Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > Public Sector Gulags
New York State shutting state facilities?
Whooter:
--- Quote from: "exposecedu" ---
--- Quote from: "Whooter" ---
--- Quote from: "exposecedu" --- What studies are you referring to? You speak as if you are very familiar with the industry. Am I correct or incorrect Whooter?
--- End quote ---
Off the top of my head there was a study out of Colgate university and one by Canyon research...... A person who spent a year inside a program and wrote a book on his findings... and a few others. You wont find the studies to be a very popular topic here on fornits for many reasons. Yes, I have some experience with the industry but am not part of the industry or profit from it.
...
--- End quote ---
Can you elaborate on your role in the industry?
--- End quote ---
I had a daughter who attended Academy at Swift river (ASR) and have researched various aspects of the industry over the years..... Their short comings and strengths... successes and failures...
...
blombrowski:
Back on topic - regarding New York efforts to embrace the Missouri Model.
Before anyone gets the wrong idea, I agree that the data that Missouri has is impressive, and that they have developed what an ideal juvenile justice system should look like.
The one major change that they have made that should be a no-brainer at this stage in history, is that large training schools/boot camps hundreds of miles away from home are ineffective and lead to bad outcomes.
I have questions about the data though. It's not clear what the 11% statistic is referring to. I've been trying to do research on it, and haven't been able to come up with the data source. My understandng is that the figure represents the number of youth who come into the juvenile justice system who re-enter the juvenile justice system within a year. The 11% I think includes every youth, those who don't receive services, those who end up in day treatment, those who end up in non-secure facilities, and those who end up in secure facilities. The system is effective, not necessarily the programs. And what the system seems to be particularly effective at, is sequestering and screening youth. Diverting youth with mental health conditions to psychiatric residential treatment centers, and only sending youth with serious conduct disorder issues to their facilities. Not that this is a bad thing, but it would be interesting to look at the entirety of the Missouri residential system of care to see how effective the whole system is on measures other than just short-term recidivism, before putting Missouri on a pedestal, which I am guilty of anyone as doing.
Regardless of the manipulation of the numbers, Missouri's numbers are better than New York's by any measure.
Whooter:
--- Quote from: "blombrowski" ---Back on topic - regarding New York efforts to embrace the Missouri Model.
Before anyone gets the wrong idea, I agree that the data that Missouri has is impressive, and that they have developed what an ideal juvenile justice system should look like.
The one major change that they have made that should be a no-brainer at this stage in history, is that large training schools/boot camps hundreds of miles away from home are ineffective and lead to bad outcomes.
--- End quote ---
I agree with this point, Blombowski. The smaller staff to student ratio and moving away from the large boot camp mentality is an increase in cost for the state (initially) but is a huge step in the right direction as you mentioned. They have also added a therapeutic component, a focus on family and give attention to assisting in a smooth transition back into society along with after care support. Not sure I agree with the relationship of distance to the program vs "success rate" though. Not sure how this ties in, although the closer the facility is to home the easier it is to include family members in the process.
--- Quote --- I have questions about the data though. It's not clear what the 11% statistic is referring to. I've been trying to do research on it, and haven't been able to come up with the data source. My understandng is that the figure represents the number of youth who come into the juvenile justice system who re-enter the juvenile justice system within a year. The 11% I think includes every youth, those who don't receive services, those who end up in day treatment, those who end up in non-secure facilities, and those who end up in secure facilities.
--- End quote ---
My thinking is that since the subject is the” Missouri Model” that this is what is being measured. I don’t think they would include kids who didn’t pass thru the “Missouri model” system because they wouldn’t be able to measure the effectiveness this way,( i.e it would muck up the data)
2001…..while over 70 percent of kids housed in conventional jails nationwide end up back behind bars, in Missouri that figure is only 11 percent
The way I read it as “11% of kids who passed thru the Missouri model” ended up behind bars…
--- Quote ---The system is effective, not necessarily the programs. And what the system seems to be particularly effective at, is sequestering and screening youth. Diverting youth with mental health conditions to psychiatric residential treatment centers, and only sending youth with serious conduct disorder issues to their facilities. Not that this is a bad thing, but it would be interesting to look at the entirety of the Missouri residential system of care to see how effective the whole system is on measures other than just short-term recidivism, before putting Missouri on a pedestal, which I am guilty of anyone as doing.
--- End quote ---
This is what the private sector had been struggling with for decades. They have been able to exponentially increase their success rate by pre-screening the kids that they accept and specialize in certain disorders. For example many TBS’ do not accept kids who have a history of violence or if the child has extreme mental issues or serious disorders which their particular model would not be very effective in correcting…... They very well may refer them to a sister program which may be more effective in those areas (i.e. kids with eating disorders would go to a program specializing in this area). So I think you have a point that part of their success is screening the kids to see who gets into the “Missouri Model” and who doesn’t.
As you pointed out there are many unanswered questions and an intense study would be eye opening for the rest of us here as well as the private sector who would be chomping at the bit to see their numbers so they could compare them to their own. Since the Missouri model is publicly funded they have a better shot at having a study done I believe.
...
blombrowski:
--- Quote from: "Whooter" ---Not sure how this ties in, although the closer the facility is to home the easier it is to include family members in the process.
--- End quote ---
You answered your own question.
As for the reason for this posting...
From Missouri's budget allocation to their system some recent information about their juvenile justice facilities.
http://oa.mo.gov/bp/budreqs2011/SSYouth/SSYouth.pdf
Go to pg. 32 & 33
Whooter:
--- Quote from: "blombrowski" ---
--- Quote from: "Whooter" ---Not sure how this ties in, although the closer the facility is to home the easier it is to include family members in the process.
--- End quote ---
You answered your own question.
--- End quote ---
I think the distance is a challenge but I don’t see how this would lead to ineffectiveness. The program could be 2 miles away and if the family was poor then this distance could be like 2,000 miles to them. I see the distance as a relative factor but not a direct measurement of effectiveness. When my daughter attended we made the trip to the school often.
--- Quote ---As for the reason for this posting...
From Missouri's budget allocation to their system some recent information about their juvenile justice facilities.
http://oa.mo.gov/bp/budreqs2011/SSYouth/SSYouth.pdf
Go to pg. 32 & 33
--- End quote ---
Good find! Their budget has been increasing……….I also see Missouri does screen their kids for effectiveness, that’s interesting. They don’t accept dangerous offenders and try to target those kids who would benefit from a structured environment and life skills and also target those kids who didn’t do well in community based programs . These are the same kids who benefit from a TBS environment… so they do pick and choose which makes sense. Their peak into the private sector allowed them to avoid this learning curve which took decades for TBS’s to develop.
...
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version