Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Troubled Teen Industry => Topic started by: Anonymous on December 24, 2005, 09:23:00 PM
-
Partial Results From The Woodbury Reports Parent/Student Survey
By: Lon Woodbury
For the past few years, Woodbury Reports, Inc. has collected surveys from parents and former students who were involved with a private parent-choice residential school or program, http://www.strugglingteens.com/survey.html (http://www.strugglingteens.com/survey.html), that are specifically designed to meet the special needs of their students. To date, we have received 404 completed surveys, 52 (13% of them) were from people who had personally attended one of these residential schools or programs.
With the accusations floating around that these schools and programs are harmful, abusive and only in it for the money, the former students who answer the survey questions provide information that shows how they personally view their program experiences. Though the surveys from the 52 former students gives some hint as to what kind of experience these students had, it is still only a small sample of the thousands of students who have attended one or more of these programs over the years.
At the end of each survey, participants are asked to give an overall rating of their experiences on a scale from zero to five; with zero meaning they thought the experience affected them in a negative way and five indicating their experience was very effective and appropriate. Of these responses, the average was just a shade over three, indicating the average experience, in their opinion, was helpful. This average was mildly positive, neither a ringing endorsement, nor a condemnation of the industry as a whole.
Comparing the comments from the former students was very interesting also. For example, I looked at the comments from two students who attended the same boarding school at approximately the same time period. It is likely these two students were exposed to the same program, the same staff and pretty much the same peers. The student that rated her experience a zero described the school as "emotionally abusive" and "depressing, traumatic, painful, sad and deeply disturbing." However, the student who attended same school, at approximately the same time period and rated her experience a five, described it as "hard, thoughtful, life changing, physical, demanding and the best time of my life!!!!" It is clear that these two radically different subjective reactions describe the respondents more than they describe the school. It suggests that the one student was in a place that was wrong for her, while the other was exactly where she needed to be. It describes the appropriateness, or not, of the placement more than it describes the school itself.
To take a closer look at the collection of 52 surveys to see what might be different between them, I'll compare the group that gave a zero rating, meaning they thought their experience was harmful, with the group that gave a rating of five. I'll present two tables, one indicating the statistics of those giving a zero rating, the other of those rating it as a five, as well as some thoughts on what these statistics might be telling us.
(After the survey was discussed and debated on the Fornitz website a few months ago, we received a rash of submissions from former students. This is a site that tends to be very critical of these residential schools and programs, and the site participants were encouraging people to express their negative views in our survey. Ironically, these recent submissions hardly changed the average at all for former students, since the high ratings balanced out the negative ratings).
Overall Rating of Zero-13 surveys (25% of student responses)
Female-8 (62%)
Male-5 (38%)
Students who exited a Program 7+ years before filling out the survey-8 (62%)
Graduated the Program-7 (54%)
Left Early-6 (46%)
In the Program more than one year-8 (62%)
In the Program less than one year-5 (38%)
Overall Rating of Five-22 surveys (42% of student responses)
Female- 17 (77%)
Male-5 (23%)
Students who exited a Program 7+ years before filling out the survey-4 (18%)
Graduated the Program-19 (86%)
Left Early-3 (14%)
In the Program more than one year-16 (73%)
In the Program less than one year-6 (27%)
The first observation is that almost twice as many former students gave the top rating as those that gave the lowest rating: 22 (42%) to 13 (25%). This alone suggests that those former students that were positive about their experience significantly outnumber those that were negative about their experience. It also appears that females are slightly more likely to give a positive rating than males.
In looking at those finishing the program more than seven years before filling out the survey, there is a significant difference between the two groups. Of those who had finished their program more than seven years ago, 62% indicated a zero and only 18% rated it a five. This might suggest that the longer a student has to reflect on their experience, the more negative the experience becomes to them. However, when looking closer at these results, it showed that almost half of those giving a zero rating also indicated it had been 15-20 years or more since they had finished, whereas, none of the students rating the experience a five had been out of a program for that long. This suggests that much of the criticism and feelings of it being a negative experience comes from former students who were exposed to a different type of program such as Straight, Inc. Although they were in style many years ago, programs like Straight are harshly criticized by many of the current programs who see their approach as radically different.
The survey results from those who graduated as opposed to those who left early, shows another significant difference. A ratio of 46% to 14% respectively, indicates that those rating it a zero were much more likely to have left early, in comparison to those rating the experience a five.
The comparison between those in a program for more than or less than a year doesn't seem significant, which indicates the length of time for a program does not seem to have much relationship to whether attitudes toward the program are positive or negative.
We will continue to report our findings from these surveys from time to time in an attempt to get an idea as to what parents and former students think about their experience after they are finished. We encourage both former students and their parents to log on and complete our survey on their experiences with private, parent-choice schools and programs. The more surveys we receive, the more helpful and accurate the results.
The survey is online at http://www.strugglingteens.com/survey.html (http://www.strugglingteens.com/survey.html).
-
I heard Lon is a homosexual.
-
The survey figures may also indicate that it takes many former "students" at least five years before the brainwashing wears off and they are able to process information independently again. Anyway you look at it, it is still warehousing kids for profit, even in cases where there is no abuse. It is also interesting to note that many of the kids who have posted their experiences on this and other forums, were from families where the parents were more screwed up than the program staffers. Under those circimstances, nearly any change in environment might appear positive, at least for awhile.
-
And this info about Lon has what bearing on this topic??
Oh that's right, None.
-
Isn't this LON character an EDCON?
He instantly discredits himself no matter what he says because he is at direct odds with other programs. He is in it to make money, not to find the truth.
LON sends kids to abusive programs. So why should we give a shit what he has to say?
Fuck LON the homo!!
-
On 2005-12-25 11:41:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Isn't this LON character an EDCON?
He instantly discredits himself no matter what he says because he is at direct odds with other programs. He is in it to make money, not to find the truth.
LON sends kids to abusive programs. So why should we give a shit what he has to say?
Fuck LON the homo!! "
I don't know if he's a homo (it does seem to be a common thread amongst ed-cons though), but he does refer kids to abusive programs and he did work at one of the most abusive ones out there (it was shut down under clouds of abuse lawsuits and prosecutions of staff).
In any case, it's clear that without children's suffering, Lon would have no income, so to protect those who make children suffer and to cause further suffering would be part of his job description.
-
On 2005-12-25 11:01:00, Anonymous wrote:
"And this info about Lon has what bearing on this topic??
Oh that's right, None."
No, wrong. It shows he has vested interest in spinning the results of his poll to keep money coming in. He's a charlatan.
-
On 2005-12-24 18:23:00, Anonymous wrote:
This suggests that much of the criticism and feelings of it being a negative experience comes from former students who were exposed to a different type of program such as Straight, Inc.
That's a really bizarre conclusion. Straight is still happening under several different names. Same thing. The more ya' think about it, the worse it looks.
It really puzzles me to see Marijuana connected with Narcotics - Dope and all that crap?it's a thousand times better than whiskey - it's an Assistant - a friend.
Louis Armstrong
-
On 2005-12-25 12:30:00, Anonymous wrote:
It shows he has vested interest in spinning the results of his poll to keep money coming in. He's a charlatan."
Yeah, about like asking a barber if you need a haircut. They're also spinning the raw data. So many people break ties w/ their families after these programs. The parents will go on and on about each success that they hear about and attribute it to the program. But, oddly, they seem to have a propensity to not pass along messages to these kids. So the "study group" (as if!) is slanted in favor of including people who are either still under some parental authority or who just really got off on the whole thing about letting some guru think for them.
If they can get you to ask the wrong questions they don't have to worry about the answers
--Thomas Pynchon, Gravity's Rainbow (Proverbs for Paranoids)
-
On 2005-12-24 18:23:00, Anonymous wrote:
Overall Rating of Zero-13 surveys (25% of student responses)
In the Program more than one year-8 (62%)
In the Program less than one year-5 (38%)
Overall Rating of Five-22 surveys (42% of student responses)
In the Program more than one year-16 (73%)
In the Program less than one year-6 (27%)
...
The comparison between those in a program for more than or less than a year doesn't seem significant,
Not significant??? What are you smokin up there in La Verkin, Lon? Quit bogartin and pass that spleef along, man!
:rofl: "...In general, it's just an overall sign in America that there doesn't seem to be as much respect for authority figures, and that's a bad trend. It just strikes me that people can say whatever they want to and get away with it, and that's not good."
--But David Murrell, exec. dir. of the Florida Police Benevolent Association
-
I don?t even visit Lon?s site anymore, its like reading PR statements from a company. You?re not going to get any truth from a for profit company like his. It is my belief that Lon knowingly promotes schools that he not only knows are abusive, but has talked about being abusive in the past. I think Lon may have started out years ago with the desire to help youth but he quickly realized how much money can be made in this corrupt industry.
Lon you?re just another EDCON chasing the dollar.
-
On 2005-12-25 14:05:00, Anonymous wrote:
"I don?t even visit Lon?s site anymore, its like reading PR statements from a company. You?re not going to get any truth from a for profit company like his. It is my belief that Lon knowingly promotes schools that he not only knows are abusive, but has talked about being abusive in the past. I think Lon may have started out years ago with the desire to help youth but he quickly realized how much money can be made in this corrupt industry.
Lon you?re just another EDCON chasing the dollar.
"
Very true. StrugglingParents.com is a joke. A sick, twisted joke where the puchline is about child abuse.
-
No, it's not just the money. More likely they see the money, nice as it is all by itself, as evidence of God's approval. Never underestimate the influence of religious zealotry. In just the same way as some people have themselves convinced that ID is science, Lon probably fully believes that what he's engaging in is close enough to scientific research. And he damned sure believes in the propriety of breaking and retraining young adults asif they were over priced cur dogs. It's his calling. He's acting on the authority of his invisible friend when he tells those little white lies of omission to get the troubled parent to sign that check.
And suffering is not a badge of honor. Experiencing tyranny does not deserve a bow or a kiss. The honor is in removing the stumbling stone. The honor is in the impolite destruction of tyranny through honest, powerful dialogue - not etiquette. Not political correctness.
Maximus
_________________
Drug war POW
Straight, Sarasota
`80 - `82
-
I wonder who he interviewed...? Children of parents he knows...? I don't recall being asked on THIS site whether I wanted to participate in any survey. This site would seem like the most logical place to find former students.
-
You can take the survey at
http://www.strugglingteens.com/survey.html (http://www.strugglingteens.com/survey.html)
-
The survey results are absolutely worthless. The respondents are entirely self-selected, as we can see by the propensity of respondents to rate their experiences zeros or fives. Only the people who felt strongest on the issue responded, and the places the survey was advertised strongly affected the number of people who were aware of it.
In addition, research has been done on surveys and polls that compares the results when the survey uses self-selected respondents, versus when the respondents are a true random sample. The research has proven that you get a lot more people who agree with or are positive about the subject of the survey when you let respondents self-select than when you have a random sample.
In Lon's survey, this means that all the available research predicts that his self-selected sample has more people in it that like the Programs than a random sample would show.
You can't say anything statistically about anything if you don't have more than 35 data points. Even then, your conclusions are very, very weak unless your data shows a very strong relationship. If it's not a very strong relationship, then it's very likely that any "trend" you think you found is just random statistical noise, and the real trend could go entirely the other way.
With 52 "data points" and all of those self-selected and at the extremes, Lon's "survey" is a piece of crap.
He'd do far better to get a research grant and commission a professional survey firm to do a large, national poll by mail. Ask people to give the name of the place and years they attended purely for verification, and pay 'em $20 to return the survey (provided there really was a school there for those years). Encourage them to reply by having the survey sheet on a separate sheet of paper from the name and address needed to send them their check. National polling firms, if you tell them *not* to do a push poll but actually find out the real data, are very good at what they do.
When you see polls on TV that turn out to have horrible data, it's either because the methodology was crap (like Lon's survey) in the first place, or because somebody has commissioned a polling firm to do a "push poll" that pushes respondents towards the opinion the people buying the poll want them to have.
When you pay the professionals to do you an honest poll, you usually get pretty good data.
Thing is, in my opinion Lon's choices in how to put together this survey demonstrates that he doesn't want good data. He wants to get what he wants to hear.
Julie
-
On 2005-12-27 14:30:00, Anonymous wrote:
"The survey results are absolutely worthless. The respondents are entirely self-selected, as we can see by the propensity of respondents to rate their experiences zeros or fives. Only the people who felt strongest on the issue responded, and the places the survey was advertised strongly affected the number of people who were aware of it.
In addition, research has been done on surveys and polls that compares the results when the survey uses self-selected respondents, versus when the respondents are a true random sample. The research has proven that you get a lot more people who agree with or are positive about the subject of the survey when you let respondents self-select than when you have a random sample.
In Lon's survey, this means that all the available research predicts that his self-selected sample has more people in it that like the Programs than a random sample would show.
You can't say anything statistically about anything if you don't have more than 35 data points. Even then, your conclusions are very, very weak unless your data shows a very strong relationship. If it's not a very strong relationship, then it's very likely that any "trend" you think you found is just random statistical noise, and the real trend could go entirely the other way.
With 52 "data points" and all of those self-selected and at the extremes, Lon's "survey" is a piece of crap.
He'd do far better to get a research grant and commission a professional survey firm to do a large, national poll by mail. Ask people to give the name of the place and years they attended purely for verification, and pay 'em $20 to return the survey (provided there really was a school there for those years). Encourage them to reply by having the survey sheet on a separate sheet of paper from the name and address needed to send them their check. National polling firms, if you tell them *not* to do a push poll but actually find out the real data, are very good at what they do.
When you see polls on TV that turn out to have horrible data, it's either because the methodology was crap (like Lon's survey) in the first place, or because somebody has commissioned a polling firm to do a "push poll" that pushes respondents towards the opinion the people buying the poll want them to have.
When you pay the professionals to do you an honest poll, you usually get pretty good data.
Thing is, in my opinion Lon's choices in how to put together this survey demonstrates that he doesn't want good data. He wants to get what he wants to hear.
Julie"
READ THIS AGAIN. Tim, you're right on here. Spot on.
This idea that one can extrapolate valid conclusions from a survey is UTTER NONSENSE.
Lon should and DOES know better, but telling the truth isn't conducive to making money if you're in the business of referring to KNOWN ABUSIVE PROGRAMS.
Great job, Lon, you lying little bastard.