents of the speaker by trying to undermine their positions. Point scoring communication ought to give the appearance of rational debate, whilst avoiding genuine discussion...Point scoring works because most audience members fail to analyze what they hear. Rather, they register only a few key points, and form a vague impression of whose 'argument' was stronger."
http://www.middle-east-info.org/take/wujshasbara.pdf

[RMA Survivor]

I believe things have changed considerably since you were in a program, RMA, Aspen Ranch does not subject the kids to intense therapy 24/7.  There is a very structured program which has been developed to keep the kids busy and focused allowing time for school, organized activites and personal time.  If Nigels son was home I dont believe he would be seeing his therapist much more than he is at the Ranch so that is a wash.  The advantage of the Ranch is the structure, consistency and safe environment with constant oversight which is hard to duplicate at home.
You mentioned that Nigel is concerned that his son sees the staff more than he sees his therapist and reading back I didn’t see where Nigel wrote that.  I dont think a parent has the expectation that the child will see a therapist 24/7.  Some kids dont see one at all unless the parents request it and some programs have the parents pay the therapists directly and set up the appointments.

You may believe things have changed, but I don't.  The people who created Aspen are the same people who created RMA.  That they might have changed things slightly over the years since Mel Wasserman died and these people got to run the show is merely cosmetic.  Aspen and RMA are hardly apples and oranges.  RMA did not subject us to 24/7 therapy either.  Obviously we slept.  We also had a "structured program" developed to keep us busy, and focused and allowing time for school, organized activities and personal time.  But during waking hours, all of that was really part of the therapy program they concocted.  

If Nigel's son was at home and not seeing a therapist constantly, that would be a good thing.  You shouldn't see a therapist constantly.  A person needs down time.  And you are suggesting that only the Ranch can provide a safe environment that has oversight and structure and that Nigel and his wife are not capable of creating this at home.  I believe Nigel to be capable of that.  However everything relies more on the son's willingness.  And Nigel is discussing visiting with his son where he can discuss his son's willingness to create their own program, outside of Aspen where the son will be willing to do the work he needs to help himself.  Without the son's willingness to do something, Aspen, home...none of it will work.  But I think Nigel, with the proper advice from real professionals can approach his son with a solid plan to create a foundation for the son to succeed.  Outside of Aspen.  

And where I saw Nigel saying he is concerned that his son is not seeing a therapist often enough and the staff more so, is based on the comments made by people like you who say therapists are not providing much treatment if any, depending on the structure and arrangement.  Nigel would not be here if he thought the program was doing all it could.  That he is concerned by the things his son has said to him, considering the option of taking his son home and feeling that the therapists their son saw before arriving at Aspen could be brought back in to take back over their son's treatment of his depression.  Unless Aspen is treating that depression, which I doubt, Nigel is wasting his money.  His son needs treatment for depression, under the guidance of a real professional therapist, and to make that work better his son needs his mother and father and any other family readily involved in that process.  Not isolation and occasional contact.  Nigel can create a far more nurturing and structured environment at home to help his son, with a professional therapist part of this process.

I do not feel that Aspen is capable of helping the son because Aspen, by its own admission, isn't really treating anyone.  And someone with depression needs treatment.  With depression gone, the son's thought of suicide will fade away, his feelings of low self-worth will pass.  And by Nigel and the mother intimately involved in helping their son with his depression, the family will grow closer and the threats of violence a thing of the past.  Aspen is not needed here and further, Aspen is actually a hindering factor in the son getting better and growing now rather than later.  How long does Aspen think they will need to treat the son's depression?  Oh wait, Aspen doesn't treat people...

[Whooter]

If Nigel's son was at home and not seeing a therapist constantly, that would be a good thing. You shouldn't see a therapist constantly.

I agree, it would be ideal if he didn’t have to see a therapist at all.  But some people need therapists and others do not.  Some see them every day and others once a week.  Each situation is different.  I believe at most Nigels son sees his therapist once a day for 50 minutes.  My daughter was once a week.

A person needs down time. And you are suggesting that only the Ranch can provide a safe environment that has oversight and structure and that Nigel and his wife are not capable of creating this at home. I believe Nigel to be capable of that. However everything relies more on the son's willingness. And Nigel is discussing visiting with his son where he can discuss his son's willingness to create their own program, outside of Aspen where the son will be willing to do the work he needs to help himself. Without the son's willingness to do something, Aspen, home...none of it will work. But I think Nigel, with the proper advice from real professionals can approach his son with a solid plan to create a foundation for the son to succeed. Outside of Aspen.

RMA, I think  that you bring up some very good questions.  I am sure a similar environment could be set up at home and I cant speak for Nigel but I was unable to leave my job for the length of time needed to create a similar environment and in hindsight I am not sure if I could have turned her around as effectively or at all on my own.
Your second point is well taken.  Nothing can be accomplished unless Nigels son is willing and the whole intent is to prepare his son for being successful after he returns home.  They will be getting good advice on this and are in a position to speak with experience since they have transitioned so many kids back into their home environment.  Nigel needs to express his concerns to his son and  his son needs to be able to express his own as well and they need to be able to listen to each other, it is a two way process.

And where I saw Nigel saying he is concerned that his son is not seeing a therapist often enough and the staff more so, is based on the comments made by people like you who say therapists are not providing much treatment if any, depending on the structure and arrangement.

Well, he shouldn’t be concerned, like you said yourself you don’t want to over treat a child with 24/7 therapy.  Some kids dont receive or require seeing a therapists at all.  They benefit purely from the structure and safe haven of the program.  If a parent would like their child to see a therapist the school can arrange it.

 

Nigel would not be here if he thought the program was doing all it could. That he is concerned by the things his son has said to him, considering the option of taking his son home and feeling that the therapists their son saw before arriving at Aspen could be brought back in to take back over their son's treatment of his depression. Unless Aspen is treating that depression, which I doubt, Nigel is wasting his money. His son needs treatment for depression, under the guidance of a real professional therapist, and to make that work better his son needs his mother and father and any other family readily involved in that process. Not isolation and occasional contact. Nigel can create a far more nurturing and structured environment at home to help his son, with a professional therapist part of this process.

If Nigels son was receiving dialysis for a blood condition then as a concerned parent he would be joining forums where they discuss the pros, cons, side effects and dangers of dialysis and learning as much as he can about how to better help his child through it and determine if the present treatment is the right thing or should he be doing more.  Its all perfectly natural.  If he didn’t find fornits he may be getting information from other sites like StrugglingTeens.com and similar forums which discuss the industry.

I do not feel that Aspen is capable of helping the son because Aspen, by its own admission, isn't really treating anyone. And someone with depression needs treatment. With depression gone, the son's thought of suicide will fade away, his feelings of low self-worth will pass. And by Nigel and the mother intimately involved in helping their son with his depression, the family will grow closer and the threats of violence a thing of the past. Aspen is not needed here and further, Aspen is actually a hindering factor in the son getting better and growing now rather than later. How long does Aspen think they will need to treat the son's depression? Oh wait, Aspen doesn't treat people...

It appears you have been swayed by what a few people have said which can be a danger in itself.  The results of studies which have been done and professionals tend to disagree with you.  What I like to do is look at more than one source....  The studies indicate that the programs have been enormously successful.....  Speaking with parents who had kids in similar situations can give a different perspective,  speaking with local professionals  and of course reading about the dangers of programs here on fornits are all ways to increase a parents knowledge.  But to depend on just a few people who say the programs are great or say the programs are abusive would be short sighted and would go against the reason people seek knowledge to begin with which is to make an educated decision.
I think at the very least we can all agree that the best course to take is to listen to the professionals who are seeing Nigels son and keep the dialog open.

[AuntieEm2]

His son needs treatment for depression, under the guidance of a real professional therapist, and to make that work better his son needs his mother and father and any other family readily involved in that process. Not isolation and occasional contact. Nigel can create a far more nurturing and structured environment at home to help his son, with a professional therapist part of this process.

I do not feel that Aspen is capable of helping the son because Aspen, by its own admission, isn't really treating anyone. And someone with depression needs treatment. With depression gone, the son's thought of suicide will fade away, his feelings of low self-worth will pass. And by Nigel and the mother intimately involved in helping their son with his depression, the family will grow closer and the threats of violence a thing of the past.

Well said. Nigel should review the contract he signed. He will likely find that although they sold him using all kinds of language related to "treatment," the contract will have language that specifically states that Aspen is not a mental health facility. Bait and switch.

And (Corporate) Guest, you say there are "studies showing that programs are enormously successful." Name one. Name one study that was not commissioned, bought and paid for by a corporation owning and operating one or more programs. One published in a peer-reviewed journal. I know of researchers, counselors, therapists and other staff who were fired because they spoke out against the radical, abusive methods of the programs and the continual, systematic maltreatment of children. Publish the party line, or pack your bags.
 
Auntie Em

[Whooter]

Nigel should review the contract he signed. He will likley find that although they sold him using all kinds of language related to "treatment," the contract will have language that specifically states that Aspen is not a mental health facility. Bait and switch.

Okay, kid, who dropped out of a program masquerading as a little old Auntie on fornits, I'll bite,  but first show us a contract that has the “Bait and switch” dialog in it.  You know the contract that you refer to.  We know that you just made it up, but it would be interesting to actually see one.

[AuntieEm2]

Aren't you sweet! No one has called me a kid in a long time. Goochie goochie goo back atcha.

I also love how "kid" is a derogatory term to you. You must prefer the term "teen$ in cri$i$." A much more profitable term indeed.

Okay, so the contract. I used to have one here in the stack of research, legal papers, mental health journal articles, and correspondence with my elected officials relating to getting my niece out of a program. I don't think I have it anymore, but I'll look. The bait and switch comes from a program promising therapy, but having a contract that avoids or denies that. The main point is that parents shouldn't sign ANY contract that releases a corporation from liability for not providing actual mental health services. Otherwise what have you got? Oh, yes: Seclusion, restraint, and teens providing scream therapy to one another for $83,000 a year.  

I did, as it happens, discuss this very topic yesterday with an attorney knowlegable about the teen help industry who obviously does have a command of the relevant law; Programs market and sell therapy, then avoid it in the contract language.  

Auntie Em

P.S. Don't think I didn't notice that you deflected the question about producing one single peer-reviewed study supporting programs as "enormously successful" that is not commissioned by a corporation running a program. Name one.

[Whooter]

Aren't you sweet! No one has called me a kid in a long time. Goochie goochie goo back atcha.

I also love how "kid" is a derogatory term to you. You must prefer the term "teen$ in cri$i$." A much more profitable term indeed.

Almost like the word corporate? lol I guess you were just being nice to the guest.

Okay, so the contract. I used to have one here in the stack of research, legal papers, mental health journal articles, and correspondence with my elected officials relating to getting my niece out of a program. I don't think I have it anymore, but I'll look. The bait and switch comes from a program promising therapy, but having a contract that avoids or denies that. The main point is that parents shouldn't sign ANY contract that releases a corporation from liability for not providing actual mental health services. Otherwise what have you got? Oh, yes: Seclusion, restraint, and teens providing scream therapy to one another for $83,000 a year.  

Why not just ask Nigel if they make his son scream all day or if his son is receiving therapy?  We have him right here.. or is it better for you not knowing the truth and just remembering the good old days and relieing on your memory of your nieces stay at a program that has little to do with Aspen Ranch.

I did, as it happens, discuss this very topic yesterday with an attorney knowlegable about the teen help industry who obviously does have a command of the relevant law; Programs market and sell therapy, then avoid it in the contract language.  

Auntie Em

P.S. Don't think I didn't notice that you deflected the question about producing one single peer-reviewed study supporting programs as "enormously successful" that is not commissioned by a corporation running a program. Name one.

Okay, so the Study I used to have one here in the stack of research, legal papers, mental health journal articles, and correspondence with my elected officials relating to my friends research into sending his son to a program, which all supported the program as a good decision. I don't think I have it anymore, but I'll look. I was just reading it the other day.  Better than 95% of the kids who finish the program do extremely well.  Some places see 100% of the kids get accepted into the college of their choice.

[Anonymous]

"Point Scoring. Point scoring is a method of communication that prioritizes making certain points favorable to the speaker, and attacking opponents of the speaker by trying to undermine their positions. Point scoring communication ought to give the appearance of rational debate, whilst avoiding genuine discussion...Point scoring works because most audience members fail to analyze what they hear. Rather, they register only a few key points, and form a vague impression of whose 'argument' was stronger."
http://www.middle-east-info.org/take/wujshasbara.pdf

[AuntieEm2]

If you want to defend corporate greed, I'm sure that will impress everyone, lol. Perhaps I'll choose the term "for-profit" instead.

We can ask Nigel, but he will only know what the staff tell him about life in a program. I place more credibility in the testimony of people with first hand knowlege of the "therapies" used: program survivors.

We know the for-profit programs include confrontation therapy 2-3 times per week--documented to be harmful, see "Confrontation  and Addiction Treatment," Miller and White, reprinted in Counselor Magazine, 2007. (This also details the Synanon cult origins of confrontational therapy.) In "raps" or "groups," children are required to attack one another verbally. Read any survivor testimony here or read the sworn testimony by survivors given before the US House of Representatives in 2007.  Watch this video of former students describing raps: http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pJnj4m5IIU. Here is a link to the daily schedule at a "reputable" program, and you can clearly see that group therapy in raps is shown right on the schedule. http://http://www.bouldercreekacademy.net/campus/dailyschedule.pdf

See also "Residential Treatment: What the Research Tells Us" from the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform http://www.nccpr.org. The report includes the following:

The harm of residential treatment:

? A review of the scholarly literature by the office of the U.S. Surgeon General found only “weak evidence” for the success of residential treatment.  

? Even Shay Bilchik, former President of the Child Welfare League of America, the trade association for residential treatment centers and other agencies holding children in substitute care, has made a startling admission:  Bilchik admitted that they lack “good research” showing residential treatment’s  effectiveness and “we find it hard to demonstrate success…”  

And see also an exhaustive fact sheet on the failure of RTCs, from the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law available here: http://www.bazelon.org/issues/children/ ... s/rtcs.htm

Auntie Em

[Whooter]

If you want to defend corporate greed, I'm sure that will impress everyone, lol. Perhaps I'll choose the term "for-profit" instead.

For-profit is better, not that non-profit guarantees to be any less abusive or any more effective.

We can ask Nigel, but he will only know what the staff tell him about life in a program. I place more credibility in the testimony of people with first hand knowlege of the "therapies" used: program survivors.

How come if people don’t conform to the group think here that “all programs are the same and abusive” then we are all automatically defending corporate greed?  Why cant you let people express their own thoughts?  Why dismiss Nigel and his sons experiences?
He would know what he sees with his own eyes, what he experiences and what his son has experienced to date.  He knows that his sons therapist at the ranch is a licensed therapist (most survivors wouldn’t know to ask).  Nigel may know what the details of the contract with Aspen are and whether or not the school is living up to their end of the bargain so far.  The information he brings is just as credible as the info you received from your niece wouldn’t you say?  Maybe more so?

[Whooter]

There are many advantages to treatment in a residential facility. As Wong (1999, p. 42) reports, “Adolescents with long-standing and intense aggressive, destructive, and disruptive behavior are not good candidates for short-term, outpatient, or in-home treatment. Simply put, youth in this state do not participate in or cooperate with therapy. Some type of extended residential or alternative living situation is probably necessary to provide a secure and controlled environment in which to instigate behavior change.” Inpatient care can provide immediate help in a crisis situation, and can remove the client from dangerous situations (Barker, 1974). More so than the average outpatient program, residential facilities offer more opportunities for therapeutic contact, more monitoring of dangerous and disturbing behaviors, and a more direct evaluation of aftercare options. Assessments that are hard to do as an outpatient can be done at these facilities, and at multiple intervals, and hence the reactions to medication and other interventions can be watched particularly closely.

Thanks this is a good find.

[Whooter]

I found this interesting:

One of the biggest advantages of residential treatment is the freedom to use many different treatment modalities. No single treatment model could possibly help all troubled adolescents with their various backgrounds, personalities, and problems (Barker, 1988). Therapeutic milieus at adolescent residential treatment centers are usually characterized by the following elements: consistent rules and routines, program activities, group sessions, individual psychotherapy, conflict interventions, incentive systems, special education, family treatment, parent education groups, and individual behavior modification programs (Whittaker, 1979). More specifically, certain treatments have been advocated for certain problems. For the large proportion of depressed adolescents in residential treatment, Francis & Hart (1992) recommend social skills training, cognitive therapy, and a general increase in activity.

[Whooter]

There are many advantages to treatment in a residential facility. As Wong (1999, p. 42) reports, “Adolescents with long-standing and intense aggressive, destructive, and disruptive behavior are not good candidates for short-term, outpatient, or in-home treatment. Simply put, youth in this state do not participate in or cooperate with therapy. Some type of extended residential or alternative living situation is probably necessary to provide a secure and controlled environment in which to instigate behavior change.” Inpatient care can provide immediate help in a crisis situation, and can remove the client from dangerous situations (Barker, 1974). More so than the average outpatient program, residential facilities offer more opportunities for therapeutic contact, more monitoring of dangerous and disturbing behaviors, and a more direct evaluation of aftercare options. Assessments that are hard to do as an outpatient can be done at these facilities, and at multiple intervals, and hence the reactions to medication and other interventions can be watched particularly closely.

Thanks this is a good find.

Thats interesting, I would have thought that kids or harm themselves or have intent to would do better in local services where they can go home at night.  I dont think they are talking about your standard pot smokers here, though.

[Anonymous]

Aren't you sweet! No one has called me a kid in a long time. Goochie goochie goo back atcha.

I also love how "kid" is a derogatory term to you. You must prefer the term "teen$ in cri$i$." A much more profitable term indeed.

Okay, so the contract. I used to have one here in the stack of research, legal papers, mental health journal articles, and correspondence with my elected officials relating to getting my niece out of a program. I don't think I have it anymore, but I'll look. The bait and switch comes from a program promising therapy, but having a contract that avoids or denies that. The main point is that parents shouldn't sign ANY contract that releases a corporation from liability for not providing actual mental health services. Otherwise what have you got? Oh, yes: Seclusion, restraint, and teens providing scream therapy to one another for $83,000 a year.  

I did, as it happens, discuss this very topic yesterday with an attorney knowlegable about the teen help industry who obviously does have a command of the relevant law; Programs market and sell therapy, then avoid it in the contract language.  

Auntie Em

P.S. Don't think I didn't notice that you deflected the question about producing one single peer-reviewed study supporting programs as "enormously successful" that is not commissioned by a corporation running a program. Name one.

QFT

[Whooter]

I found this interesting:

One of the biggest advantages of residential treatment is the freedom to use many different treatment modalities. No single treatment model could possibly help all troubled adolescents with their various backgrounds, personalities, and problems (Barker, 1988). Therapeutic milieus at adolescent residential treatment centers are usually characterized by the following elements: consistent rules and routines, program activities, group sessions, individual psychotherapy, conflict interventions, incentive systems, special education, family treatment, parent education groups, and individual behavior modification programs (Whittaker, 1979). More specifically, certain treatments have been advocated for certain problems. For the large proportion of depressed adolescents in residential treatment, Francis & Hart (1992) recommend social skills training, cognitive therapy, and a general increase in activity.

I didnt realize they knew programs were beneficial for kids with depression back in 1992.  I thought it was a more recent finding.  This is a good find, thanks guest.