Another death last week at an Aspen program

[Anne Bonney]

No, we don't agree on anything at all.  With no studies to validate your claims we must conclude that the programs are ineffective until proven otherwise.  It's called "the scientific method" and you should learn about it.  

Aw shit....is this asshole STILL pulling this "we" shit???  

Anecdotes from kids and parents do not in any way create validity of efficacy claims.  In fact, the state of Oregon has documented the exact opposite: the very model of the programs is abusive.  

BINGO!!!

And it also substantiated claims of abuse and neglect, I believe nine cases in the past year from a single facility, including the sexualized humiliation of minor females forced to simulate oral sex on minor boys for "therapy."  

Ughhh...that just makes me ill.

No, we all can agree that the state of Oregon found out the truth about Aspen.  You can't put the genie back in the bottle, Whooter.

 :tup:

[Whooter]

Good discussion.  So we can conclude that in the absence of studies we need to rely on those who have progressed thru the system.  With an estimated 500 programs running today and lets say, to be conservative, 100 kids graduate a year (per program), then we are seeing 50,000 kids benefitting from these places and a handful who are harmed (1 per year? Maybe).

We see public school teachers raping their students but the ones benefitting from public education far outweighs those who are harmed and therefore we keep the public system going and don’t move to shut them down.

Good point, :tup:  guest, never thought of it that way.  I wish there was a way to compare the public school system to programs.  This way we could better see the point.

[AuntieEm2]

If only "theraputic boarding schools" would cooperate in rigorous clinical trials by credible third parties, like universities, in comparing outcomes with public schools. I'm confident the programs would fail to measure up.

I don't see how Aspen can any longer call their schools "therapeutic" after the Oregon DHS concluded, based on documentation of substantiated incidents, that their "therapy" meets the Oregon definition of child abuse.

So "child abuse boarding schools" would be the accurate term.

Auntie Em

[Whooter]

If only "theraputic boarding schools" would cooperate in rigorous clinical trials by credible third parties, like universities, in comparing outcomes with public schools. I'm confident the programs would fail to measure up.

Can you point to an instance where a rigorous clinical trial was denied?  

I don't see how Aspen can any longer call their schools "therapeutic" after the Oregon DHS concluded, based on documentation of substantiated incidents, that their "therapy" meets the Oregon definition of child abuse.

Because not all programs work to the same model.  Massachusetts calls the programs therapuetic so we can conclude (by your logic) that all of Aspen programs are therapeutic.
Your getting old GrannyEm.  your logic fails.

So "child abuse boarding schools" would be the accurate term.

You are also childish.  Resorting to name calling because you cant argue.  I think we can agree that the anti program group is running out of examples to hold up.  We need a picture of the hobbit and the 300 pound staff member who sits on kids!! Then you can show them how abusive these places are!! Ha,Ha,Ha

[Troll Control]

Wow.  The last post is stunningly ignorant.  The state of Oregon DHS investigated Aspen (MBA) and concluded they are and have been abusing and neglecting children, including forcing rape victims to simulate oral sex on other minors in a group setting.  

Which part don't you understand?  Aspen has already admitted they provide no therapy and Oregon has concluded they abuse children, so AuntieEm's conclusion that Aspen programs should be called "child abuse boarding schools" is perfectly and completely logical.  This is what the facts bear out.  

Aspen's admission that they provide no therapy + Oregon's finding that Aspen systematically and methodically abuses children = Child Abuse Boarding School.  It's as plain as day.

Aspen, as found by the state of Oregon, systematically, methodically and purposefully abuses children in its care.

[Troll Control]

BUMP

Aspen program is legally defined as child abuse in the state of Oregon.  State investigation finds ALL attendees abused, neglected and that program employees failed to protect children against the abuse.  BOMBSHELL.

[Whooter]

If only "theraputic boarding schools" would cooperate in rigorous clinical trials by credible third parties, like universities, in comparing outcomes with public schools. I'm confident the programs would fail to measure up.

Can you point to an instance where a rigorous clinical trial was denied?  

I don't see how Aspen can any longer call their schools "therapeutic" after the Oregon DHS concluded, based on documentation of substantiated incidents, that their "therapy" meets the Oregon definition of child abuse.

Because not all programs work to the same model.  Massachusetts calls the programs therapuetic so we can conclude (by your logic) that all of Aspen programs are therapeutic.
Your getting old GrannyEm.  your logic fails.

So "child abuse boarding schools" would be the accurate term.

You are also childish.  Resorting to name calling because you cant argue.  I think we can agree that the anti program group is running out of examples to hold up.  We need a picture of the hobbit and the 300 pound staff member who sits on kids!! Then you can show them how abusive these places are!! Ha,Ha,Ha

This is a valid point, I dont remember reading anywhere that a program denied a clinical trial to be performed.  The programs in our state have a good reputation for helping kids.

[AuntieEm2]

Can you point to an instance where a rigorous clinical trial was denied?

Since there are no instances in which programs have participated in a rigorous clinical trial--one that is NOT bought and paid for by the industry, or conducted in the 1950s, '60s or '70s--we clearly agree one is needed. Excellent!

So, if you will talk to your bosses at the programs (the ones who pay you to peddle your twaddle here) and get them to agree to:
     * clearly defined criteria for diagnoses and treatment of youth with mental health and behavioral problems--the programs' version of that, vs the definitions used by children's mental health practitioners in community-based care settings (i.e., the two treatment methods the clinical trial will compare);
     * enroll the youth in your programs in the study--I've seen the Power of Attorney documents parents have to sign, and based on those documents you have the power to sell kids for their bodily organs, fawgawdssake, so don't tell me you can't get permission from parents or that this would be a violation of HIPAA;  
     * enroll ALL of them, not just the "good ones";
     * agree to open your programs to independent outside researchers who can observe and document firsthand the treatment practices in programs for a period of a year or more; and
     * agree that the study will follow ALL these youth post-program for a period of at least five years.
 
If you will do that, then I can arrange for:
     * the cooperation of a respected university;
     * a comparative group of youth receiving community-based care following accepted standards and practices used by professionals nationwide;
     * an oversight board to ensure ethical treatment of human subjects;
     * senior researchers in childrens mental health, education, law, social work, and juvenile justice; and
     * funding NOT from the Corporate Overlords at Aspen/CRC or UHS, but from institutions like the Centers for Disease Control, or the NIH.

Okay? Most amusing, by the way, that in the same post you called me a granny and a child.

Thanks for the words of support, John Carten.

Auntie Em

[Whooter]

Can you point to an instance where a rigorous clinical trial was denied?

Since there are no instances in which programs have participated in a rigorous clinical trial--one that is NOT bought and paid for by the industry, or conducted in the 1950s, '60s or '70s--we clearly agree one is needed. Excellent!

So, if you will talk to your bosses at the programs (the ones who pay you to peddle your twaddle here) and get them to agree to:
     * clearly defined criteria for diagnoses and treatment of youth with mental health and behavioral problems--the programs' version of that, vs the definitions used by children's mental health practitioners in community-based care settings (i.e., the two treatment methods the clinical trial will compare);
     * enroll the youth in your programs in the study--I've seen the Power of Attorney documents parents have to sign, and based on those documents you have the power to sell kids for their bodily organs, fawgawdssake, so don't tell me you can't get permission from parents or that this would be a violation of HIPAA;  
     * enroll ALL of them, not just the "good ones";
     * agree to open your programs to independent outside researchers who can observe and document firsthand the treatment practices in programs for a period of a year or more; and
     * agree that the study will follow ALL these youth post-program for a period of at least five years.
 
If you will do that, then I can arrange for:
     * the cooperation of a respected university;
     * a comparative group of youth receiving community-based care following accepted standards and practices used by professionals nationwide;
     * an oversight board to ensure ethical treatment of human subjects;
     * senior researchers in childrens mental health, education, law, social work, and juvenile justice; and
     * funding NOT from the Corporate Overlords at Aspen/CRC or UHS, but from institutions like the Centers for Disease Control, or the NIH.

Okay? Most amusing, by the way, that in the same post you called me a granny and a child.

Thanks for the words of support, John Carten.

Auntie Em

I am "all in" on that, Auntie em.  I wish I had someone to talk to get that arranged.  But like you I am not part of the industry, just a parent of a child who attended.  I think if these studies were done it would clear up a lot of the misunderstanding around here and show the effectiveness of the programs... especially 5 years out.
I have never seen an instance where a program turned down the opportunity of a clinical study (I believe we all agree here).  If the programs fund the studies themselves then it is perceived as not being independent.  I do know of Universities who have conducted studies and published the results in their science journals, but since the results showed the program to be beneficial and no abuse was found it was rejected here on fornits.  There have been independent studies done, but since one of the people on the team had a past association with the industry the results were rejected.  (like rejecting a heart study because one of the team members use to be a heart doctor).

I think what you are looking for is a study which shows programs to be ineffective and abusive.  There just isnt any data to support this.  I think there would be more studies if the programs could justify the expense somehow.  But since they are doing just fine without them, why incur the expense?  Drug companies wouldnt go thru years of clinical trials and the expense unless they were forced to.  So you see we cannot blame the programs for this.... many here are looking for answers that just dont exist.

Programs are effect (period)  Are there abusive ones?  sure... ineffective ones?  yes.. but the industry as a whole is very effective in turning around at-risk youth.  All the studies we have seen to date have substantiated this position.

[Troll Control]

I do know of Universities who have conducted studies and published the results in their science journals, but since the results showed the program to be beneficial and no abuse was found it was rejected here on fornits.

I call bullshit on this (again).  Now you're claiming multiple universitieS have conducted studies?  Post them.  And don't try to post Valerie Shapiro's sophmore psychology paper as a "university study" either.

Let's go, prove us wrong.

[Troll Control]

That's what we thought.  Lots of claims, this time multiple university studies published in multiple science journals, but no evidence whatsoever to support the nonsensical, obviously false claims.

Whooter is a bullshit artist who will say anything to put heads in beds.

[Whooter]

Here's one I found:
Colgate University
It was part of a study, there was a woman, Shapiro, who conducted an independent study of Therapeutic Boarding Schools and found them to be extremely effective.  She found no evidence of abuse.  It was published in a journal if I recall correctly.  She is currently working with “Students for Sensible Drug Policy” and “National Institute for Mental Health”.  She is pretty cool and really into helping kids.

Valerie Shapiro
She was selected to be the 2007 Gottlieb Fellow and awarded summer funding to participate in the NIH Multidisciplinary Predoctoral Clinical Research Training Program. In 2008-2009, she will work with the Social Development Research Group as an NIMH Prevention Trainee using a prevention science framework to research risk and protection factors in child development, the implementation of community-level interventions, and questions regarding the scalability and sustainability of tested-effective programs.

Currently she is working on papers examining whether the SSDP “Students for Sensible Drug Policy” intervention worked better (or worse) for people who were high in behavioral disinhibition/externalizing, as well as a qualitative paper examining the transition to adulthood for youths involved in crime and drugs during adolescence.

Link to Study

[Troll Control]

You don't recall correctly,  In fact, you didn't publish the full link to this psychology paper because the link is titled "student papers" and it's stored on a student server and has never been published anywhere, much less a science journal.  Busted again.

Let me help you:  http://http://groups.colgate.edu/cjs/student_papers/2002/VShapiro.pdf

The first page of the abstract states:  

"Results found that the majority of pathological and adaptive behaviors were perceived to have improved by both the students and parents, but that the standardized measures of patient relations, self-reliance, conduct, and self-reported depression were still well within the clinical range."[/u]

What does this mean?  It means that anecdotal evidence from parents and students is unreliable, as the data prove that in all areas the measured items failed to improve out of the clinical range, i.e. the treatment felt good to the parents and students, but was factually totally ineffective.

Shot yourself in the foot again, Whooter.

This "evidence" you provided actually invalidates your claims that student and parent stories reflect reality and that ASR's treatment is effective.  Too bad your reading comprehension skills are so low or you could have avoided this embarrassment.

[Whooter]

Here's one I found:
Colgate University
It was part of a study, there was a woman, Shapiro, who conducted an independent study of Therapeutic Boarding Schools and found them to be extremely effective.  She found no evidence of abuse.  It was published in a journal if I recall correctly.  She is currently working with “Students for Sensible Drug Policy” and “National Institute for Mental Health”.  She is pretty cool and really into helping kids.

Valerie Shapiro
She was selected to be the 2007 Gottlieb Fellow and awarded summer funding to participate in the NIH Multidisciplinary Predoctoral Clinical Research Training Program. In 2008-2009, she will work with the Social Development Research Group as an NIMH Prevention Trainee using a prevention science framework to research risk and protection factors in child development, the implementation of community-level interventions, and questions regarding the scalability and sustainability of tested-effective programs.

Currently she is working on papers examining whether the SSDP “Students for Sensible Drug Policy” intervention worked better (or worse) for people who were high in behavioral disinhibition/externalizing, as well as a qualitative paper examining the transition to adulthood for youths involved in crime and drugs during adolescence.

Link to Study

Thanks for the link.  I believe you were right this was published.  Here is an exerpt:

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

[Whooter]

Here's one I found:
Colgate University
It was part of a study, there was a woman, Shapiro, who conducted an independent study of Therapeutic Boarding Schools and found them to be extremely effective.  She found no evidence of abuse.  It was published in a journal if I recall correctly.  She is currently working with “Students for Sensible Drug Policy” and “National Institute for Mental Health”.  She is pretty cool and really into helping kids.

Valerie Shapiro
She was selected to be the 2007 Gottlieb Fellow and awarded summer funding to participate in the NIH Multidisciplinary Predoctoral Clinical Research Training Program. In 2008-2009, she will work with the Social Development Research Group as an NIMH Prevention Trainee using a prevention science framework to research risk and protection factors in child development, the implementation of community-level interventions, and questions regarding the scalability and sustainability of tested-effective programs.

Currently she is working on papers examining whether the SSDP “Students for Sensible Drug Policy” intervention worked better (or worse) for people who were high in behavioral disinhibition/externalizing, as well as a qualitative paper examining the transition to adulthood for youths involved in crime and drugs during adolescence.

Link to Study

Thanks for the link.  I believe you were right this was published.  Here is an exerpt:

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

Here it was published:
Colgate University Journal of the sciences
Volume 34

Watch it Whooter, Dysfunction Junction is going to try to punch you out again!!!