Programs In Behrens Study Charged with Abuse

[Whooter]

This thread is now the #1 Google return if you enter "Behrens study" in the engine.  

Thanks to Whooter's obsessive/compulsive replying, now anyone searching for Behrens gets the first hit on "Programs in Behrens Study Charged with Abuse."  Somehow I don't think this POV was the one he intended to present. :notworthy:  :nods:  :cheers:  :roflmao:

But it's good news anyway.

One of the few times we can all agree....Its great to get the viability isnt it....  Lets take another look for those first time readers:


Residential Treatment Outcome-Study

Just getting more people to read the study, gain more knowledge about the industry,  is a big step for all of us.



...

[Troll Control]

One of the few times we can all agree....Its great to get the viability isnt it....

Little slip of the lip there, eh?  #1 on Google - Aspen programs studied by Behrens charged with abuse!

[Whooter]

I fixed it an a repost:

This thread is now the #1 Google return if you enter "Behrens study" in the engine.  

Thanks to Whooter's obsessive/compulsive replying, now anyone searching for Behrens gets the first hit on "Programs in Behrens Study Charged with Abuse."  Somehow I don't think this POV was the one he intended to present. :notworthy:  :nods:  :cheers:  :roflmao:

But it's good news anyway.

One of the few times we can all agree....Its great to get the visibility isn't it....  Lets take another look for those first time readers:


Residential Treatment Outcome-Study

Just getting more people to read the study, gain more knowledge about the industry,  is a big step for all of us.



...

[DannyB II]

Whooter,

just wanted to say, we think your doing a great job.

danny

[Whooter]

Whooter,

just wanted to say, we think your doing a great job.

danny

Thanks,  It took a long time to get to this point where we could finally discuss the details of the study instead of denying it exists.



...

[Troll Control]

One of the few times we can all agree....Its great to get the viability isnt it....

Little slip of the lip there, eh?  #1 on Google - Aspen programs studied by Behrens charged with abuse!

It's important that when parents see this marketing material on Aspen's website and do a Google search to check it out for themselves they see right away that the programs studied are actually a bunch of organized, for-profit child abusers that rape, maim, kill, abuse and neglect children entrusted to them, like Mount Bachelor Academy.

Even Ed Cons are stopping referrals to Aspen because Aspen is more concerned with money than keeping kids safe.

[Troll Control]

They never published the follow up on this work that was completed in 2007.  Some programs would be excluded from the follow up because they were shut down for abuse.

Even though Behrens scrubbed the data of all negative reporting, the phase two results didn't support Aspen's marketing, so they deep-sixed it in 2007 so the public wouldn't see the damaging data that the kids who went to Aspen programs failed to maintain changes:

"In Phase One, we collected data surrounding admission, discharge, how the children functioned and how they changed during and immediately after treatment," Ellen explained. "In Phase Two, we are looking at the student's progress for up to a year after leaving the program and how it differs from their functioning at the time of discharge. The first Phase explores whether residential treatment works in both the kids and parent's opinion. The next question in Phase Two, which will be released in the first quarter of 2007, is does it last? In other words, do the changes during treatment get better, stay the same, get worse or lose their power after discharge?"

I think people would be hard pressed to show a study of people's opinions is scientifically valid or clinical.  This is why this study was never peer reviewed or published.

Interestingly, "phase 2" was said to be completed in 2007.  It has never been released.  It was supposed to measure if the changes reported in parents' and kids' opinion surveys were lasting or not.  It looks like they didn't get the results they were looking for and decided just to dump the project and never mention it again.

This silence about a highly touted, widely hyped follow up speaks volumes about what they found.  It has been over three years since the research was complete, but they didn't publish a word of it.  Hmmmm...Must not have been supportive of their predrawn conclusions, even after they scrubbed the data of anything that might make the outcome look worse:

"We also tried to eliminate all students discharged from the programs before graduation because the clinical staff thought it was actually an inappropriate placement, or when they felt the program couldn't be helpful to the child."

Even though the data was rigged, it still didn't look good for Aspen, so they shitcanned the second phase that woud show the changes reported didn't last even a year.

This isn't how studies are supposed to work.  They're not supposed to have conclusions before they begin.  This was  a marketing tool that backfired.

First phase - opinion survey with scrubbed data.
Second phase - "no comment."

[Whooter]

We have come a long way.  A few weeks ago many people had never heard of the Residential Treatment Outcome Study performed by Canyon Research.  They looked at close to 1,000 children and families and found that the programs studied where up to 80% effective.

Dysfunction junction and myself managed to put the spot light on this study over the past day or two and were able to nail down that the study was indeed independent and was overseen by an independent third party in the form of a Review Board (WIRB).  From WIRB’s documents:

The IRB also reviews the consent form (which they did for the Aspen Study) for the research to make sure that it is accurate. If it approves the research, the IRB continues to review the ongoing research after it starts. (This is called oversight).

WIRB reviewed the consent forms and approved the study and issued “Certificates of approval” as was pointed out in the study itself and presented to the APA.
Here are some supportive links and information as we stand today:

Residential Treatment Outcome-Study

Canyon Research & Consulting: Independent research company that conducted the study.
 
** Western Institutional Review Board: Independent board that approved research and audited the study.

The Western Institutional Review Board approved consent/assent forms and issued Certificates of Approval for the study.
Here are copies of their "Certificate of Approval" forms
Sample 1
Sample 2

at the bottom of page 2 it states:

Federal regulations require that WIRB conduct continuing review of approved research. You will receive Continuing
Review Report forms from WIRB. These reports must be returned even though your study may not have started.


The above study was presented at the American Psychological Association (APA) conference 2006. ** As a disclaimer Dysfunction Junction of fornits was mistaken the first time when he said WIRB never heard of the study.  What he meant was he called WIRB and they did hear of the study but said they only approved the Questionnaire.  So we need to consider DJs' input/opinion against the published facts.

[Troll Control]

They never published the follow up on this work that was completed in 2007.  Some programs would be excluded from the follow up because they were shut down for abuse.

Even though Behrens scrubbed the data of all negative reporting, the phase two results didn't support Aspen's marketing, so they deep-sixed it in 2007 so the public wouldn't see the damaging data that the kids who went to Aspen programs failed to maintain changes:

"In Phase One, we collected data surrounding admission, discharge, how the children functioned and how they changed during and immediately after treatment," Ellen explained. "In Phase Two, we are looking at the student's progress for up to a year after leaving the program and how it differs from their functioning at the time of discharge. The first Phase explores whether residential treatment works in both the kids and parent's opinion. The next question in Phase Two, which will be released in the first quarter of 2007, is does it last? In other words, do the changes during treatment get better, stay the same, get worse or lose their power after discharge?"

I think people would be hard pressed to show a study of people's opinions is scientifically valid or clinical.  This is why this study was never peer reviewed or published.

Interestingly, "phase 2" was said to be completed in 2007.  It has never been released.  It was supposed to measure if the changes reported in parents' and kids' opinion surveys were lasting or not.  It looks like they didn't get the results they were looking for and decided just to dump the project and never mention it again.

This silence about a highly touted, widely hyped follow up speaks volumes about what they found.  It has been over three years since the research was complete, but they didn't publish a word of it.  Hmmmm...Must not have been supportive of their predrawn conclusions, even after they scrubbed the data of anything that might make the outcome look worse:

"We also tried to eliminate all students discharged from the programs before graduation because the clinical staff thought it was actually an inappropriate placement, or when they felt the program couldn't be helpful to the child."

Even though the data was rigged, it still didn't look good for Aspen, so they shitcanned the second phase that woud show the changes reported didn't last even a year.

This isn't how studies are supposed to work.  They're not supposed to have conclusions before they begin.  This was  a marketing tool that backfired.

First phase - opinion survey with scrubbed data.
Second phase - "no comment."

Still no comment on phase two?  How did these kids do one year out I wonder?  Aspen has had the data since 2007.  Why didn't they release it?  Aren't they interested in the scientific validity of this study?  Or just marketing?

[Troll Control]

Phase two, Whooter?  How did all that abuse effect change a year out of the program?  Was abusing these kids in Aspen programs effective at making them change for the long haul?  Why won't you answer this question?

[Whooter]

Still no comment on phase two?  How did these kids do one year out I wonder?  Aspen has had the data since 2007.  Why didn't they release it?  Aren't they interested in the scientific validity of this study?  Or just marketing?

I dont think any of us know why they have not completed phase II.  Maybe because it was disappointing, maybe they are still working on it, maybe they are trying to leverage a specific time to release the data for a marketing strategy to increase sales, Maybe waiting to get a slot in the next Annual APA convention to kick it off... etc.

We will just have to wait and see.



...

[Troll Control]

Behrens said it was complete in 2007.  Where the heck is it?  They spit out phase one in a massive marketing campaign before the ink was dry.  Phase two must have showed something pretty bad...

I guess they'd also have to expalin that these programs charged for abuse/shut down during the study or right after.  It's hard to explain how you're helping kids by abusing them I suppose.  But they can't deny the abuse, so I guess they just deep-six the study instead.

[Whooter]

Behrens said it was complete in 2007.  Where the heck is it?  They spit out phase one in a massive marketing campaign before the ink was dry.  Phase two must have showed something pretty bad...

I guess they'd also have to expalin that these programs charged for abuse/shut down during the study or right after.  It's hard to explain how you're helping kids by abusing them I suppose.  But they can't deny the abuse, so I guess they just deep-six the study instead.

No you are wrong, DJ, the abuse does not have to be part of the extended study.  They would be looking at how the kids did "After" they left the program.  The boundary conditions and scope of the study would not touch upon any abuse that occurs (unless it occurred at home and was part of the survey).

Do you see what I mean?  If there was abuse to be reported that would have came in phase one while the kids where still under the care of the program.



...

[Troll Control]

They would have to name the programs from whence the data were derived.  It would be embarassing for them because several programs were charged with abuse, killed kids and/or were shut down for abuse and neglect.  Then they'd have to explain those facts and how abusing these kids was "successful."

This is one reason why phase two will never be released.  I think we all get that by now.  It was complete three years ago.  It also probably doesn't show any effectiveness either.  So they don't put it out there.

[Whooter]

They would have to name the programs from whence the data were derived.  It would be embarassing for them because several programs were charged with abuse, killed kids and/or were shut down for abuse and neglect.  Then they'd have to explain those facts and how abusing these kids was "successful."

This is one reason why phase two will never be released.  I think we all get that by now.  It was complete three years ago.  It also probably doesn't show any effectiveness either.  So they don't put it out there.

I disagree,  the scope of the Phase II study would only include how the kids fared at home.  It wouldn't include their time in the program at all.



...