Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Troubled Teen Industry => Topic started by: try another castle on March 15, 2009, 01:10:55 PM
-
Since the fifth estate airing, I've been reading a great deal of swill regarding "success rate", and how it is measured.
These things have been measured in the past with other programs, such as synanon and 12 step.
However, criteria for "success" is not merely an issue of sobriety, is it?
I read the glowing testimonials from parents and grads about how the program "turned their life around". Well, how the fuck is this even measurable? Prove it, bitches. How do you know you wouldn't have worked out just fine if you never went?
I've decided, there needs to be a study. The thing is, what exactly, is being studied to begin with, and how the heck would it even be conducted?
I've been thinking about it, and here is what I have come up with so far.
1. It would require a list of criteria for both success and and initial placement. Some ideas for success (or, as I would prefer to call it from now on, "high-functioning") could be: employment, income level, nature of relationships with parents/family/friends, living situation.) I don't know, my point is that something specific would need to be established. Psychiatrists who work with outpatient care normally have a list of criteria that could probably be used as a reference.
The criteria for initial placement basically means the reasons kids were put away. These could be things such as a. drug/alcohol use. Frequency, nature of substance, etc. b. school attendance or discipline issues c. juvenile record d. poor grades e. psychiatric diagnosis f. history of suicide or self-harm. I'm not saying one way or another whether these are reasons to put a kid away, (but I'm sure you can guess what my feelings are on this). In addition, this would have to reflect the ACTUAL situation, not the parents perception of the situation. As such, the criteria must be concrete, measurable things, but could also take into consideration the subject's state of mind as they remember it, such as mood. This question could also be asked in establishing the criteria for high functioning rate.
2. A control. A cross section of adults from the general population who did not attend such schools, and are from similar socio-economic backgrounds as the adults who were placed in programs. Adults would be screened and selected based on whether their behavior as a teenager matched the placement criteria for the students in the study group who were placed in programs.
These adults would then be tested to determine which percentages met the criteria of a high functioning individual as an adult, in addition to the percentage breakdown for each line item in the criteria.
3. A study group. This is a selection of adults who were placed into programs as teens, and also determine the placement criteria that the control group is to be selected by.
The same poll run against the control would then be run against the study. Results would then be evaluated to see if there is any deviation between the control and study.
I also feel that it would be equally, if not more, important to do a similar study of percentages of suicides, unemployment, divorce rate, drug use and overdose, and criminal record/imprisonment between a program study group and a control group.
I would just really like to shut the success anecdote wagon train the fuck up for once, because at this point, it's arguing the hypothetical. And to be fair, that is the case either way, (i.e. crediting/blaming the program for general high or low functionality, with the exception of specific diagnoses such as PTSD.)
Anyway, it needs to be done. Really and truly. I'm just wondering if it's doable. The trick is the criteria, and this is why it would be essential that this study is done by the psychiatric industry, coupled with sociologists, because, as far as I know, they have established such criteria already as to what constitutes high, medium and low functionality. Whereas placement criteria is determined strictly by the study group.
Thoughts?
-
Instead of focusing on the results, I think it's better to study the process used inside of programs. Because they will always have some kids who sing their praises and claim it saved their life, even the worst programs accomplish this much.
The only question that needs to be asked is, is the process used inside programs unethical? The answer is obviously, yes.
Some people think it's okay to use an unethical process in order to achieve the desired results. But focusing on the results, and then deciding whether an unethical process is tolerable or not, sort of agrees with this premise that it is the results that matter, and not how they were accomplished.
That is why having a study focusing on how kids do after the program, actually serves the interests of programs.
Let's say you went to an abusive program, but you are doing great, sober, in school and better family life. Well, if you were turned into a statistic, it would appear that the program made the difference.
The truth is, it doesn't matter whether programs work or not because the process they use to accomplish their results is unethical.
-
The truth is, it doesn't matter whether programs work or not because the process they use to accomplish their results is unethical.
This is true, of course, but it does help to have a study showing it doesn't work to show to the parents. Many don't care what happens so long as their kids are "cured". It helps to be able to show them they won't be.
-
I seem to be responding to your posts a lot for whatever reason. Anyhow, I am currently a college student majoring in sociology. I've been planning since day one to do my thesis on some aspect of the TTI. I agree with you, I think it is essential to bring sociologists in addition to psychologists, specifically sociologists specializing in deviance. While I am at this juncture winding down my second year of college, and will not be working on the thesis until my senior year, I've already begun collecting data, psychological and sociological studies, journal articles, any primary source documents (such as the propheet/insight scripts) and really anything I can get my grubby little hands on that remotely pertains to the subject at hand.
I have a couple thoughts about the nature of the study that you have proposed.
1.) I would argue to narrow the scope of the study to people with similar intake criteria and repeat the study multiple times (or perhaps simultaneously) with participants of other intake criteria. Although all participants would undoubtedly be affected by the program in one way or another, the narrowed scope could perhaps provide fewer correlational relationships to muck through. One would half to be very mindful of the sheer amount of variables in such a study, and to try and control for as many as possible.
2.) Perhaps after analyzing the correlations between different intake criteria and different later-life results, one could develop some system of evaluation or at least a solid hypothesis for use in a more macro level study with people of differing intake criteria.
3.) Lastly, how would you convince a program to let you have access to the kind of information you would need to do a study like this? Clearly no program would want to stake its reputation on such a study, or at least no program that would be as interesting to study as one with lasting effects. Not only would you need solid empirical data of the methods of the program, but the followup would take a great deal of organization, not to mention the quite hefty task of the final analysis.
@ Guest - I do agree that an in depth study of the methods of any of the programs would be an invaluable asset, but what try another castle is suggesting is a debunking of the success rate claims, which would do much to disarm the negative/deceitful programs. Both or either would be great.
-
I seem to be responding to your posts a lot for whatever reason. Anyhow, I am currently a college student majoring in sociology. I've been planning since day one to do my thesis on some aspect of the TTI. I agree with you, I think it is essential to bring sociologists in addition to psychologists, specifically sociologists specializing in deviance. While I am at this juncture winding down my second year of college, and will not be working on the thesis until my senior year, I've already begun collecting data, psychological and sociological studies, journal articles, any primary source documents (such as the propheet/insight scripts) and really anything I can get my grubby little hands on that remotely pertains to the subject at hand.
I have a couple thoughts about the nature of the study that you have proposed.
1.) I would argue to narrow the scope of the study to people with similar intake criteria and repeat the study multiple times (or perhaps simultaneously) with participants of other intake criteria. Although all participants would undoubtedly be affected by the program in one way or another, the narrowed scope could perhaps provide fewer correlational relationships to muck through. One would half to be very mindful of the sheer amount of variables in such a study, and to try and control for as many as possible.
2.) Perhaps after analyzing the correlations between different intake criteria and different later-life results, one could develop some system of evaluation or at least a solid hypothesis for use in a more macro level study with people of differing intake criteria.
3.) Lastly, how would you convince a program to let you have access to the kind of information you would need to do a study like this? Clearly no program would want to stake its reputation on such a study, or at least no program that would be as interesting to study as one with lasting effects. Not only would you need solid empirical data of the methods of the program, but the followup would take a great deal of organization, not to mention the quite hefty task of the final analysis.
@ Guest - I do agree that an in depth study of the methods of any of the programs would be an invaluable asset, but what try another castle is suggesting is a debunking of the success rate claims, which would do much to disarm the programs. Both or either would be great.
Were you in Cedu, sek?
-
I was in a CEDU clone with many familiar faces. You?
-
I was in a CEDU clone with many familiar faces. You?
You used the word "insight". BCA? IIRC, that's what they call propheets there.
-
Monarch.
-
Monarch.
Aha. I was thinking of the wrong place.
-
The truth is, it doesn't matter whether programs work or not because the process they use to accomplish their results is unethical.
This is true, of course, but it does help to have a study showing it doesn't work to show to the parents. Many don't care what happens so long as their kids are "cured". It helps to be able to show them they won't be.
exactly, because even the stupidest parent isnt going to waste money on a quick-fix program that doesnt fix shit.
-
The truth is, it doesn't matter whether programs work or not because the process they use to accomplish their results is unethical.
This is true, of course, but it does help to have a study showing it doesn't work to show to the parents. Many don't care what happens so long as their kids are "cured". It helps to be able to show them they won't be.
exactly, because even the stupidest parent isnt going to waste money on a quick-fix program that doesnt fix shit.
u r overestimating the so called parents who finance their own kids abduction and imprisonment.
-
The truth is, it doesn't matter whether programs work or not because the process they use to accomplish their results is unethical.
This is true, of course, but it does help to have a study showing it doesn't work to show to the parents. Many don't care what happens so long as their kids are "cured". It helps to be able to show them they won't be.
exactly, because even the stupidest parent isnt going to waste money on a quick-fix program that doesnt fix shit.
u r overestimating the so called parents who finance their own kids abduction and imprisonment.
But they are also parents who, for the most part, think they are getting a "good deal" money-wise. i.e. you get what you pay for, so if it costs this much, it must work, right? sticker-shock takes precedence over your own kid's complaints about such a place.
but if it was proven that they don't get shit, and that these things can actually estrange you from your offspring in the long run, and also has the potential to cut them out of your life forever, then I don't think they are going to be willing to spend several thousand dollars a month on it.
this is one of the few industries who not only fail to deliver on their product, but actually get you the opposite of what you want. most pyramid schemes and shoddy products simply fail to deliver.
It's like buying toilet paper and realizing "holy fuck, I'm wiping, and I'm actually getting MORE shit on my ass. wtf?"
-
definitive pyramid feasiblity
schemy control groups
extended couer d'alen parent visits
do you think the pink lion cared about our feelings?
-
definitive pyramid feasiblity
schemy control groups
extended couer d'alen parent visits
do you think the pink lion cared about our feelings?
If given the choice, I would have preferred living at the pink lion. Especially since they sold iced animal cookies.
Did you know that mother's cookies went out of business? they were the only ones who made those. NOOOOOOOOO!
-
That is why having a study focusing on how kids do after the program, actually serves the interests of programs.
Let's say you went to an abusive program, but you are doing great, sober, in school and better family life. Well, if you were turned into a statistic, it would appear that the program made the difference.
The truth is, it doesn't matter whether programs work or not because the process they use to accomplish their results is unethical.
This is something to be considered in doing a study. Maybe there is a way to factor in that some people do well despite being in a program.
Anytime I bring up that I am struggling, or having a difficult time in my life now as a result of the program, no one believes me because I 'have it together.' My parents/family/others site the fact that I'm in school making good grades and working at a good job as proof of the programs success. I was sober for a few years after I graduated, proving that the program "works." Even though now I am 'relapsed' I still continue to have a good job, good family relationships, etc. but I struggle immensely with day to day life. Because I have managed to internalize this, or compartmentalize enough, I am able to put on a good front. It covers the harm done by the program, misrepresenting it. I'm not sure if that makes sense.
It would be interesting to see the results though. I'm sure that there are many others who are doing well in spite of going through a program. I am also sure that there are many who are not because of going through a program. I am also curious of how many people still diligently follow the program. I know there is a pocket of kids and straight graduates out there, but what about the other programs? How many still think it is good, the best, follow the rules, etc. years later?
-
That is why having a study focusing on how kids do after the program, actually serves the interests of programs.
Let's say you went to an abusive program, but you are doing great, sober, in school and better family life. Well, if you were turned into a statistic, it would appear that the program made the difference.
The truth is, it doesn't matter whether programs work or not because the process they use to accomplish their results is unethical.
This is something to be considered in doing a study. Maybe there is a way to factor in that some people do well despite being in a program.
Anytime I bring up that I am struggling, or having a difficult time in my life now as a result of the program, no one believes me because I 'have it together.' My parents/family/others site the fact that I'm in school making good grades and working at a good job as proof of the programs success. I was sober for a few years after I graduated, proving that the program "works." Even though now I am 'relapsed' I still continue to have a good job, good family relationships, etc. but I struggle immensely with day to day life. Because I have managed to internalize this, or compartmentalize enough, I am able to put on a good front. It covers the harm done by the program, misrepresenting it. I'm not sure if that makes sense.
It would be interesting to see the results though. I'm sure that there are many others who are doing well in spite of going through a program. I am also sure that there are many who are not because of going through a program. I am also curious of how many people still diligently follow the program. I know there is a pocket of kids and straight graduates out there, but what about the other programs? How many still think it is good, the best, follow the rules, etc. years later?
This is precisely why a study needs to divorce itself from that completely. It can't even really be considered something like "successful" or "good". The operative term is "high-functioning". The issue isnt whether someone makes more money than someone else. The issue is simply employment status. Granted, income, I assume, is also part of the equation, but that focuses on a narrower aspect of functionality, as opposed to the broader questions regarding simply at what level this person is able to live and function.
There are people who are considered extremely "successful" individuals, yet many, IMO, are moderate-functioning at best, in terms of other aspects of their lives such as relationships with others. (spouse, ex, family, friends). The criteria that is set up by the psychiatric community, I feel, covers most bases. It can be something as mundane as sleep pattern/circadian rhythm, to something as worldly as profession, income, presence of a police record, to something as abstract as personal relationships.
I think a joke in my OP made it sound like I was really about shutting the success-stories up, and I meant that tongue in cheek. The study can't be about who is right and who is wrong. Right and wrong are abstract and relative terms.
We're basically just looking for patterns right now. That's it. Is there deviation between the control and the study?
-
That is an excellent point. What is the definition of success? Your parents see the program as successful because you are going to school,making good grades, working a good job. Although you are experiencing side effects from the program does this mean the program was unsuccessful?
People who have diabetes and take insulin to manage their problems have side effects also which lowers their quality of life like swelling of the lips, tightness in the chest, daily injections,limited menu options etc. but insulin is considered a successful option despite the side effect.
If a child is having difficulty in school, poor grades, dropping out of school and family and after the program the child is doing well in school and socially would this be considered a success? If the child was depressed afterwards and had bouts of suicidal thoughts would these be considered side effects. Would a deprogramming period of say 7 years be considered an acceptable byproduct of a 12 to 16 month stay?
Success can be individually defined. If the child had poor grades before the program and has good grades after the program then the program was successful (even though the child may be depressed). The larger question is… “Is this an acceptable trade off?”
-
That is an excellent point. What is the definition of success? Your parents see the program as successful because you are going to school,making good grades, working a good job. Although you are experiencing side effects from the program does this mean the program was unsuccessful?
People who have diabetes and take insulin to manage their problems have side effects also which lowers their quality of life like swelling of the lips, tightness in the chest, daily injections,limited menu options etc. but insulin is considered a successful option despite the side effect.
If a child is having difficulty in school, poor grades, dropping out of school and family and after the program the child is doing well in school and socially would this be considered a success? If the child was depressed afterwards and had bouts of suicidal thoughts would these be considered side effects. Would a deprogramming period of say 7 years be considered an acceptable byproduct of a 12 to 16 month stay?
Success can be individually defined. If the child had poor grades before the program and has good grades after the program then the program was successful (even though the child may be depressed). The larger question is… “Is this an acceptable trade off?”
success is an abstract, subjective concept that is unmeasurable.
level of functionality, however, can be measured
-
It's no measure of health to be well adjusted to a sick society.
-Krishnamurti
-
It's no measure of health to be well adjusted to a sick society.
-Krishnamurti
Can you think of any well ones? Let me know when you find one. (Ill be sure to bomb it, simply out of jealousy.)
I personally think that "we" can come up with SOMETHING measurable for a study such as this. It's not going to be perfect, of course, but it can at least attempt to be as impartial as possible. There are some very simple things that could tell a lot. Suicides... for example. I think we can all safely say that even if someone has a damn good reason to off themselves, it's still clear that there were some functionality issues that came out with a less than favorable result. If it was proven that there was a deviation in such a thing... well, I personally think that would speak volumes, don't you? (cause is irrelevant, and often impossible to determine. A deviation in numbers is what is important, because that can lend speculation as to possible cause) Regardless of which way it went. And if there was no deviation, that says something too.
There are other, even more rudimentary things, that could speak volumes. Take my previous example of a circadian rhythm. People in programs were forced to have pretty irregular hours, in a similar way to someone who served infantry in a war. Don't you think it would be interesting to determine if there was any deviation in sleep pattern between the two groups? Especially since maintaining a healthy circadian rhythm (and no, that is not subjective. REM sleep is important. Just ask anyone who has sleep apnea.) is so difficult to do in this society, anyway, so I would think that in either group, there's going to be a lot of people who have fucked up sleeping habits, especially those who work swing shift jobs. (and actually there was recently a study that showed that swing shift workers have more health problems.) So, studying that pattern could be a worthwhile endeavor as well, since deviation from a standard in this case is more common.
Eating habits could be another one, as well as fitness level. (none, moderate, regular, manic), and I think I can safely say that in most cases, the extremes in either scenario is unhealthy, but also some amount of activity is important, especially for people such as myself who suffer from depression.
Instead of just speculating, maybe I should just ask my shrink what criteria people in his profession use for such a thing and get back to everyone on this.
I personally think that one of the reasons why a study would want to use the functionality criteria used by shrinks is because it already assumes a pathology. And since I think everyone here can agree that society as a whole is pretty pathological, it's a criteria that can be used for both groups.