Since the fifth estate airing, I've been reading a great deal of swill regarding "success rate", and how it is measured.
These things have been measured in the past with other programs, such as synanon and 12 step.
However, criteria for "success" is not merely an issue of sobriety, is it?
I read the glowing testimonials from parents and grads about how the program "turned their life around". Well, how the fuck is this even measurable? Prove it, bitches. How do you know you wouldn't have worked out just fine if you never went?
I've decided, there needs to be a study. The thing is, what exactly, is being studied to begin with, and how the heck would it even be conducted?
I've been thinking about it, and here is what I have come up with so far.
1. It would require a list of criteria for both success and and initial placement. Some ideas for success (or, as I would prefer to call it from now on, "high-functioning") could be: employment, income level, nature of relationships with parents/family/friends, living situation.) I don't know, my point is that something specific would need to be established. Psychiatrists who work with outpatient care normally have a list of criteria that could probably be used as a reference.
The criteria for initial placement basically means the reasons kids were put away. These could be things such as a. drug/alcohol use. Frequency, nature of substance, etc. b. school attendance or discipline issues c. juvenile record d. poor grades e. psychiatric diagnosis f. history of suicide or self-harm. I'm not saying one way or another whether these are reasons to put a kid away, (but I'm sure you can guess what my feelings are on this). In addition, this would have to reflect the ACTUAL situation, not the parents perception of the situation. As such, the criteria must be concrete, measurable things, but could also take into consideration the subject's state of mind as they remember it, such as mood. This question could also be asked in establishing the criteria for high functioning rate.
2. A control. A cross section of adults from the general population who did not attend such schools, and are from similar socio-economic backgrounds as the adults who were placed in programs. Adults would be screened and selected based on whether their behavior as a teenager matched the placement criteria for the students in the study group who were placed in programs.
These adults would then be tested to determine which percentages met the criteria of a high functioning individual as an adult, in addition to the percentage breakdown for each line item in the criteria.
3. A study group. This is a selection of adults who were placed into programs as teens, and also determine the placement criteria that the control group is to be selected by.
The same poll run against the control would then be run against the study. Results would then be evaluated to see if there is any deviation between the control and study.
I also feel that it would be equally, if not more, important to do a similar study of percentages of suicides, unemployment, divorce rate, drug use and overdose, and criminal record/imprisonment between a program study group and a control group.
I would just really like to shut the success anecdote wagon train the fuck up for once, because at this point, it's arguing the hypothetical. And to be fair, that is the case either way, (i.e. crediting/blaming the program for general high or low functionality, with the exception of specific diagnoses such as PTSD.)
Anyway, it needs to be done. Really and truly. I'm just wondering if it's doable. The trick is the criteria, and this is why it would be essential that this study is done by the psychiatric industry, coupled with sociologists, because, as far as I know, they have established such criteria already as to what constitutes high, medium and low functionality. Whereas placement criteria is determined strictly by the study group.
Thoughts?
