Aspen Education Group deceptively markets short term invalid

[Ursus]

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!  

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!  

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

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.

Sell! Sell! Sell!!  :jamin:

[Anonymous]

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.

[Troll Control]

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.

[Whooter]

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.

[Whooter]

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.

[Whooter]

Link to profile

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.

[RMA Survivor]

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.

[Anonymous]

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)

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[RMA Survivor]

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.

[Troll Control]

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?

[RMA Survivor]

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.