Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => Aspen Education Group => Topic started by: Anonymous on September 24, 2009, 02:13:39 AM
-
http://www.suwscarolinas.com/outcome.html (http://www.suwscarolinas.com/outcome.html)
Linked is the only "study" made available by John Reuben. This is a survey, not study. There is no control group. In no way can this be construed as a "study."
Even after accepting this as a survey Aspen Education Group is fraudulent. For it, as they admit, only "graduates" were interviewed. Therefore, this is not even a valid survey of the participants, only the small segment who "graduate." What's more, "graduation" is only granted to detainees when staff feels the detainee believes that he/she has been helped and was unfit previous to program. Even if you grant (improperly) that graduation is granted to "healed" detainees, that still leaves out all the participants who were not. Detainees imprisoned every bit as long as the "graduates" are not included in the survey of perception of the experience. The survey is structured to provide artificially inflated levels of "positive" perceptions.
This is also an invalid survey because of the lack of transparency of "assessment method,"(they provide no corroboration that any of the info they provide is accurate, or what sort of questions were asked ,or what sort of answers were given--[interpretation of answers can manipulated to reverse intended meanings]) vagueness of meaning (are teens less depressed at assessment because they are no longer in the process of being kidnapped?) and supply no provision of objective reality in addition to subjective perception (if a teen is in jail, or no longer speaking to their parents, or a drop out, this objective measurement of "Family healing" should be included) Its also invalid as a "long term" study because it supposedly only measures perceptions of detainees a year out
That this "survey" is only on isolated corners of the interwebs and not accepted by any journals speaks volumes.
Compare Aspen's invalid clandestine survey to Alison Pinto's legitimate survey, for transparency, independency, and appropriatness of clinical sampling:
http://www.cafety.org/research/121-rese ... -pinto-phd (http://www.cafety.org/research/121-research/414-a-summary-of-participant-perspectives-on-residential-treatment-for-youth-allison-pinto-phd)
Here's a breakdown of the AARC "clincial outcome study," which uses a similar "methodology." I'm bolding the flaws which are relevant to the ASPEN EDUCATION GROUP (torture chambers) "outcome study"
About AARC's "80% Success Rate"
That claim is based on what AARC’s website calls an “outcome evaluation,” which it says was “completed” by Dr. Michael Patton, a leading U.S. professional evaluator of programs.
As recently as last year, AARC described the study as an “independent outcomes validation study,” according to an AARC funding submission document sent to the Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission, which the fifth estate obtained through the province’s freedom of information legislation.
We obtained a version of the 2003 study and showed it to three psychology professors who specialize in addiction—the University of Calgary’s David Hodgins, the University of Lethbridge’s Robert Williams and Bruce Alexander, professor emeritus at Simon Fraser University.
The success rate doesn’t include people who didn’t finish the program.
The grads were interviewed by people linked to AARC. This could bias what was reported, Alexander said. “Imagine calling up somebody who’s graduated from a program and saying: ‘Hey, are you taking drugs any more?’ And this person has already been put in the program against their will perhaps precisely because they took drugs. And what are they going to say? ‘Oh yes, I’m taking lots of drugs now,’” Alexander said.
The fifth estate also asked the man who AARC says completed the study—Dr. Patton. He told the fifth estate his involvement was largely limited to supervising a graduate student who crunched the data—data gathered by people associated with AARC.
“I did not conduct the study. I oversaw the analysis,” he said.
[Aspen both conducted the survey and oversaw the analysis]
“It’s expensive of course to commission an external evaluation. But, that would be the next step. I do remember that the internal evaluation results were quite positive. But, the evaluation that was done did not independently examine the process. The graduate student that I supervised did not independently talk to any of the young people or the parents. He simply analyzed the data that they sent him. And I was the supervisor of him which is how my name ends up on the report,” Patton said.
AAARC’s research has faced criticisms before. In 1994, the Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission raised questions about an earlier AARC evaluation of its success rate.
At the time, the commission wanted AARC to have an independent study of its program done by an experienced, credible research group of its program as a condition of a $100,000 grant.
AARC did submit a study. It is even mentioned on AARC’s website, where it is described as “an external review.”
The commission wasn’t so sure. One of its researchers reviewed the study and noted that, in her opinion, it “was not conducted by an independent researcher, but by people associated with AARC,” according to a commission memo obtained through the freedom of information legislation.
That researcher’s conclusion: AARC’s study was not “technically adequate based on widely accepted standards of research and evaluation.”
-
Great find!! Thank you for the link. I didnt realize they had done studies. Here is a summary of the link you provided:
Aspen Education Group’s Outdoor Behavior Healthcare (OBH) programs, also referred to as wilderness therapy, participated in two long-term, independent research studies, most recently from March 2006 through October 2008.red to as wilderness therapy, participated in One hundred-ninety adolescents, ages 14-17, enrolled in three different wilderness therapy programs were assessed at admission; one week after they started treatment; graduation from the wilderness therapy program; three months after graduation; and 12 months after graduation. Adolescent participants in wilderness therapy programs experienced reported struggling with issues such as substance use, depression, anxiety, suicidal ideations, ADHD and academic performance.
Research conducted by: Ellen Behrens, Ph.D., Canyon Research & Consulting, Inc.; Sarah (Salli) Lewis, Ph.D. and Ellen Leen-Feldner, Center for Research, Assessment, and Treatment Efficacy and Arkansas Institute of Developmental Science; Keith Russell, Ph.D., Outdoor Behavioral Healthcare Research Cooperative, University of Minnesota.
-
Great find!! Thank you for the link. I didnt realize they had done studies. Here is a summary of the link you provided:
Aspen Education Group’s Outdoor Behavior Healthcare (OBH) programs, also referred to as wilderness therapy, participated in two long-term, independent research studies, most recently from March 2006 through October 2008.red to as wilderness therapy, participated in One hundred-ninety adolescents, ages 14-17, enrolled in three different wilderness therapy programs were assessed at admission; one week after they started treatment; graduation from the wilderness therapy program; three months after graduation; and 12 months after graduation. Adolescent participants in wilderness therapy programs experienced reported struggling with issues such as substance use, depression, anxiety, suicidal ideations, ADHD and academic performance.
Research conducted by: Ellen Behrens, Ph.D., Canyon Research & Consulting, Inc.; Sarah (Salli) Lewis, Ph.D. and Ellen Leen-Feldner, Center for Research, Assessment, and Treatment Efficacy and Arkansas Institute of Developmental Science; Keith Russell, Ph.D., Outdoor Behavioral Healthcare Research Cooperative, University of Minnesota.
I agree with the original poster that long term studies are more desireable than surveys. Here is the link to the long term, independent study:
Aspen Study (http://http://www.suwscarolinas.com/outcome.html)
-
There are many different points of view on this forum which is what makes it so interesting. As far as the studies go the nice thing is everyone can read them and decide for themselves if they are adequate or not.
Lets just keep getting the information out there for people to read!!!
-
For something to be considered a "study" there needs to be a control group.
There should also be transparency of data, independence of researchers, and peer review.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_control_group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_control_group)
The above cannot be considered a study. If you, John D Reuben, demanded anything resembling research before imprisoning your Michael at Academy at Swift River and SUWS wilderness, you would not have ended up with a dead son.
-
For something to be considered a "study" there needs to be a control group.
There should also be transparency of data, independence of researchers, and peer review.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_control_group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_control_group)
The above cannot be considered a study. If you, John D Reuben, demanded anything resembling research before imprisoning your Michael at Academy at Swift River and SUWS wilderness, you would not have ended up with a dead son.
Let me try to clear it up for you.
Study:
A work, such as a thesis, that results from studious endeavor
The pursuit of knowledge, as by reading, observation, or research.
So what Aspen did was have an independent firm perform a research study into the effectiveness of their program. They choose 190 students to participate in the study and recorded the effect the program had on them.
Here take a look, the results are very interesting:
Aspen Study (http://http://www.suwscarolinas.com/outcome.html)
-
For something to be considered a "study" there needs to be a control group.
There should also be transparency of data, independence of researchers, and peer review.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_control_group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_control_group)
The above cannot be considered a study. If you, John D Reuben, demanded anything resembling research before imprisoning your Michael at Academy at Swift River and SUWS wilderness, you would not have ended up with a dead son.
Let me try to clear it up for you.
Study:
A work, such as a thesis, that results from studious endeavor
The pursuit of knowledge, as by reading, observation, or research.
So what Aspen did was have an independent firm perform a research study into the effectiveness of their program. They choose 190 students to participate in the study and recorded the effect the program had on them.
Here take a look, the results are very interesting:
Aspen Study (http://http://www.suwscarolinas.com/outcome.html)
Let me clear it up for you, John D. For something to have scientific validity as a "study," as opposed to marketing it has to have certain components. There has to be a control group, transparency of data, a degree of independence of assessment, peer review, and material that can be objectively quantified.
An edcon, an org called "outdoor behavioral health"-- founded by aspen and edcons are not "independent." There is no independence, no transparency and no control group, no peer review. Therefore, this is no "study." Hope that helps.
Aw. Your kid is still dead. Guess it doesn't help that much.
-
Great find!! Thank you for the link. I didnt realize they had done studies. Here is a summary of the link you provided:
Aspen Education Group’s Outdoor Behavior Healthcare (OBH) programs, also referred to as wilderness therapy, participated in two long-term, independent research studies, most recently from March 2006 through October 2008.red to as wilderness therapy, participated in One hundred-ninety adolescents, ages 14-17, enrolled in three different wilderness therapy programs were assessed at admission; one week after they started treatment; graduation from the wilderness therapy program; three months after graduation; and 12 months after graduation. Adolescent participants in wilderness therapy programs experienced reported struggling with issues such as substance use, depression, anxiety, suicidal ideations, ADHD and academic performance.
Research conducted by: Ellen Behrens, Ph.D., Canyon Research & Consulting, Inc.; Sarah (Salli) Lewis, Ph.D. and Ellen Leen-Feldner, Center for Research, Assessment, and Treatment Efficacy and Arkansas Institute of Developmental Science; Keith Russell, Ph.D., Outdoor Behavioral Healthcare Research Cooperative, University of Minnesota.
I agree with the original poster that long term studies are more desireable than surveys. Here is the link to the long term, independent study:
Aspen Study (http://http://www.suwscarolinas.com/outcome.html)
-
For something to be considered a "study" there needs to be a control group.
There should also be transparency of data, independence of researchers, and peer review.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_control_group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_control_group)
The above cannot be considered a study. If you, John D Reuben, demanded anything resembling research before imprisoning your Michael at Academy at Swift River and SUWS wilderness, you would not have ended up with a dead son.
Let me try to clear it up for you.
Study:
A work, such as a thesis, that results from studious endeavor
The pursuit of knowledge, as by reading, observation, or research.
So what Aspen did was have an independent firm perform a research study into the effectiveness of their program. They choose 190 students to participate in the study and recorded the effect the program had on them.
Here take a look, the results are very interesting:
Aspen Study (http://http://www.suwscarolinas.com/outcome.html)
Let me clear it up for you, John D. For something to have scientific validity as a "study," as opposed to marketing it has to have certain components. There has to be a control group, transparency of data, a degree of independence of assessment, peer review, and material that can be objectively quantified.
An edcon, an org called "outdoor behavioral health"-- founded by aspen and edcons are not "independent." There is no independence, no transparency and no control group, no peer review. Therefore, this is no "study." Hope that helps.
Reminds me of those "studies" Big Tobacco companies like Altria Group* conducts, which are really nothing more than marketing ploys.
:roflmao:
* formerly known as Philip Morris: http://www.altriameanstobacco.com/ (http://www.altriameanstobacco.com/)
-
Wow, when finally faced with study results done outside the programs you guys really scramble to try to discredit it. There are no ties back to Aspen that I can see. Can you point it out?
-
Wow, when finally faced with study results done outside the programs you guys really scramble to try to discredit it. There are no ties back to Aspen that I can see. Can you point it out?
Could you please be a bit more specific as to what you want pointed out? It's too early in the morning for me to be anything but dense! :D
-
John D., you are a fool. Ellen Behren's study is a marketing tool. It's as accurate as taking a survey on Fornits about the efficacy of residential treatment. You pick the right group and you get the answers you want.
I seriously think the only reason the pig Reuben posts here is to keep everyone writing on the thread instead of writing their thoughts to people who can actually put extreme heat on Aspen. Aspen legally defined themselves to save ass in one lawsuit, now if the other foot falls they can't flim-flam about the nature of their "service". Someone needs to hit them with a lawsuit and pin Aspen around their lack of service and the deceptive marketing. Aspen should not be using the word "clinical" at all in their advertisements. As a matter of fact, Behren's study touts "clinical" therapy and Aspen has said they do not provide it.
Reuben, your study is void on its face.
-
Wow, when finally faced with study results done outside the programs you guys really scramble to try to discredit it. There are no ties back to Aspen that I can see. Can you point it out?
Could you please be a bit more specific as to what you want pointed out? It's too early in the morning for me to be anything but dense! :D
I know what you mean, moving slow myself in the morning until after that first cup.
My question was.... I cannot find anything that ties this study back to Aspen. As far as I can see the research study was independent of any program. Is there a connection there I am missing?
-
Wow, when finally faced with study results done outside the programs you guys really scramble to try to discredit it. There are no ties back to Aspen that I can see. Can you point it out?
Could you please be a bit more specific as to what you want pointed out? It's too early in the morning for me to be anything but dense! :D
I know what you mean, moving slow myself in the morning until after that first cup.
My question was.... I cannot find anything that ties this study back to Aspen. As far as I can see the research study was independent of any program. Is there a connection there I am missing?
You answer a question first - does Ellen Behren profit from program placements?
-
As far as I can see the only connection is that she does research and consulting for treatment programs. I dont see any business where she sends the kids there herself.
Do a google search on her name and see what comes up... I didnt see any other businesses that she was involved in or ties to Aspen.
-
Wow, when finally faced with study results done outside the programs you guys really scramble to try to discredit it. There are no ties back to Aspen that I can see. Can you point it out?
Could you please be a bit more specific as to what you want pointed out? It's too early in the morning for me to be anything but dense! :D
I know what you mean, moving slow myself in the morning until after that first cup.
My question was.... I cannot find anything that ties this study back to Aspen. As far as I can see the research study was independent of any program. Is there a connection there I am missing?
Ah, you mean the myriad of "studies" that Big Tobacco conducts, many of them pertinent to targeting the youth market share. "If they've got lips, we want them!"
While I don't know how they tie in to Aspen per se, they sure do tie into other corners of the TTI, and share with Aspen a certain semantically-based duplicity in their marketing strategy.
Hence, your repetitive posting of that silly excuse for a "study" that Aspen touts ... made me think of them! :D
You'll find a lot to like in a marlboro: filter, flavor, pack or box.
And it is the same way with Hyde. Hyde's flavor does not quit like other secondary educations. That unique Hyde taste just stays with you for the rest of your life.
viewtopic.php?f=43&t=26127&p=318762#p318762 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=26127&p=318762#p318762)
And just what, exactly, does Hyde School have in common with Big Tobacco? The same deceptive marketing practices, even some of the same marketing personnel!
Just ask Hyde parent Nancy Lund, "the key steward of the Marlboro brand for more than two decades" (her words), generous contributor to Hyde's coffers (probably with the assistance of employer Philip Morris / Altria Group, as that is their policy), member of Hyde's Board of Governors, and most recently, key member of the marketing focus group (along with marketing group Leo Burnett Worldwide, Inc., co-creator of the Marlboro man) responsible for amping up Hyde's PR campaign with the now not so new website: Only @ Hyde (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=26127).
Sell! Sell! Sell!! :jamin:
-
As far as I can see the only connection is that she does research and consulting for treatment programs. I dont see any business where she sends the kids there herself.
Do a google search on her name and see what comes up... I didnt see any other businesses that she was involved in or ties to Aspen.
Meaning that she gets paid by programs for "research and consulting" even if she doesn't send anyone there.
-
As far as I can see the only connection is that she does research and consulting for treatment programs. I dont see any business where she sends the kids there herself.
Do a google search on her name and see what comes up... I didnt see any other businesses that she was involved in or ties to Aspen.
Meaning that she gets paid by programs for "research and consulting" even if she doesn't send anyone there.
Whooter, you must have missed these connections:
It good someone is trying to do real research? Depends on who that someone is. Even if it were 'real', is it unbiased? I think not.
How about a 'real' assessment of the industry by an Independent source, which would include evaluating the methods and procedures employed to 'modify behavior' and collecting information from ex-staff, parents, and participants who were unhappy/abused, deaths, injuries, etc. as well.
C Smoot employed by AEG and serveral other RTCs.
Smoot and Behrens co-create Evidence Based Consulting.
Behrens Clinical Director for Youth Care program, Member NATSAP.
Smoots 'partner' with AEGs Youth Care program.
Smoots are 'associates' of Open Sky Wilderness, Member NATSAP.
Behrens creates Canyon Research and Consulting- most of their clients are AEG programs.
Smoot and Behrens pitch EBC to NATSAP.
Dr. Kevin Fenstermacher employed by both EBC and CRC.
Looks more like a concerted effort to shore up the industry?s reputation, and give parents a false sense of security.
Each person involved in the "study" has DIRECT ties to NATSAP/ASPEN. How could you have missed this in a Google search, I wonder?? You are either a hideous liar or too stupid to read.
The only question remaining is how can there be a "treatment outcome study" when AEG already admits they provide no treatment? The PREMISE of the study is bogus and the people who did the study are all TTI players who profit directly from NATSAP and ASPEN programs.
I hope now everyone is straightened out on this, as this informatoin has been widely known for years and posted right here on Fornits for several years.
Recap: "Study" is INVALID ON IT'S FACE. And THE PEOPLE WHO DID THE "Study" ARE OR WERE ASPEN EMPLOYEES or MAKE A LIVING OFF NATSAP PROGRAMS.
-
Can you provide a link outside of fornits? The reason I ask is there is a Valerie and a few others with the same last name. I cannot find any connection to Aspen at all.
So there there appears (so far) to be no connection to the industry. I was going to say... I looked and all I could find was that she was a researcher. So we are looking at an independent study. I think the question most people have is they would like to see more of the tables and raw data which I would like to see myself.
-
Psy, Ursus...can anyone provide a connection between the researcher and Aspen? Something tangible from outside of the fornits database? I am just curious to know... I have looked everywhere.
-
Link to profile (http://http://canyonrc.com/experience.html)
I found some references to her at youth care in Caferty but it was hearsay as far as I could tell from reading it. But nothing tieing her to Aspen. I am sure she has background experience in the residential treatment area, but this wouldnt disqualify her firm from doing work for them or a conflict of interest.
-
I think the issue is that the industry is so incestuous to begin with that it is assumed they are using people with ties to the industry itself to make evaluations. A person who is an industry consultant is not independent. It would be far better to use a research firm with no ties whatsoever to the industry.
Additionally the issue people brought up is the weakness of the study. There is no comparison made to other facilities which claim to offer the same cures. No treatment center in the world claims an 80% success rate yet people are to take at face value that a "study" in which inmates were asked just a couple of weeks after arriving, how their non-treatment program is working for them? Or were they not asked? Who did the evaluations and in what form did they take? A twenty question survey? If I was sent to prison for two years and the warden calls me in to his office a week in to my stay and asks me if I feel I have learned my lesson and if I am ready to return to normal society...? My answer would be, yes! Ask me again in three months, my answer would not change. Call me up a year after I got out and ask me if I have been breaking the law at all, my answer is no. Asked if I planned to return to a life of crime? No. This would not be a strong or accurate research method for determining whether prisoners are going to be recidivist or not.
And in this research, were the students themselves observed directly or was this all done over the phone or through the mail? Or did they just survey the staff to get the answers they were looking for? And the fact that students who didn't complete the program are not included shines a glaring light on the fact they were not wanting to interview those they already knew had failed. 170 students? Why not all of them? Don't they have contact information for more than 170? Seems like a tiny sampling considering Aspen has been around more than a decade. Why go with 12 months as the cap and not longer periods unless you know or suspect that a longer time frame will bring different responses?
The study is clearly bogus, based on such limited criteria so as to guarantee a higher success rate. And I don't think parents are wanting to know if their kid will survive a year. They want to know if their child will be normal and able to function for a lifetime. So this is not helpful to parents either. Parents know kids can fake it, certainly for a year. Such nonsense.
-
As usual, John D. Reuben, you're driven to defend Aspen Education Group, killers of your kid, but too stupid to do so competently. Likewise, you were too stupid to do anything but kill your son, Michael. Do you even miss him, John?
So, here's the first of the connections to Aspen Education group
Research conducted by KEITH RUSSELL, PH.D.,
OUTDOOR BEHAVIORAL HEALTHCARE RESEARCH COOPERATIVE
The Outdoor behavioral healthcare research cooperative was founded by aspen to give torture and cultic abuse legitamcy
The Outdoor Behavioral Healthcare Industry Council (OBHIC) was founded in 1997 when representatives from a handful of wilderness treatment programs joined to collaborate and to share best practices. The founding programs realized the advantage of uniting to promote program standards and excellence and thus OBHIC was founded.
Today, the organization and its member programs have been instrumental in raising the bar for wilderness treatment, facilitating research on the efficacy of wilderness treatment for adolescents, and in promoting the industry.
OBHIC FOUNDING MEMBER PROGRAMS:
• Anasazi Foundation
• Aspen Education Group
• Catherine Freer Wilderness Therapy Programs
• RedCliff Ascent
• SUWS
Keith C. Russell, Ph.D.
Director Outdoor Behavioral Healthcare Research Cooperative (OBHRC)
-
More about Aspen Education group's 'survey':
NOTE: This is an ASPEN EDUCATION GROUP funded study. Dr. Behrens is a former employee of an Aspen school - information left undisclosed by Dr. Behrens.
Contacts:
Lisa Freeman
Jan Moss
Kevin/Ross Public Relations NATSAP
818-597-8453 928-443-9505
-
I think the issue is that the industry is so incestuous to begin with that it is assumed they are using people with ties to the industry itself to make evaluations. A person who is an industry consultant is not independent. It would be far better to use a research firm with no ties whatsoever to the industry.
Additionally the issue people brought up is the weakness of the study. There is no comparison made to other facilities which claim to offer the same cures. No treatment center in the world claims an 80% success rate yet people are to take at face value that a "study" in which inmates were asked just a couple of weeks after arriving, how their non-treatment program is working for them? Or were they not asked? Who did the evaluations and in what form did they take? A twenty question survey? If I was sent to prison for two years and the warden calls me in to his office a week in to my stay and asks me if I feel I have learned my lesson and if I am ready to return to normal society...? My answer would be, yes! Ask me again in three months, my answer would not change. Call me up a year after I got out and ask me if I have been breaking the law at all, my answer is no. Asked if I planned to return to a life of crime? No. This would not be a strong or accurate research method for determining whether prisoners are going to be recidivist or not.
And in this research, were the students themselves observed directly or was this all done over the phone or through the mail? Or did they just survey the staff to get the answers they were looking for? And the fact that students who didn't complete the program are not included shines a glaring light on the fact they were not wanting to interview those they already knew had failed. 170 students? Why not all of them? Don't they have contact information for more than 170? Seems like a tiny sampling considering Aspen has been around more than a decade. Why go with 12 months as the cap and not longer periods unless you know or suspect that a longer time frame will bring different responses?
The study is clearly bogus, based on such limited criteria so as to guarantee a higher success rate. And I don't think parents are wanting to know if their kid will survive a year. They want to know if their child will be normal and able to function for a lifetime. So this is not helpful to parents either. Parents know kids can fake it, certainly for a year. Such nonsense.
Please don't even call it a "study" at best its a survey. And there are so many failings with this as a survey its hard to know where to begin, though the fact the detainees who are forced to endure the "treatment" are not interviewed, just the detainees who "graduate" is one of the more glaring ones.
What I find frightening is that Aspen ed seems to have set up two consulting groups, Canyon and Outdoor behavioral health with the intention of creating pseudo-"studies" like the one above. This one has been around since 2006, I guess John Reuben happened to bump into it while he was fingering himself to thoughts of his son dying.
-
I think the issue is that the industry is so incestuous to begin with that it is assumed they are using people with ties to the industry itself to make evaluations. A person who is an industry consultant is not independent. It would be far better to use a research firm with no ties whatsoever to the industry.
Additionally the issue people brought up is the weakness of the study. There is no comparison made to other facilities which claim to offer the same cures. No treatment center in the world claims an 80% success rate yet people are to take at face value that a "study" in which inmates were asked just a couple of weeks after arriving, how their non-treatment program is working for them? Or were they not asked? Who did the evaluations and in what form did they take? A twenty question survey? If I was sent to prison for two years and the warden calls me in to his office a week in to my stay and asks me if I feel I have learned my lesson and if I am ready to return to normal society...? My answer would be, yes! Ask me again in three months, my answer would not change. Call me up a year after I got out and ask me if I have been breaking the law at all, my answer is no. Asked if I planned to return to a life of crime? No. This would not be a strong or accurate research method for determining whether prisoners are going to be recidivist or not.
And in this research, were the students themselves observed directly or was this all done over the phone or through the mail? Or did they just survey the staff to get the answers they were looking for? And the fact that students who didn't complete the program are not included shines a glaring light on the fact they were not wanting to interview those they already knew had failed. 170 students? Why not all of them? Don't they have contact information for more than 170? Seems like a tiny sampling considering Aspen has been around more than a decade. Why go with 12 months as the cap and not longer periods unless you know or suspect that a longer time frame will bring different responses?
The study is clearly bogus, based on such limited criteria so as to guarantee a higher success rate. And I don't think parents are wanting to know if their kid will survive a year. They want to know if their child will be normal and able to function for a lifetime. So this is not helpful to parents either. Parents know kids can fake it, certainly for a year. Such nonsense.
Please don't even call it a "study;" at best its a FLAWED survey. And there are so many failings with this as a survey its hard to know where to begin, though the fact the detainees who are forced to endure the "treatment" are not interviewed, only the detainees who "graduate" is one of the more glaring ones.
What I find frightening is that Aspen ed seems to have set up two consulting groups, Canyon and Outdoor behavioral health with the intention of creating pseudo-"studies" like the one above. This one has been around since 2006, I guess John Reuben happened to bump into it while he was fingering himself to thoughts of his son dying.
-
Regarding deceptive marketing practices in general, I can provide
documentation that many of the so-called independent studies published,
touting the effectiveness of the programs, were indeed conducted by
people who formerly had or still have direct connections to programs.
One such study was prepared by Ellen Behrens and staff at ``Evidence
Based Consulting''. She was formerly the director of Aspen's Youth Care
facility where Brandon Blum died recently due to medical neglect.
Partners Smoot and Fenstermacher have connections with Aspen and other
programs. Jan Moss of NATSAP then attempted to apply that study to the
entire industry when it only included 9 Aspen programs. To my knowledge
there hasn't been one genuinely independent, third-party study
conducted to date.
-
Please don't even call it a "study;" at best its a FLAWED survey. And there are so many failings with this as a survey its hard to know where to begin, though the fact the detainees who are forced to endure the "treatment" are not interviewed, only the detainees who "graduate" is one of the more glaring ones.
What I find frightening is that Aspen ed seems to have set up two consulting groups, Canyon and Outdoor behavioral health with the intention of creating pseudo-"studies" like the one above. This one has been around since 2006, I guess John Reuben happened to bump into it while he was fingering himself to thoughts of his son dying.[/quote]
From my reading of the survey, I took that they were interviewing someone within weeks, not just a year out of the prison. I took from the graph that surveys, whether interviews or just asking staff their opinions, took place at regular intervals over a very short time span.
I just found it bogus because it was not a thorough research project using any real criteria, conducted by people who appear to already be consultants to the industry itself, thus limiting their neutrality. And, the sampling was too small, limited to whom was involved, and because the limit was one year after leaving prison, it cannot be considered long term by any stretch of the imagination due to the fact the program has existed for more than a decade so there could have been access to former prisoners and their current status today from years ago. If you had told me how you were going to conduct this survey ahead of time, I could have given you the results ahead of time. That is why I know it was flawed. The results were easily known beforehand. Lawyers are taught not to ask questions that they don't already know the answers to.
-
As far as I can see the only connection is that she does research and consulting for treatment programs. I dont see any business where she sends the kids there herself.
Do a google search on her name and see what comes up... I didnt see any other businesses that she was involved in or ties to Aspen.
Meaning that she gets paid by programs for "research and consulting" even if she doesn't send anyone there.
Whooter, you must have missed these connections:
It good someone is trying to do real research? Depends on who that someone is. Even if it were 'real', is it unbiased? I think not.
How about a 'real' assessment of the industry by an Independent source, which would include evaluating the methods and procedures employed to 'modify behavior' and collecting information from ex-staff, parents, and participants who were unhappy/abused, deaths, injuries, etc. as well.
C Smoot employed by AEG and serveral other RTCs.
Smoot and Behrens co-create Evidence Based Consulting.
Behrens Clinical Director for Youth Care program, Member NATSAP.
Smoots 'partner' with AEGs Youth Care program.
Smoots are 'associates' of Open Sky Wilderness, Member NATSAP.
Behrens creates Canyon Research and Consulting- most of their clients are AEG programs.
Smoot and Behrens pitch EBC to NATSAP.
Dr. Kevin Fenstermacher employed by both EBC and CRC.
Looks more like a concerted effort to shore up the industry?s reputation, and give parents a false sense of security.
Each person involved in the "study" has DIRECT ties to NATSAP/ASPEN. How could you have missed this in a Google search, I wonder?? You are either a hideous liar or too stupid to read.
The only question remaining is how can there be a "treatment outcome study" when AEG already admits they provide no treatment? The PREMISE of the study is bogus and the people who did the study are all TTI players who profit directly from NATSAP and ASPEN programs.
I hope now everyone is straightened out on this, as this informatoin has been widely known for years and posted right here on Fornits for several years.
Recap: "Study" is INVALID ON IT'S FACE. And THE PEOPLE WHO DID THE "Study" ARE OR WERE ASPEN EMPLOYEES or MAKE A LIVING OFF NATSAP PROGRAMS.
Not sure haow anyone can "not see a connection" between these researchers and NATSAP/AEG/ASPEN.
"When you have the facts, you pound the facts. When you don't have the facts, you pound the table."
I'll just keep pounding the facts and Whooter will just keep pounding the table. It's funny to watch Whooter squirm like a bug under a magnifying glass. He's dead in the water here and he knows it, so he just keeps repeating himself, yet to no avail. AEG can now never retract its statement, under oath, in open court, during trial, that it PROVIDES NO TREATMENT OR THERAPY OF ANY KIND. What's not to understand?
-
That is why we need to keep that fact at the top of the list of threads so everyone can see it, including the Aspen Cheer Leading Squad.
-
Interesting, So no one can provide any links at all? Does anyone know if this woman is working for Aspen? Besides the cafety and fornits links?
@ RMA, People doing testing and clinical trials have roots in the field they are testing. They need to so that they gain knowledge of the industry. It is only natural because this is their area of interest. Running clinical trials and testing for the drug companies dont require that you have employees who have never worked within the drug industry. A background is actually prefered. But if this is your criteria for acceptance I dont see having anything in the near future which will meet it.
-
Interesting..you’re dumber than a box of hair and your son is dead.
The info provided came from the people who killed your son, Aspen Education Group. Their employees admit their connection to aspen. Also, it came from cafety, and the GAO
The quote below comes from the government of accountability office. It connects Ellen and canyon ranch to aspen education, and lists her "survey" as an example of deceptive marketing
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110hh ... 041839.htm (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg11041839/html/CHRG-110hhrg11041839.htm)
Regarding deceptive marketing practices in general, I can provide
documentation that many of the so-called independent studies published,
touting the effectiveness of the programs, were indeed conducted by
people who formerly had or still have direct connections to programs. [/b][/u]
One such study was prepared by Ellen Behrens and staff at ``Evidence
Based Consulting''. She was formerly the director of Aspen's Youth Care
facility where Brandon Blum died recently due to medical neglect.
Partners Smoot and Fenstermacher have connections with Aspen and other
programs. Jan Moss of NATSAP then attempted to apply that study to the
entire industry when it only included 9 Aspen programs. To my knowledge
there hasn't been one genuinely independent, third-party study
conducted to date.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110hh ... 041839.htm (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg11041839/html/CHRG-110hhrg11041839.htm)
House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
CHILD ABUSE AND DECEPTIVE MARKETING
BY RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS FOR TEENS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
EDUCATION AND LABOR
U.S. House of Representatives
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, APRIL 24, 2008
__________
Serial No. 110-89
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor
Available on the Internet:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house ... index.html (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html)
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
41-839 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR
GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan, Vice Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman California,
Donald M. Payne, New Jersey Senior Republican Member
Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin
Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Virginia Peter Hoekstra, Michigan
Lynn C. Woolsey, California Michael N. Castle, Delaware
Ruben Hinojosa, Texas Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Carolyn McCarthy, New York Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan
John F. Tierney, Massachusetts Judy Biggert, Illinois
Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania
David Wu, Oregon Ric Keller, Florida
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Joe Wilson, South Carolina
Susan A. Davis, California John Kline, Minnesota
Danny K. Davis, Illinois Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Kenny Marchant, Texas
Timothy H. Bishop, New York Tom Price, Georgia
Linda T. Sanchez, California Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Charles W. Boustany, Jr.,
Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania Louisiana
David Loebsack, Iowa Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Mazie Hirono, Hawaii John R. ``Randy'' Kuhl, Jr., New
Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania York
John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky Rob Bishop, Utah
Phil Hare, Illinois David Davis, Tennessee
Yvette D. Clarke, New York Timothy Walberg, Michigan
Joe Courtney, Connecticut [Vacancy]
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director
Sally Stroup, Republican Staff Director
-
Interesting..you’re dumber than a box of hair and your son is dead.
The info provided came from the people who killed your son, Aspen Education Group. Their employees admit their connection to aspen. Also, it came from cafety, and the GAO
The quote below comes from the government of accountability office. It connects Ellen and canyon ranch to aspen education, and lists her "survey" as an example of deceptive marketing
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110hh ... 041839.htm (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg11041839/html/CHRG-110hhrg11041839.htm)
Regarding deceptive marketing practices in general, I can provide
documentation that many of the so-called independent studies published,
touting the effectiveness of the programs, were indeed conducted by
people who formerly had or still have direct connections to programs. [/b][/u]
One such study was prepared by Ellen Behrens and staff at ``Evidence
Based Consulting''. She was formerly the director of Aspen's Youth Care
facility where Brandon Blum died recently due to medical neglect.
Partners Smoot and Fenstermacher have connections with Aspen and other
programs. Jan Moss of NATSAP then attempted to apply that study to the
entire industry when it only included 9 Aspen programs. To my knowledge
there hasn't been one genuinely independent, third-party study
conducted to date.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110hh ... 041839.htm (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg11041839/html/CHRG-110hhrg11041839.htm)
House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
CHILD ABUSE AND DECEPTIVE MARKETING
BY RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS FOR TEENS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
EDUCATION AND LABOR
U.S. House of Representatives
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, APRIL 24, 2008
__________
Serial No. 110-89
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor
Available on the Internet:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house ... index.html (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html)
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
41-839 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR
GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan, Vice Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman California,
Donald M. Payne, New Jersey Senior Republican Member
Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin
Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Virginia Peter Hoekstra, Michigan
Lynn C. Woolsey, California Michael N. Castle, Delaware
Ruben Hinojosa, Texas Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Carolyn McCarthy, New York Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan
John F. Tierney, Massachusetts Judy Biggert, Illinois
Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania
David Wu, Oregon Ric Keller, Florida
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Joe Wilson, South Carolina
Susan A. Davis, California John Kline, Minnesota
Danny K. Davis, Illinois Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Kenny Marchant, Texas
Timothy H. Bishop, New York Tom Price, Georgia
Linda T. Sanchez, California Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Charles W. Boustany, Jr.,
Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania Louisiana
David Loebsack, Iowa Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Mazie Hirono, Hawaii John R. ``Randy'' Kuhl, Jr., New
Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania York
John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky Rob Bishop, Utah
Phil Hare, Illinois David Davis, Tennessee
Yvette D. Clarke, New York Timothy Walberg, Michigan
Joe Courtney, Connecticut [Vacancy]
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director
Sally Stroup, Republican Staff Director
I hate to inform you that Deborah from Fornits (Plano, Texas) wrote that letter (use to be an admin here.. would change facts in peoples posts to meet her immediate needs) remember her... go back to your source and scroll down to the bottom of the letter... sorry buddy... ask psy or Ginger is you doubt who it is.... now who is the dumb one?
Okay like I said any link that isnt related to fornits or cafety? Something preferably from Aspen... But even if there was one (just for shits and giggles) that would not damage the results. All testing is done preferably by people who have experience within the industry they are testing... so I still done see the problem.
-
http://http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg11041839/html/CHRG-110hhrg11041839.htm
Sorry, Deborah happens to be exactly right. Link above corroborates her assertion and proves Whooter completely wrong. Wiggle, wiggle. Squirm, squirm. Can't change the facts, Whooter. Behrens was an Aspen employee. Too bad for you. You've no credibility left. :rofl:
-
Interesting..you’re dumber than a box of hair and your son is dead.
WHooooo....cold blooded! I can tell from your post below and the spelling mistakes you're hacked off now.
... so I still done see the problem.
That's easy for you to say, buddy. Your hatred for Deborah is legendary, she revealed you to be a twat. The only thing she did to your posts was identify your anonymous trolling discussions with yourself and you cried like a bitch. Yes you did, John, you cried like a little bitch.
That's confrontational therapy, John D. Reuben, and we're as qualified to do it as any Aspen "school", you pig bastard. Deal with it. Get over yourself and move on.
Rueben, no one said Behren worked for Aspen. She does profit from the industry. Lon Woodbury isn't associated with any one program and that ass clown makes a living off the TTI. He's sort of a pimp. So are you, Reu-who.
Okay, now that Aspen has verified they do not provide treatment and are not a covered entity as far as HIPAA is concerned, Aspen can't hide behind patient confidentiality or put up any fuss about kids wanting their records...and yet they still do.
Damn. Aspen is ripe for a takedown. They are legally exposed.
-
http://http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg11041839/html/CHRG-110hhrg11041839.htm
Sorry, Deborah happens to be exactly right. Link above corroborates her assertion and proves Whooter completely wrong. Wiggle, wiggle. Squirm, squirm. Can't change the facts, Whooter. Behrens was an Aspen employee. Too bad for you. You've no credibility left. :rofl:
AHA-HA-HA-HA!
Oh wait. Ha, ha, ha would be more appropriate. Reading over Reuben's STICC site it's obvious he wants to be Sue Scheff, another failure of a parent who put all of her kids in programs (after beating up her daughter).
-
Rueben, no one said Behren worked for Aspen. She does profit from the industry. Lon Woodbury isn't associated with any one program and that ass clown makes a living off the TTI. He's sort of a pimp. So are you, Reu-who.
Okay, now that Aspen has verified they do not provide treatment and are not a covered entity as far as HIPAA is concerned, Aspen can't hide behind patient confidentiality or put up any fuss about kids wanting their records...and yet they still do.
Damn. Aspen is ripe for a takedown. They are legally exposed.[/quote}
Actually, when I was at RMA in 1984, Lon Woodbury was on campus every day and had his office there. He clearly worked for the program, not as an independent. None of these people in this industry are independent. They all migrate from program to program, or form their own little business within the industry. In this case, to help validate the industry itself. But in others, staff leave to become "escorts" for kids, or found their own programs or just go off to work at another prison camp for teens when the last one gets shut down.
But there is no doubt about the statement Aspen is ripe for a take down. That legal statement that they provide no therapy or treatment is gold!
-
Why Google Ellen Behrans when you can just get the info off Struggling Teens?
http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/p ... 5285.shtml (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/article_5285.shtml)
About the Author:
Ellen Behrens, PhD is a Licensed Psychologist and owner of Canyon Research and Consulting, a company that provides consulting and training services to mental health treatment programs and providers. She has extensive experience working in residential programs as a clinical director, psychological evaluator, therapist, researcher and consultant.
[/b]
Still consider her "independent"? She's held down every gig you can in a program.
Come again, John Boy?
-
Yet more confirmation of Ellen's employment by Aspen. And I've taken the liberty of screen saving this knowing how dishonest you and the gang of criminals that killed your son are
http://cache.zoominfo.com/cachedpage/?a ... me=Behrens (http://cache.zoominfo.com/cachedpage/?archive_id=0&page_id=97347972&page_url=%2f%2fwww.bridgetounderstanding.com%2fcgi-bin%2finfoforum.cgi%3fread%3d260&page_last_updated=3%2f18%2f2001+10%3a59%3a38+AM&firstName=Ellen&lastName=Behrens)
Youth Care, Inc. (Youth Care Academy and Pine Ridge Academy)
Posted by Tom Croke on Thursday, 9 December 1999, at 3:03 p.m. (eastern time)
We have just learned that Youth Care of Draper, Utah, one of our co-sponsors has just been purchased by Aspen. Robin Stephens will continue as Executive Director. Co owners with Robin, Liz Smith (Pine Ridge Director) and Dr. LePray will not be continuing. Ellen Behrens will be clinical director.
We will certainly miss Dr. LePray and Liz Smith, but have the highest regard for Robin and Ellen. We at FamilyLight Consultants have long wanted to see more Youth Care / Pine Ridge beds available, as we believe these are the finest programs of their kinds available.
As much as we have nostalgia for the days of Youth Care, Inc. as a stand alone organization, we respect the fact that Aspen has generally maintained the quality of their acquisitions. We can at least hope for some addtional beds similar to what is offered at Pine Ridge and Youth Care. And we are proud to have an Aspen affiliate as one of our co-sponsors.
Best wishes to Robin and Ellen, as well as Liz and Dr. L.
Tom Croke
-
Still not even one link outside fornits or cafety?
Does anyone really think that someone with no back ground in residential treatment, no understanding of what is involved or what the kids go through on a daily basis, What type of kids are there and the type of environment. You think this person would be qualified to design and implement a clinical study to show effectiveness on a place he/she has no experience in.. what questions to ask etc.
Or another question… who would be more qualified to interview a kid who just left a program…. Someone with no experience or link to the industry (like you would like) or someone from fornits? Who would ask the most appropriate questions?.
see my point?
-
I hate to inform you that Deborah from Fornits (Plano, Texas) wrote that letter (use to be an admin here.. would change facts in peoples posts to meet her immediate needs) remember her... go back to your source and scroll down to the bottom of the letter... sorry buddy... ask psy or Ginger is you doubt who it is.... now who is the dumb one?
Okay like I said any link that isnt related to fornits or cafety? Something preferably from Aspen... But even if there was one (just for shits and giggles) that would not damage the results. All testing is done preferably by people who have experience within the industry they are testing... so I still done see the problem.
Wow, Bruce got smoked on that one. Didnt think anyone knew she wrote that? Shame on you RB.
-
http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/p ... 5285.shtml (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/article_5285.shtml)
About the Author:
Ellen Behrens, PhD is a Licensed Psychologist and owner of Canyon Research and Consulting, a company that provides consulting and training services to mental health treatment programs and providers. She has extensive experience working in residential programs as a clinical director, psychological evaluator, therapist, researcher and consultant.
Why would her study be applicable to Aspen at all? Aspen does not provide mental health treatment in their programs.
Hey roob, we went beyond Fornits. We went to Struggling Teens.
-
Still not even one link outside fornits or cafety?
Does anyone really think that someone with no back ground in residential treatment, no understanding of what is involved or what the kids go through on a daily basis, What type of kids are there and the type of environment. You think this person would be qualified to design and implement a clinical study to show effectiveness on a place he/she has no experience in.. what questions to ask etc.
Or another question… who would be more qualified to interview a kid who just left a program…. Someone with no experience or link to the industry (like you would like) or someone from fornits? Who would ask the most appropriate questions?.
see my point?
Actually an independent study would be best done by a group totally independent of the mental health field. It's merely collecting data; Behrens company sells its services to programs - how can you not expect her to not back them?
-
So, here's more about the connections to Aspen Education group to the "survey" they funded(repeated for John D reuben, who seems to have missed them the first tims)
Research conducted by KEITH RUSSELL, PH.D.,
OUTDOOR BEHAVIORAL HEALTHCARE RESEARCH COOPERATIVE
The people doing the study are the former director (possibly still the director) of aspen's youth care, and Keith Russel in coordination with outdoor behavioral healthcare research cooperative. Look who founded and runs the organization
Keith Russel was founded by Aspen, according to their own words:
http://www.obhic.com/about/index.html (http://www.obhic.com/about/index.html)
The Outdoor Behavioral Healthcare Industry Council (OBHIC) was founded in 1997 when representatives from a handful of wilderness treatment programs joined to collaborate and to share best practices. The founding programs realized the advantage of uniting to promote program standards and excellence and thus OBHIC was founded.
Today, the organization and its member programs have been instrumental in raising the bar for wilderness treatment, facilitating research on the efficacy of wilderness treatment for adolescents, and in promoting the industry.
OBHIC FOUNDING MEMBER PROGRAMS:
• Anasazi Foundation
• Aspen Education Group
• Catherine Freer Wilderness Therapy Programs
• RedCliff Ascent
• SUWS
http://www.aspenacademy.com/events.html (http://www.aspenacademy.com/events.html)
Keith C. Russell, Ph.D.
Director Outdoor Behavioral Healthcare Research Cooperative (OBHRC)
-
Precisely! Anyone who has actually worked with this industry would automatically disqualify themselves for an independent study. Any competent research group, using standard methods, would be able to independently conduct a proper study if they were worth their salt to begin with. It is not entirely unreasonable to consult with people in the industry when conducting research, but to have those who are in the industry conducting the research would be unreasonable.
This has historically been a huge problem in science. Scientists who have a vested interest or desire for a certain outcome, finding exactly what they were looking for. That is why independent peer-reviewed appraisals are so important.
-
Still not even one link outside fornits or cafety?
Does anyone really think that someone with no back ground in residential treatment, no understanding of what is involved or what the kids go through on a daily basis, What type of kids are there and the type of environment. You think this person would be qualified to design and implement a clinical study to show effectiveness on a place he/she has no experience in.. what questions to ask etc.
Or another question… who would be more qualified to interview a kid who just left a program…. Someone with no experience or link to the industry (like you would like) or someone from fornits? Who would ask the most appropriate questions?.
see my point?
Actually an independent study would be best done by a group totally independent of the mental health field. It's merely collecting data; Behrens company sells its services to programs - how can you not expect her to not back them?
Its more than that. They need to know what questions to ask and understand the process they are testing. How could non doctors develop a test to screen heart patients on various heart medications and various types of treatments and advice... why would you deny a heart doctor to be part of the team?
-
So since she is not "presently" part of the industry then the study can be considered independent.....
-
So since she is not "presently" part of the industry then the study can be considered independent.....
No. Her company: Canyon Research and Consulting, a company that provides consulting and training services to mental health treatment programs and providers.
Her company depends on programs. She is not independent. She is part of the industry.
'nuff said, kid killer.
-
Precisely! Anyone who has actually worked with this industry would automatically disqualify themselves for an independent study. Any competent research group, using standard methods, would be able to independently conduct a proper study if they were worth their salt to begin with. It is not entirely unreasonable to consult with people in the industry when conducting research, but to have those who are in the industry conducting the research would be unreasonable.
This has historically been a huge problem in science. Scientists who have a vested interest or desire for a certain outcome, finding exactly what they were looking for. That is why independent peer-reviewed appraisals are so important.
Yes, I can see your point. If Ellen was presently working for a wilderness program and running the testing then it would be a direct conflict of interest. That is why I am looking for any present relationship that she has with Aspen and there doesnt seem to be any.
-
You're foundation for your arguments keeps getting weaker and weaker with every post. Obviously any connection, past or present to the industry taints her independence and neutrality. And if she worked for Aspen specifically, that would negate all independence.
-
I apologize for not being able to find it in the thread if it's here, but who paid Behren's company to conduct the study? Behrens may not work for Aspen currently, but is Aspen one of her company's customers? She does sell her services to mental health treatment...oh, but that would leave Aspen out, wouldn't it?
-
You're foundation for your arguments keeps getting weaker and weaker with every post. Obviously any connection, past or present to the industry taints her independence and neutrality. And if she worked for Aspen specifically, that would negate all independence.
Since the first post we havent established that she works for the industry (a post outside fornits/cafety). So far the study is considered independent. Independent is one of the criteria that we all agree on.
-
You're foundation for your arguments keeps getting weaker and weaker with every post. Obviously any connection, past or present to the industry taints her independence and neutrality. And if she worked for Aspen specifically, that would negate all independence.
Since the first post we havent established that she works for the industry (a post outside fornits/cafety). So far the study is considered independent. Independent is one of the criteria that we all agree on.
Canyon Research and Consulting, a company that provides consulting and training services to mental health treatment programs and providers.
-
You're foundation for your arguments keeps getting weaker and weaker with every post. Obviously any connection, past or present to the industry taints her independence and neutrality. And if she worked for Aspen specifically, that would negate all independence.
Since the first post we havent established that she works for the industry (a post outside fornits/cafety). So far the study is considered independent. Independent is one of the criteria that we all agree on.
Would you consider a study conducted by Lon Woodbury to be independent, Roob? Because by your critereria Lon Woodbury would be independent: he doesn't currently work for a program or the industry.
-
Yes, keep in mind that independence is only one thing we agree upon. We also require a valid study. And we'd also like to know how the study was conducted. Without knowing how it was conducted there is no way to validate it's accuracy. As you are using this study to claim that somehow it makes Aspen a valid program that actually helps kids rather than causes damage, or simply does nothing for them, it is important to show how the study was conducted.
So don't think that showing her independence alone is all that is needed to suddenly validate the study itself.
-
http://cafety.org/component/content/art ... s-aug-2006 (http://cafety.org/component/content/article/121-research/372-upon-discharge-from-programs-teens-report-happiness-aug-2006)
NOTE: This is an ASPEN EDUCATION GROUP funded study. Dr. Behrens is a former employee of an Aspen school - information left undisclosed by Dr. Behrens.
-
Wow, I just read the entire study and what a load of crap it was!
One of the things we learned so soon after arriving at one of these teen prisons was how our parents had no clue what our real problems were. So the study is making an apples and oranges comparison right from the start. Much like asking cops and criminals to make reports on each other. Both are biased.
Also, the reports taken at admission time in to the program are obviously going to be high skewed and totally unreliable. And this was clearly evident in the study for the reasons stated above. Parents reported far more symptoms at admissions and students reported more at the outcome. Which is very revealing in itself. Our parents had no clue of our problems and therefore came to conclusions about what was wrong with us that were often based on faulty information and generally just a lack of communication between parents and their teens. An example is that my parents, at my admission to RMA, claimed I was using drugs, alcohol, smoking, sneaking out at night, stealing, etc. None of which was true. So there are a bunch of factually wrong "symptoms" that a parent might report.
Whereas we are prisoners were forced to endure endless humiliations, deprivations, cruel punishments and strange cult rituals, thus we obviously came to have symptoms we didn't have when we arrived. And through the forced disclosures and labeling that went on, we were often made to believe we had guilt and issues that we didn't have when we arrived. Having rapes blamed on the victim, feeling your parents divorce was your fault, etc. So the study above was based on data that was intended and known to be skewed from the start. So much of the study was self-fulfilling.
Obviously if you are forced to attend a teen prison camp, you are not going to want to be there and are likely to learn, as we did, that giving the wrong answers that the parents or staff wanted to hear resulted in harsh and abusive punishments. Thus you quickly learned from admission to discharge how to hide your true feelings and emotions, but were equipped with a large vocabulary of psycho-babble and information on what was expected of you and how to say so. So when a student is asked how they feel, do they think they benefited from the program, do they think their lives are better...? They know the answers they are expected to give and know the consequences for failing to give them. Thus, the study gets the answers it sought as there was no other possible outcome as the teens were taught that not providing the correct responses would lead to discipline. And similarly, the teens knew that ultimately pleasing their parents was the goal, not the staff. Thus they would show from admissions to discharge exactly what the parents needed to see and hear from them in order to leave and be able to live normal lives once more. Self fulfilling all the way.
However, it was suggested that the study included a post-discharge questionnaire at one year, whereas it was stated in the study itself that this was a goal in the future, so they did not in fact have any reliable information about outcomes based on how the teens performed once out of the programs for any length of time. Just the period from admissions to discharge. Therefore we have no reliable aspect to tell parents, the real customers intended to gobble up this nonsense success story, whether their kids are really changed positively for the long term.
A real study would have had independent analysis conducted of the students themselves. Even something as simple as whether they could land a job and hold on to it for a significant period of time, or if they were able to enroll in a college and actually complete course work with a satisfactory grade point average. These would be far more revealing and relevant to the subject of success. Asking kids and their parents to rate their own perceptions and success is silly as it pertains to deciding whether a program is successful or not. If you go to a gym to work out and they ask you at the start for the reasons you are there, whether you want to be there, whether you think you will meet with success...? The answers given are really not all the important to anything. So if you ask the gym attendee two years later if they felt they have improved, or met goals they wanted to meet while there, if they feel better about themselves for having attended, what value can you place on their answers? And then add in the other group being interviewed are the trainers at the gym and their perceptions of the attendees initial needs, their progress through the program and their final position on improvements... There is little here that isn't self fulfilling or revealing of anything substantial.
Interviewer to attendee-- Why did you come to this gym? Answer: "I was hoping to get in better shape, improve my appearance, get more energy, maybe meet some nice people."
Interviewer to trainer-- Why do you think the attendee has joined this gym? Answer: "I think they have low self esteem, have no drive to succeed, need help getting out of their rut."
Two years later...
Interviewer to attendee-- Do you feel like you have made some improvements or met your goals since you arrived here? Answer: "I feel like I have made a lot of progress. I think I could do more, but I think I have come a long way since when I first arrived. I feel better about myself, I have met some nice people. The trainers are nice, but firm. I think they have helped me a lot. I guess I am better now than I would have been if I never came to this gym."
Interviewer to trainer-- Do you feel like your student has improved over the last two years? Do you think they are where they need to be? Answer: "I think they have more to do, they aren't quite there yet, but they have progressed a lot since arriving and I see a change in attitude. I think they have improved a lot in the area of self esteem, and have learned a lot. They are certainly better than when they first arrived."
Self fulfilling answers to questions of no value. The results were expected. What else would they have said to such questions? Sure, there would be a slight variance to the answers if you asked 1000 different people, but they would start off similarly and end similarly. And since you'd know that going in, of what value would it be to have bothered to ask in the first place? None.
Thus the Aspen Study was of no value because the criteria used to judge success was based on useless information to begin with.
But had actual trained psychologists and therapists show up and ask the students: "Did you feel as though the screaming and yelling in raps, the humiliations, the endless threats of punishments helped you to improve?" What would the answer be? Were the methods used on you successful by themselves?
The study comes off more like this... You have just been released from prison. Someone asks if you are happy to be out? Then they ask if you felt like being in there scared you enough not to do it again? Would you do it all over again knowing you'd go back in? What are the answers going to be?
-
http://cafety.org/component/content/article/121-research/372-upon-discharge-from-programs-teens-report-happiness-aug-2006
NOTE: This is an ASPEN EDUCATION GROUP funded study. Dr. Behrens is a former employee of an Aspen school - information left undisclosed by Dr. Behrens.
We were looking for something which is outside of Fornits, cafety etc. but we havent been able to find anything yet.
-
http://http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg11041839/html/CHRG-110hhrg11041839.htm
Sorry, Deborah happens to be exactly right. Link above corroborates her assertion and proves Whooter completely wrong. Wiggle, wiggle. Squirm, squirm. Can't change the facts, Whooter. Behrens was an Aspen employee. Too bad for you. You've no credibility left. :rofl:
Can't change these facts. Is the federal gov't considered to be "outside Cafety and fornits" I wonder? This link keeps being posted but somehow Whooter keeps saying he can't see it. And then he keeps saying we all agree the study is independent. But I keep seeing people say the exact opposite, just like in the gov't report linked in this post. Is Whooter blind or is he just a huge liar?
Either way, it's delightful and very revealing to see him lose his cool so many times while posting nonstop for two or three days now. He's so out of whack it's just too funny. To watch him flail and keep saying he can't see what's been shoved in his face like a puppy's nose in a shitpile on the carpet is hilarious.
He's just upset that now he's been proved wrong by his own people. Aspen admitted they offer no treatment and Whooter's life for the last five or six years is utterly destroyed and worthless now.
Don't whine too much now, Whooter. We all know it stings, but try to set an example for all those kids you lock up at Aspen who would be punished severely for lying like you do every few minutes here. Chin up, Whootie. It's not the end of the world just because everything you stand for has been ruined. Find a new cause to support. This one's all but dead. Like your credibility.
Anyone else find it deliciously funny that dumbass Whooter unfortunately posted this stupid study again just a day before Aspen admitted it's all lies? Timing is everything!
-
Deborah was a fornits admin, who was outed several times for altering posts and fabricating information. If you can find a link to an Aspen site or other site outside fornits, Cafety etc. I will take a look. We have had several people looking for a tie and there just isnt any.
I am sure if Deborah is telling the truth then there would be evidence other than just her word.
-
http://http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg11041839/html/CHRG-110hhrg11041839.htm
Sorry, Deborah happens to be exactly right. Link above corroborates her assertion and proves Whooter completely wrong. Wiggle, wiggle. Squirm, squirm. Can't change the facts, Whooter. Behrens was an Aspen employee. Too bad for you. You've no credibility left. :rofl:
If you took the time to read the link you posted you will see that it references "Deborahs letter" nothing else. You wouldnt feel so dumb if you had bothered to read what you call facts first.... sorry.
So nothing comes up? No links to the industry? So the study stands as being independently done. I think the next step is to determine the outcome of the study and look a little closer at the details.
-
Yet more confirmation of Ellen's employment by Aspen. And I've taken the liberty of screen saving this knowing how dishonest you and the gang of criminals that killed your son are
http://cache.zoominfo.com/cachedpage/?a ... me=Behrens (http://cache.zoominfo.com/cachedpage/?archive_id=0&page_id=97347972&page_url=%2f%2fwww.bridgetounderstanding.com%2fcgi-bin%2finfoforum.cgi%3fread%3d260&page_last_updated=3%2f18%2f2001+10%3a59%3a38+AM&firstName=Ellen&lastName=Behrens)
Youth Care, Inc. (Youth Care Academy and Pine Ridge Academy)
Posted by Tom Croke on Thursday, 9 December 1999, at 3:03 p.m. (eastern time)
We have just learned that Youth Care of Draper, Utah, one of our co-sponsors has just been purchased by Aspen. Robin Stephens will continue as Executive Director. Co owners with Robin, Liz Smith (Pine Ridge Director) and Dr. LePray will not be continuing. Ellen Behrens will be clinical director.
We will certainly miss Dr. LePray and Liz Smith, but have the highest regard for Robin and Ellen. We at FamilyLight Consultants have long wanted to see more Youth Care / Pine Ridge beds available, as we believe these are the finest programs of their kinds available.
As much as we have nostalgia for the days of Youth Care, Inc. as a stand alone organization, we respect the fact that Aspen has generally maintained the quality of their acquisitions. We can at least hope for some addtional beds similar to what is offered at Pine Ridge and Youth Care. And we are proud to have an Aspen affiliate as one of our co-sponsors.
Best wishes to Robin and Ellen, as well as Liz and Dr. L.
Tom Croke
Sorry to bother anyone, but this link was posted a few pages ago. It also shows that Ms. Behrens drew her paycheck from Aspen while working at one of Aspen's programs. I hope you all read it. I can't think of any other "tie" to Aspen you'd need, as she was employed directly by Aspen.
-
Yet more confirmation of Ellen's employment by Aspen. And I've taken the liberty of screen saving this knowing how dishonest you and the gang of criminals that killed your son are
http://cache.zoominfo.com/cachedpage/?a ... me=Behrens (http://cache.zoominfo.com/cachedpage/?archive_id=0&page_id=97347972&page_url=%2f%2fwww.bridgetounderstanding.com%2fcgi-bin%2finfoforum.cgi%3fread%3d260&page_last_updated=3%2f18%2f2001+10%3a59%3a38+AM&firstName=Ellen&lastName=Behrens)
Youth Care, Inc. (Youth Care Academy and Pine Ridge Academy)
Posted by Tom Croke on Thursday, 9 December 1999, at 3:03 p.m. (eastern time)
We have just learned that Youth Care of Draper, Utah, one of our co-sponsors has just been purchased by Aspen. Robin Stephens will continue as Executive Director. Co owners with Robin, Liz Smith (Pine Ridge Director) and Dr. LePray will not be continuing. Ellen Behrens will be clinical director.
We will certainly miss Dr. LePray and Liz Smith, but have the highest regard for Robin and Ellen. We at FamilyLight Consultants have long wanted to see more Youth Care / Pine Ridge beds available, as we believe these are the finest programs of their kinds available.
As much as we have nostalgia for the days of Youth Care, Inc. as a stand alone organization, we respect the fact that Aspen has generally maintained the quality of their acquisitions. We can at least hope for some addtional beds similar to what is offered at Pine Ridge and Youth Care. And we are proud to have an Aspen affiliate as one of our co-sponsors.
Best wishes to Robin and Ellen, as well as Liz and Dr. L.
Tom Croke
Sorry to bother anyone, but this link was posted a few pages ago. It also shows that Ms. Behrens drew her paycheck from Aspen while working at one of Aspen's programs. I hope you all read it. I can't think of any other "tie" to Aspen you'd need, as she was employed directly by Aspen.
No bother, we already addressed this and there is no evidence that Ellen took the job she was offered at Youth Care. All the other past directors show up in google searches but not hers. But it looks like that was 10+ years ago anyway so it wouldnt effect the time frame the study was done. All the evidence shows she only draws a paycheck from her research firm.
So based on the study being independent what other issues are there with this study. Someone mentioned they would like to see how the data was collected.
-
I think clearly she was previously connected with and therefore biased in favor of Aspen when the study was conducted. As for the study itself, I read it and found the basis for which they draw their conclusions to be based entirely on meaningless and non-scientific methods. Additionally, as it has already been made clear, the study is permanently flawed by virtue of the fact the Aspen has admitted they do not offer or provide either therapy or treatment, thus any claims to successes based on ties to therapy and treatment are factually wrong.
Your twisted circle-logic is no longer going to be enough to demonstrate that this study was either independently conducted, or valid in any fashion. But one thing I am certain of, that won't stop you from continuing to try and push this study as being valid.
-
I think clearly she was previously connected with and therefore biased in favor of Aspen when the study was conducted. As for the study itself, I read it and found the basis for which they draw their conclusions to be based entirely on meaningless and non-scientific methods. Additionally, as it has already been made clear, the study is permanently flawed by virtue of the fact the Aspen has admitted they do not offer or provide either therapy or treatment, thus any claims to successes based on ties to therapy and treatment are factually wrong.
Your twisted circle-logic is no longer going to be enough to demonstrate that this study was either independently conducted, or valid in any fashion. But one thing I am certain of, that won't stop you from continuing to try and push this study as being valid.
Where is it said that they dont provide therapy or treatment? I have read back through the thread an all I can find is a law suit from NorthStar, but nothing about the other programs. Is there a link of some type? I would like to take a read on it.
As far as the study being valid you are welcome to your opinion. I dont expect anyone to change it not intended to. You have made up your mind as many have here and no study is going to change that. But there are many people who welcome the information and services that these independent research firms offer. I for one wish there were more studies done more often. This study and ones like it are going to be the driving force to effect change in the industry and drive its direction.
Look at how hard everyone pounded the table demanding that kids be aloowed to write letters home without staff proof reading them and now we see this is happening.. real time... today by a source who has a son in Aspen Ranch. This is good stuff and fornits was part of it and I feel I was a big part of have those changes implimented also. Change is happening, try to recognize it and push for more. Its all good stuff RMA
-
Jesus Christ, just fuck off already. Do you think everyone reading this just missed the lawyers successfully arguing that no therapy was happening?
This is all the words I'll waste on you. The rest of you, go get politically active instead of wasting time arguing with this clown. It changes nothing and affects nothing.
-
Jesus Christ, just fuck off already. Do you think everyone reading this just missed the lawyers successfully arguing that no therapy was happening?
This is all the words I'll waste on you. The rest of you, go get politically active instead of wasting time arguing with this clown. It changes nothing and affects nothing.
Who/JD, they mean at NorthStar, not all programs. There was a counselor who wasnt licensed and Apsen lawyers argued that the counselor didnt need to follow the Hipaa laws because they were not under the direction of licensed therapist. But to answer your question NO!! THEY DIDNT MEAN "ALL" ASPEN PROGRAMS, JUST THE ONE COUNSELOR AT NORTHSTAR. Everyone is just trying to pull your crank, so stop fucking talking about it you made your point.
-
4
Yet more confirmation of Ellen's employment by Aspen. And I've taken the liberty of screen saving this knowing how dishonest you and the gang of criminals that killed your son are
http://cache.zoominfo.com/cachedpage/?a ... me=Behrens (http://cache.zoominfo.com/cachedpage/?archive_id=0&page_id=97347972&page_url=%2f%2fwww.bridgetounderstanding.com%2fcgi-bin%2finfoforum.cgi%3fread%3d260&page_last_updated=3%2f18%2f2001+10%3a59%3a38+AM&firstName=Ellen&lastName=Behrens)
Youth Care, Inc. (Youth Care Academy and Pine Ridge Academy)
Posted by Tom Croke on Thursday, 9 December 1999, at 3:03 p.m. (eastern time)
We have just learned that Youth Care of Draper, Utah, one of our co-sponsors has just been purchased by Aspen. Robin Stephens will continue as Executive Director. Co owners with Robin, Liz Smith (Pine Ridge Director) and Dr. LePray will not be continuing. Ellen Behrens will be clinical director.
We will certainly miss Dr. LePray and Liz Smith, but have the highest regard for Robin and Ellen. We at FamilyLight Consultants have long wanted to see more Youth Care / Pine Ridge beds available, as we believe these are the finest programs of their kinds available.
As much as we have nostalgia for the days of Youth Care, Inc. as a stand alone organization, we respect the fact that Aspen has generally maintained the quality of their acquisitions. We can at least hope for some addtional beds similar to what is offered at Pine Ridge and Youth Care. And we are proud to have an Aspen affiliate as one of our co-sponsors.
Best wishes to Robin and Ellen, as well as Liz and Dr. L.
Tom Croke
A copy of Tom Croke welcoming Ellen Behrens to Youth care, as new clinical director. One of the many links that jd 'missed.'
-
Jesus Christ, just fuck off already. Do you think everyone reading this just missed the lawyers successfully arguing that no therapy was happening?
This is all the words I'll waste on you. The rest of you, go get politically active instead of wasting time arguing with this clown. It changes nothing and affects nothing.
Who/JD, they mean at NorthStar, not all programs. There was a counselor who wasnt licensed and Apsen lawyers argued that the counselor didnt need to follow the Hipaa laws because they were not under the direction of licensed therapist. But to answer your question NO!! THEY DIDNT MEAN "ALL" ASPEN PROGRAMS, JUST THE ONE COUNSELOR AT NORTHSTAR. Everyone is just trying to pull your crank, so stop fucking talking about it you made your point.
j.d. talking to himself, again. Scary man.
-
Lawsuit clearly states the defense lawyers are from "Aspen Education Group" and those lawyers made the case that Aspen programs offer no therapy or treatment. I take them at their word over the poster here obsessed with trying to turn the truth upside-down (aka TheWho, Whooter, John D. Reuben, et al).
Why do we need TheWho's opinion on this when the court record shows Aspen provides no treatment?
I believe the court records, not some hack troll from STICC (an Aspen feeder group).
-
Lawsuit clearly states the defense lawyers are from "Aspen Education Group" and those lawyers made the case that Aspen programs offer no therapy or treatment. I take them at their word over the poster here obsessed with trying to turn the truth upside-down (aka TheWho, Whooter, John D. Reuben, et al).
Why do we need TheWho's opinion on this when the court record shows Aspen provides no treatment?
I believe the court records, not some hack troll from STICC (an Aspen feeder group).
Looks like you are wrong. Here is a link to the court records that Ursus posted. Look at the bottom of the page #2:
2 The parties seem to agree that although Trudy Godat was not licenced, one member of Matthew Pence's "treatment team" was a licenced therapist.
Court Records (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=345882&sid=3b20fcdd10bcf1d1461ed985c0ccd169&sid=3b20fcdd10bcf1d1461ed985c0ccd169#p345882)
-
Lawsuit clearly states the defense lawyers are from "Aspen Education Group" and those lawyers made the case that Aspen programs offer no therapy or treatment. I take them at their word over the poster here obsessed with trying to turn the truth upside-down (aka TheWho, Whooter, John D. Reuben, et al).
Why do we need TheWho's opinion on this when the court record shows Aspen provides no treatment?
I believe the court records, not some hack troll from STICC (an Aspen feeder group).
Aspen's program also says that all couselors are therapists on their website, indicating legal licensure, but in court they said their counselors are not therapists and that they are unlicensed. They either lied in court or are advertising falsely. Either way, they can't be trusted to tell the truth to parents.
And, if the 'counselor' was working on a 'treatment team' with a 'licensed therapist' then that would mean that the counselor was 'under the supervision of a licensed therapist' which Aspen denied at the hearing. Apparently, this 'therapist' had no ties to the 'counselor' or the 'treatment team' assigned to the boy.
-
Lawsuit clearly states the defense lawyers are from "Aspen Education Group" and those lawyers made the case that Aspen programs offer no therapy or treatment. I take them at their word over the poster here obsessed with trying to turn the truth upside-down (aka TheWho, Whooter, John D. Reuben, et al).
Why do we need TheWho's opinion on this when the court record shows Aspen provides no treatment?
I believe the court records, not some hack troll from STICC (an Aspen feeder group).
Aspen's program also says that all couselors are therapists on their website, indicating legal licensure, but in court they said their counselors are not therapists and that they are unlicensed. They either lied in court or are advertising falsely. Either way, they can't be trusted to tell the truth to parents.
And, if the 'counselor' was working on a 'treatment team' with a 'licensed therapist' then that would mean that the counselor was 'under the supervision of a licensed therapist' which Aspen denied at the hearing. Apparently, this 'therapist' had no ties to the 'counselor' or the 'treatment team' assigned to the boy.
Harless was the director of North Star. she wasnt working for a licensed person. Why dont you read the Court Records?
The court agrees with defendants that Harless's alleged disclosure of Matthew Pence's confessions to police was not an extreme transgression of the bounds of socially tolerable conduct. Matthew Pence's IIED claim therefore fails as a matter of law.
Court Records (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=345882&sid=31cbcb52b43e209d6ed3d736e8098a79&sid=31cbcb52b43e209d6ed3d736e8098a79#p345882)
-
But their website says all counselors are therapists.
See? http://http://www.northstarcenter.com/drugtreatmentterms.html#honorcode
So are they advertising falsely or did they lie in court. We have to get to the bottom if it. Both statements can't be true, but they were both made by Aspen.
-
Lawsuit clearly states the defense lawyers are from "Aspen Education Group" and those lawyers made the case that Aspen programs offer no therapy or treatment. I take them at their word over the poster here obsessed with trying to turn the truth upside-down (aka TheWho, Whooter, John D. Reuben, et al).
Why do we need TheWho's opinion on this when the court record shows Aspen provides no treatment?
I believe the court records, not some hack troll from STICC (an Aspen feeder group).
Aspen's program also says that all couselors are therapists on their website, indicating legal licensure, but in court they said their counselors are not therapists and that they are unlicensed. They either lied in court or are advertising falsely. Either way, they can't be trusted to tell the truth to parents.
And, if the 'counselor' was working on a 'treatment team' with a 'licensed therapist' then that would mean that the counselor was 'under the supervision of a licensed therapist' which Aspen denied at the hearing. Apparently, this 'therapist' had no ties to the 'counselor' or the 'treatment team' assigned to the boy.
Harless was the director of North Star. she wasnt working for a licensed person. Why dont you read the Court Records?
The court agrees with defendants that Harless's alleged disclosure of Matthew Pence's confessions to police was not an extreme transgression of the bounds of socially tolerable conduct. Matthew Pence's IIED claim therefore fails as a matter of law.
Court Records (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=345882&sid=31cbcb52b43e209d6ed3d736e8098a79#p345882)
Whooter, you addressed one claim out of the five, and try to make it appear as if that were the whole case.
I would strongly suggest that people follow the link (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=28756) and read for themselves. This was a request for summary judgment brought by both parties, and the court was unable to rule on the last three of five claims. These were:
III. Third Claim - Negligent Provision of Mental Health Tx
IV. Fourth Claim - Breach of Confidential Relationship
V. Fifth Claim - Punitive Damages[/list]
As soon as I posted the case last night, Whooter began with a veritable barrage of obfuscating and misleading posts, quoting parts that were discussion material as if they were conclusion material, and ignoring the ruling on its face.
Presumably, this case continued to trial. However, I have been unable to find any mention of it. Does anyone know whether Aspen settled this out of court to prevent further exposure of the issues raised?
-
I believe Aspen is suing the Pence's for their nuisances law suit and for wasting the state's and courts time. There child was never allowed back into another Aspen program again and ended up in jail.
I guess the old saying...dead insane or in jail does have some merit after all. I feel for the kid who never applied himself and never got the help he needed, now it is too late.
-
I believe Aspen is suing the Pence's for their nuisances law suit and for wasting the state's and courts time. There child was never allowed back into another Aspen program again and ended up in jail.
I guess the old saying...dead insane or in jail does have some merit after all. I feel for the kid who never applied himself and never got the help he needed, now it is too late.
I would say that is an interesting choice of words, coming from you, Whooter.
-
I believe Aspen is suing the Pence's for their nuisances law suit and for wasting the state's and courts time. There child was never allowed back into another Aspen program again and ended up in jail.
I guess the old saying...dead insane or in jail does have some merit after all. I feel for the kid who never applied himself and never got the help he needed, now it is too late.
I would say that is an interesting choice of words, coming from you, Whooter.
I couldnt resist, its an old saying here on fornits that many make fun of..... and seeing that the kid is in jail after breaking his contract with North Star the comment seemed appropriate and a little ironic so I tossed it in. Not offense intended just a chuckle.
-
Lawsuit clearly states the defense lawyers are from "Aspen Education Group" and those lawyers made the case that Aspen programs offer no therapy or treatment. I take them at their word over the poster here obsessed with trying to turn the truth upside-down (aka TheWho, Whooter, John D. Reuben, et al).
Why do we need TheWho's opinion on this when the court record shows Aspen provides no treatment?
I believe the court records, not some hack troll from STICC (an Aspen feeder group).
Aspen's program also says that all couselors are therapists on their website, indicating legal licensure, but in court they said their counselors are not therapists and that they are unlicensed. They either lied in court or are advertising falsely. Either way, they can't be trusted to tell the truth to parents.
And, if the 'counselor' was working on a 'treatment team' with a 'licensed therapist' then that would mean that the counselor was 'under the supervision of a licensed therapist' which Aspen denied at the hearing. Apparently, this 'therapist' had no ties to the 'counselor' or the 'treatment team' assigned to the boy.
I see your point. One way or the other, they've deceived the parents or the court. They told the parents one thing and the court another. Both can't be true.
-
A healthy teenager going out of his way to look in to a girls dormitory. Sounds like a normal teen to me. Maybe he wasn't there long enough to get so messed up he couldn't just be normal. Yeah, he went to juvenile hall, but who cares? I got caught having sex and got to stay. Breaking the contract with the program? What the fuck is that? The agreements and rules are always one-sided anyway. Maybe because they ban anything related to sex and relationships with the opposite sex at these places, his hormones finally got the better of him. What a crime for a teen to commit.
And as for you using it as a source of humor, nobody laughs. You just aren't witty enough. Everything you comment on is so dry and lacking in substance, even your attempts at humor. I suggest you go to college and take some human relations courses to learn how to communicate appropriately with others, particularly adults.
-
A healthy teenager going out of his way to look in to a girls dormitory. Sounds like a normal teen to me. Maybe he wasn't there long enough to get so messed up he couldn't just be normal. Yeah, he went to juvenile hall, but who cares? I got caught having sex and got to stay. Breaking the contract with the program? What the fuck is that? The agreements and rules are always one-sided anyway. Maybe because they ban anything related to sex and relationships with the opposite sex at these places, his hormones finally got the better of him. What a crime for a teen to commit.
The courts did not agree with you. There are other kids in the school to consider. Matthew broke into the office area. This is beyond a normal teen prank, it was the final straw on a long list of problems with this kid.
-
What do you know about this kid and his problems? It was clearly a prank done by a healthy and curious teenager in the middle of puberty and a highly restrictive school that bans social contact on a deep level with members of the opposite sex. Did he break the law? Yes. And nobody cares. I shoplifted 147 Star Wars figures back in 1977 and got caught. Did I break the law? Yes. Does anyone care? No. It's just something kids do. You can't really add it on to some imaginary list of troubles this kid has. It certainly doesn't measure up to issues like severe drug use, being molested, depression.
The issue is whether Aspen Group are treatment programs and whether unlicensed staff are giving professional level counseling and treatment to teens, which is against the law. As usual, you prefer to take the conversation away from the original topic and focus on the most banal, insignificant details. You seem to be unable to stay focused on the actual issues or to even understand the issues being discussed, so why don't you sit back and just watch as the adults in the room talk, okay junior?
-
What do you know about this kid and his problems? It was clearly a prank done by a healthy and curious teenager in the middle of puberty and a highly restrictive school that bans social contact on a deep level with members of the opposite sex. Did he break the law? Yes. And nobody cares. I shoplifted 147 Star Wars figures back in 1977 and got caught. Did I break the law? Yes. Does anyone care? No. It's just something kids do. You can't really add it on to some imaginary list of troubles this kid has. It certainly doesn't measure up to issues like severe drug use, being molested, depression.
The issue is whether Aspen Group are treatment programs and whether unlicensed staff are giving professional level counseling and treatment to teens, which is against the law. As usual, you prefer to take the conversation away from the original topic and focus on the most banal, insignificant details. You seem to be unable to stay focused on the actual issues or to even understand the issues being discussed, so why don't you sit back and just watch as the adults in the room talk, okay junior?
Why do you want to control the topic all the time. I didnt bring this up. The child was clearly disruptive, broke into the office area and as a last resort the school notified the police and had him removed. He got kicked out and went to jail. You are the one trying to make it look like it was the schools fault. Then the parents wanted their money back and got pissed and tried to sue. Of course they tried to add on as many charges as they could think of to make their case. It is obviously money driven and a shake down. Everyone here knows that, you just cant admit it.
-
What do you know about this kid and his problems? It was clearly a prank done by a healthy and curious teenager in the middle of puberty and a highly restrictive school that bans social contact on a deep level with members of the opposite sex. Did he break the law? Yes. And nobody cares. I shoplifted 147 Star Wars figures back in 1977 and got caught. Did I break the law? Yes. Does anyone care? No. It's just something kids do. You can't really add it on to some imaginary list of troubles this kid has. It certainly doesn't measure up to issues like severe drug use, being molested, depression.
The issue is whether Aspen Group are treatment programs and whether unlicensed staff are giving professional level counseling and treatment to teens, which is against the law. As usual, you prefer to take the conversation away from the original topic and focus on the most banal, insignificant details. You seem to be unable to stay focused on the actual issues or to even understand the issues being discussed, so why don't you sit back and just watch as the adults in the room talk, okay junior?
Why do you want to control the topic all the time. I didnt bring this up. The child was clearly disruptive, broke into the office area and as a last resort the school notified the police and had him removed. He got kicked out and went to jail. You are the one trying to make it look like it was the schools fault. Then the parents wanted their money back and got pissed and tried to sue. Of course they tried to add on as many charges as they could think of to make their case. It is obviously money driven and a shake down. Everyone here knows that, you just cant admit it.
There you go again with the circle-logic. And now trying to simply reverse my charge against you of arguing the most insignificant details as you are once more. I said the child broke the law. You are now repeating this without need. I said he went to jail. You are repeating this as well. I never said once that it was the schools fault, so now you are making a fallacious argument because I never said it. As to whether the parents got pissed and tried to sue, that appears obvious, so why say so? And that they tried to add on ass many charges as they could think of to make their case, most people do? But again, you'd be too dumb to know that. That is is obviously a money-driven shakedown is only likely to be partially true. That they are hoping to protect their son seems likely another motivation. Perhaps also that they have legitimate concerns that their son received unlicensed therapy and treatment which they were led to believe would not be the case due to potentially false advertising and misleading statements they believe they were given by Aspen Group, but you are not insightful enough to come to these kind of conclusions on your own. As to "Everyone knowing this"? I don't find, based on other peoples posts in this thread and others, that I can agree with you.
See you again in four minutes...
-
Exactly, so the parents never had a problem with the school or the help and therapy he was getting until after the school kicked the kid out. then they tried to build as much of a case as they can to get their money back by saying he didnt receive the correct therapy. Saying they broke HIPAA laws by telling the police he broke into the office and spied on other people etc.... all this was added on to try to gain money. So we positively know the kid wasnt abused in the slightest or they would have added that on if there was even a hint of him missing a meal or doing push ups... see what I am saying.
So yeah they are going to look into the HIPAA laws and the contract they signed and the therapy he received but it all stems from the kid getting kicked out not from poor services being rendered. If they can find some dirt somewhere maybe they can hold the school ransom for the cash they are out of.
Big difference, but you dont seem to be able to see it because it goes against your preconceived judgement against programs
-
Who said anything about the Pence family claiming their son was abused? You really do just make this stuff up in your head, don't you? And your statements suggest you are the spokesperson and personal confidant to the Pence Family and know their true intentions. Your mind is a howling wilderness unable to form once cohesive, logical statement, always devoid of facts but always full of personal opinions. And try to say that now and then. That something is your opinion and not fact. It might make you sound more intelligent. Suggesting you know the Pence family intentions, from a factual standpoint is really bizarre.
-
Who said anything about the Pence family claiming their son was abused?
If you would read more here instead of posting you would know that many posters think programs (all programs)abuse the kids or that they are abusive. My point is if there was even the slightest hint of abuse the Pences would have added that on too.
This further reinforces my position that not all programs are abusive.
-
Yes, it may reinforce your point since you don't agree with others about programs being abusive. But again, your poorly constructed argument is as weak as ever. Obviously, being a survivor (You might have noticed that is part of my moniker) I firmly believe these programs are all abusive. And because I post here, as a survivor, I am already clued in to this fact that most see these programs the same way and that you are the minority here. And yes, had the parents determined their son was abused and felt that they could have proven this in a court of law I am certain they would have added it to their lawsuit. What parent wouldn't? But the fact seems to be, they do on some level believe their son received illegal, mental health treatment, which can be argued is abusive by itself, no matter what form it took. Thus, logic suggests they are indeed suing for abuse, just allowing it, through the law and legalese to take on different form.
-
Bottom line is that the kid was allowed to wander the facility completely unsupervised by any Aspen staff. this is not a 'secure and structured' environment to beging with. Then he was arrested and put in jail because of the program's actions in handling the behavior they said they could 'cure' when the parents enrolled him. So they failed to provide the appropriate environment and they failed to offer any therapy services, then to top it off, they left the kid in worse condition than when he arrived - untreated AND in jail AT THE PROGRAM'S REQUEST.
This is a travesty at many different levels, and unfortunately, this so-called 'outcome study' is bogus because it doesn't take into account at all the 50-65% of kids like Matt Pence that never 'graduate' their programs. These palces have a 50-65% failure rate RIGHT OFF THE TOP.
-
And the other 35% to 50% is the same sock puppets repeatedly posting as anonymous or guests claiming they had a wonderful time and it was the miracle cure they needed.
-
Bottom line is that the kid was allowed to wander the facility completely unsupervised by any Aspen staff. this is not a 'secure and structured' environment to beging with. Then he was arrested and put in jail because of the program's actions in handling the behavior they said they could 'cure' when the parents enrolled him. So they failed to provide the appropriate environment and they failed to offer any therapy services, then to top it off, they left the kid in worse condition than when he arrived - untreated AND in jail AT THE PROGRAM'S REQUEST.
This is a travesty at many different levels, and unfortunately, this so-called 'outcome study' is bogus because it doesn't take into account at all the 50-65% of kids like Matt Pence that never 'graduate' their programs. These palces have a 50-65% failure rate RIGHT OFF THE TOP.
This sends a clear message that if you are not willing to do the work in these places then you are out on your butt. If you break the rules and break the laws you will be held accountable. Its a tough lesson to learn when you havent had your feet held to the fire previously, but it is a good life lesson for Matthew.
As far as the study goes, I think it is a good call to only include those kids who finished the program to keep the data consistent.
-
Bottom line is that the kid was allowed to wander the facility completely unsupervised by any Aspen staff. this is not a 'secure and structured' environment to beging with. Then he was arrested and put in jail because of the program's actions in handling the behavior they said they could 'cure' when the parents enrolled him. So they failed to provide the appropriate environment and they failed to offer any therapy services, then to top it off, they left the kid in worse condition than when he arrived - untreated AND in jail AT THE PROGRAM'S REQUEST.
This is a travesty at many different levels, and unfortunately, this so-called 'outcome study' is bogus because it doesn't take into account at all the 50-65% of kids like Matt Pence that never 'graduate' their programs. These palces have a 50-65% failure rate RIGHT OFF THE TOP.
This is right on. The other guy saying only grads should be counted is like counting only those who survive heart surgery in success data while ignoring those who didn't make it. Dishonest at best,
-
Bottom line is that the kid was allowed to wander the facility completely unsupervised by any Aspen staff. this is not a 'secure and structured' environment to beging with. Then he was arrested and put in jail because of the program's actions in handling the behavior they said they could 'cure' when the parents enrolled him. So they failed to provide the appropriate environment and they failed to offer any therapy services, then to top it off, they left the kid in worse condition than when he arrived - untreated AND in jail AT THE PROGRAM'S REQUEST.
This is a travesty at many different levels, and unfortunately, this so-called 'outcome study' is bogus because it doesn't take into account at all the 50-65% of kids like Matt Pence that never 'graduate' their programs. These palces have a 50-65% failure rate RIGHT OFF THE TOP.
This is right on. The other guy saying only grads should be counted is like counting only those who survive heart surgery in success data while ignoring those who didn't make it. Dishonest at best,
I think it depends on the study. The majority of heart studies are done on those patients which have successfully completed a heart transplant. They then track these patients over time. There are other studies which show how many patients make it thru surgery. But they are 2 separate studies, but I do understand the confusion and the need for this type of information.
A study showing how many kids make thru to the end of a program would be a great study. I would be interested to know how many are sent home for breaking the rules, run away and get kicked out etc. and the "mean time" a student spends at a program.
-
Yes, but in studies related to heart transplants, they generally inform you of the pertinent details such as the fact that it is only being conducted on those who successfully underwent surgery and walked away. Later some die, and some live. But the scope of the survey is known and explained. Also, the statistics are readily available because generally there is a great deal of follow-up after these surgeries for years to come as the transplant itself doesn't mean the person is out of the woods.
Whereas with Aspen and other programs, they hire people affiliated with the industry to conduct specific studies, clearly limited in scope in order to portray a false success rate. They could do a survey telling how many prisoners complete their first week and it would amount to about the same thing.
The number of kids who complete the program is of no value since it is basically a teenage prison camp. The teens are not allowed to leave without parental permission, running away or breaking the law. No different than real prison really, except you would exchange parental permission for court permission. That kids are forced to stay there for the entire duration of the program is therefore a useless source of data to base a survey on. Unless you have solid, long term data ranging in to multiple years, preferably at least ten, to determine the value of the program well after it is completed, the survey would have limited value.
I just got in to contact with my former "older brother" from my old program. In a brief email, he rattled off about twenty five students who there while I was there, and nearly every single one of them had run in to problems ranging from going back to drug use, alcoholism, problems with their parents, suicide. The same reasons and more that they went in to the program to begin with. These are people who are now in their forties, some almost fifty. So more than a quarter century after attending a program, run by the same people who founded Aspen and Monarch, these former teen prisoners are not all faring well. Many eventually came around and made something more of their lives, but the bulk had not, and those that had took at least fifteen years. So add that to your survey!
-
Yes, but in studies related to heart transplants, they generally inform you of the pertinent details such as the fact that it is only being conducted on those who successfully underwent surgery and walked away. Later some die, and some live. But the scope of the survey is known and explained. Also, the statistics are readily available because generally there is a great deal of follow-up after these surgeries for years to come as the transplant itself doesn't mean the person is out of the woods.
Those are referred to as boundary conditions. I think they parallel each other well. The program used those patients who successfully completed the program as the heart patient study did.
The data may be available, but not to everyone. It doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Whereas with Aspen and other programs, they hire people affiliated with the industry to conduct specific studies, clearly limited in scope in order to portray a false success rate. They could do a survey telling how many prisoners complete their first week and it would amount to about the same thing.
As with the heart study they have people who had previous relationships with hospitals. Almost every doctor would have to intern in a hospital of some sort and thereby create ties to the industry they will eventually be studying and critiquing. This is quit normal.
The number of kids who complete the program is of no value since it is basically a teenage prison camp. The teens are not allowed to leave without parental permission, running away or breaking the law. No different than real prison really, except you would exchange parental permission for court permission. That kids are forced to stay there for the entire duration of the program is therefore a useless source of data to base a survey on. Unless you have solid, long term data ranging in to multiple years, preferably at least ten, to determine the value of the program well after it is completed, the survey would have limited value.
I think the number who end up leaving would make for a good internal study to see how well they choose their students based on perceived success. These we would not see and would be for internal use only to adjust how they screen prospective student.
The programs I am familiar with do not hold students against their will. If they break the rules their parents will be contacted and if it continues they will be sent home. We have already seen this with Matthew Pence. This is very common.
As for the length of the study post program I disagree. There could be many other stimuli which would effect the students post program especially 10 years out. The program is tasked with getting the student back on track and through their adolescence. If they choose to go back off track later in life the program cannot effect this.
I just got in to contact with my former "older brother" from my old program. In a brief email, he rattled off about twenty five students who there while I was there, and nearly every single one of them had run in to problems ranging from going back to drug use, alcoholism, problems with their parents, suicide. The same reasons and more that they went in to the program to begin with. These are people who are now in their forties, some almost fifty. So more than a quarter century after attending a program, run by the same people who founded Aspen and Monarch, these former teen prisoners are not all faring well. Many eventually came around and made something more of their lives, but the bulk had not, and those that had took at least fifteen years. So add that to your survey!
Addiction is a life long struggle. I have friends from highschool who are no long with us, struggling with addiction and worse. These people never went to a program. Maybe it would have helped them maybe not.
-
Bottom line is that the kid was allowed to wander the facility completely unsupervised by any Aspen staff. this is not a 'secure and structured' environment to beging with. Then he was arrested and put in jail because of the program's actions in handling the behavior they said they could 'cure' when the parents enrolled him. So they failed to provide the appropriate environment and they failed to offer any therapy services, then to top it off, they left the kid in worse condition than when he arrived - untreated AND in jail AT THE PROGRAM'S REQUEST.
This is a travesty at many different levels, and unfortunately, this so-called 'outcome study' is bogus because it doesn't take into account at all the 50-65% of kids like Matt Pence that never 'graduate' their programs. These palces have a 50-65% failure rate RIGHT OFF THE TOP.
This is right on. The other guy saying only grads should be counted is like counting only those who survive heart surgery in success data while ignoring those who didn't make it. Dishonest at best,
Yes, any valid study would track all participants in the program, not just cherry-picked ones. 50-65% of kids who eneter programs are not helped at all and leave the program. Of the ones who finish, especially Aspen programs, many wind up dead from suicide or overdoses, but these are not counted in the surveys either. So maybe 25% finish and do well, which is a 75% failure rate.
-
Dear lord in Heaven. In a fraction of the time you people spend in a circle jerk with Who, you could go get the damn facts and post them. Course, by page 2, he knew that any rational person had stopped reading and only got his propoganda.
1999 Behrens Clinical Director for Youth care
http://cache.zoominfo.com/cachedpage/?a ... me=Behrens (http://cache.zoominfo.com/cachedpage/?archive_id=0&page_id=97347972&page_url=%2f%2fwww.bridgetounderstanding.com%2fcgi-bin%2finfoforum.cgi%3fread%3d260&page_last_updated=3%2f18%2f2001+10%3a59%3a38+AM&firstName=Ellen&lastName=Behrens)
2002 Founded Canyon Research
http://canyonrc.com/experience.html (http://canyonrc.com/experience.html)
2003 - 2005 Behrens conducting surveys
http://www.strugglingteens.com/news/pre ... 060817.htm (http://www.strugglingteens.com/news/press%20releases/natsap060817.htm)
2004 Behrens doing Consulting for AEG
http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/p ... 0626.shtml (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/TheMapTerritoryES_070626.shtml)
2006 Behrens completes her survey results passed off as Independent Study
http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/p ... 5360.shtml (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/article_5360.shtml)
"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. As a result, the operating assumption of the study is that the students included in the analyzed data were those who were appropriately placed."
http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/p ... 5494.shtml (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/article_5494.shtml)
Comment: ....It would be helpful to know more about Dr. Behren’s research design and methodology. I presume she drew a random sample for the study; otherwise, the results cannot be generalized to the school/residential population at large.
Jerry W Clark
Dba Behavioral Services Ltd
Reno, NV
No Jerry, she didn't. Families from 9 Aspen programs participated in her "study". She and all her staff have links to Aspen programs.
http://www.natsap.org/Behrens.doc (http://www.natsap.org/Behrens.doc)
Jan Moss applies the "study" of 9 Aspen programs to entire industry
Disclosure Statement: Aspen Education Group provided funding for this study.
http://www.natsap.org/Outcome%20Study.doc (http://www.natsap.org/Outcome%20Study.doc)
2006 Behrens is a contributor to NATSAPs "Journal of Therapeutic Schools and Programs.
http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/p ... 5456.shtml (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/printer_5456.shtml)
ASPEN EDUCATION GROUP APPLAUDS STUDY
(April 26, 2007) According to an article on PRNewswire, Elliot Sainer, President of Aspen Education Group (AEG), Cerritos, CA, announced "AEG is extremely pleased to learn of the very positive findings from the final phase of our industry's first long-term, multi-year clinical study on the effectiveness of private therapeutic residential programs for adolescents. AEG will continue to advocate for new industry research that will further illustrate and promote the best practices and methodologies and enhance our industry's abilities to produce positive and long-lasting results in adolescent therapeutic education."
I guess he was pleased. He paid her to present AEG in the best possible light.
-
ps If any of this information regarding the connection between Behrens and AEG is important, best go capture those pages before AEG has them removed/edited.
My guess is that Who so confidently put out the challenge to find anything that wasn't on the Fornits server, because he'd been busy cleaning up the internet, erasing all proof of the connection.
Well, we'll see if NATSAP removes the disclaimer that AEG paid for the study of 9 of their programs which Jan Moss then attempts to apply to the entire industry.
-
Gosh guys, sorry for the confusion. I sincerely believed it to be an independent study. I had no idea AEG provided the funding.
-
ps If any of this information regarding the connection between Behrens and AEG is important, best go capture those pages before AEG has them removed/edited.
My guess is that Who so confidently put out the challenge to find anything that wasn't on the Fornits server, because he'd been busy cleaning up the internet, erasing all proof of the connection.
Well, we'll see if NATSAP removes the disclaimer that AEG paid for the study of 9 of their programs which Jan Moss then attempts to apply to the entire industry.
so was that done?
-
Correction: The Disclaimer is here
http://www.natsap.org/Behrens.doc (http://www.natsap.org/Behrens.doc)
Jan Moss applies the "study" of 9 Aspen programs to entire industry
Disclosure Statement: Aspen Education Group provided funding for this study.
-
ANTI DEFAMATION OF YOUTH WORKERS
WASTE NO MORE TIME ON THESE SPOILED LITTLE RICH FORNIT BRATS.
Are you interested in helping our society, stay posted, we will have a web site soon Center for Anti Defamation of Professional Youth Workers
We are going to get a seasoned attorney who has a practice relegated to national internet defamation, and who ever donates a certain amount will have access to our strategies and tactics to shut down Michael Crawford's little Fornit Defamers, and their overall revenge insurgency against some good folks. Granted it all stems from hurt and anger but some of us are innocent of abuse and have had enough!
This dirty mouthed little punk Che was afraid of the big bad streets of Redlands, because deep down he is a boob and yet he uses profanity that his name sake Che Guevara would consider childish. Keep your conversation going with him he will finally loose it and start talking about having sex with farm animals. Ursus thinks he is really cute and admires his cruddy little mouth.
-
ANTI DEFAMATION OF YOUTH WORKERS
WASTE NO MORE TIME ON THESE SPOILED LITTLE RICH FORNIT BRATS.
Are you interested in helping our society, stay posted, we will have a web site soon Center for Anti Defamation of Professional Youth Workers
We are going to get a seasoned attorney who has a practice relegated to national internet defamation, and who ever donates a certain amount will have access to our strategies and tactics to shut down Michael Crawford's little Fornit Defamers, and their overall revenge insurgency against some good folks. Granted it all stems from hurt and anger but some of us are innocent of abuse and have had enough!
This dirty mouthed little punk Che was afraid of the big bad streets of Redlands, because deep down he is a boob and yet he uses profanity that his name sake Che Guevara would consider childish. Keep your conversation going with him he will finally loose it and start talking about having sex with farm animals. Ursus thinks he is really cute and admires his cruddy little mouth.
You've been talking about this ever since you crashed the LAYNE MEACHAM poopy party.
-
ANTI DEFAMATION OF YOUTH WORKERS
WASTE NO MORE TIME ON THESE SPOILED LITTLE RICH FORNIT BRATS.
Are you interested in helping our society, stay posted, we will have a web site soon Center for Anti Defamation of Professional Youth Workers
Anti Defamation of Youth Workers
We are going to get a seasoned attorney who has a practice relegated to national internet defamation, and who ever donates a certain amount will have access to our strategies and tactics to shut down Michael Crawford's little Fornit Defamers, and their overall revenge insurgency against some good folks. Granted it all stems from hurt and anger but some of us are innocent of abuse and have had enough!
This dirty mouthed little punk Che was afraid of the big bad streets of Redlands, because deep down he is a boob and yet he uses profanity that his name sake Che Guevara would consider childish. Keep your conversation going with him he will finally loose it and start talking about having sex with farm animals. Ursus thinks he is really cute and admires his cruddy little mouth.
Che's Latest.......too cowardly to give his name.
Ah the little scared boy, Che whatsup? Now Che lets hear from you...........let er roll what is your real name impress Che Guevara and don't continue your little burgués, Che Guevara would know what this means, look it up. Get that porno foul mouth of yours reved up and keep responding. The cruddier the better. Remember you are building a record. Lets hear your beastiality stuff. Are you to big of a coward to identify yourself as Che . Wouldn't Ali have the guts to give his name, c'mon you little spoiled brat. Ali didn't have the money your parents did so quit trying to identify with Che or Ali, your a little dirty mouthed punk, NOW CARRY on you are on record.
-
Will you be using Benchmark's attorneys? In your noble quest to stop the foul-mouthed Fornitscators?