New York State shutting state facilities?

[Ursus]

While we're on the subject of "more effective therapeutic models," do tell us what is so "therapeutic" about going through Aspen's Lifesteps, experiential exercises based in part on those used in the psychologically destructive LGAT Lifespring?

Given how coercive and damaging many adults found Lifespring's methodology to be, what makes you think it would be anything but more so for adolescents?

@ Ursus : Oh boy, your asking the wrong guy on that one.  I don't have a background in therapy.  I know first hand that sitting in a Russian style sauna in the winter time  and then jumping into the snow or icy pond is extremely therapeutic but I couldn't explain the details of why it works.  It just does.

I see...  

And this sauna experience works its way into your alleged credentials for touting the "beneficial" or "therapeutic" nature of TBSs ... HOW?

If you recall, you were the one who saw fit to broach the subject in this thread (about New York state juvies) with the following bit of advertising:

For those families who can afford an alternative the private Therapeutic boarding schools will still be a better option because the majority of these kids are not serious offenders and also can avoid getting a record which could affect college acceptance in many cases.[/list]

[Whooter]

@ Ursus : Oh boy, your asking the wrong guy on that one.  I don’t have a background in therapy.  I know first hand that sitting in a Russian style sauna in the winter time  and then jumping into the snow or icy pond is extremely therapeutic but I couldn’t explain the details of why it works.  It just does.

Aah but can you prove it works?  Just because something makes a person feel fantastic or changed or healthy does not make it so.  The amount of popular snake oil and quackery out there in the market proves that.  Something can only be said to objectively work or be therapeutic if it provide demonstratable, consistant, and repeatable results.  That has never been done with the programs you support so highly.  One would think given the amount of money in this industry that if these programs actually worked there would be some independent, peer reviewed studies out there, but there aren't.  Why is that?

Oh, we have been through that psy.  there are plenty of studies to support that programs are effective.  But the ones that are independent are rejected here on fornits because of a previous employment to the industry or the results are not found to be popular so they are discarded out of hand or the published paper didnt have a sample size that suited everyone.  We all know the drill..
So we can see that the only study to be accepted will have to be paid for by someone outside the industry and no one has volunteered yet.  Cant blame the industry for that.

As for the russian sauna,I cannot prove it works (at least none that I can think of) but experiencing it first hand convinces me that it does.



...

[Whooter]

And this sauna experience works its way into your alleged credentials for touting the "beneficial" or "therapeutic" nature of TBSs ... HOW?

Whoa, Ursus, you got some fur (or fir) across yer ass tonight?  The TBS’s stand on their own.  They don’t need the likes of me to tout them.  The Sauna story was in response to knowing the therapeutic value of LGAT’s.  I have no idea how to explain how they are effective because I have a background in engineering.  I base my opinions on what I have read and the people I have met and first hand knowledge like most of the other posters here.

If you recall, you were the one who saw fit to broach the subject in this thread (about New York state juvies) with the following bit of advertising:
For those families who can afford an alternative the private Therapeutic boarding schools will still be a better option because the majority of these kids are not serious offenders and also can avoid getting a record which could affect college acceptance in many cases.

The Missouri Model was put in place to replace the existing "prison system".  So if the parents can afford to send their kids to a private TBS and the kid isn’t a hardened criminal “and” the kid has a good shot at a decent college it would be advantageous to place him/her in a private institution.  They both may be similar in effectiveness but colleges frown on accepting a kid into college from state juvy facilities (prisons).

I don’t see this as derailing the thread and I thought it was worth mentioning.



...

[psy]

@ Ursus : Oh boy, your asking the wrong guy on that one.  I don’t have a background in therapy.  I know first hand that sitting in a Russian style sauna in the winter time  and then jumping into the snow or icy pond is extremely therapeutic but I couldn’t explain the details of why it works.  It just does.

Aah but can you prove it works?  Just because something makes a person feel fantastic or changed or healthy does not make it so.  The amount of popular snake oil and quackery out there in the market proves that.  Something can only be said to objectively work or be therapeutic if it provide demonstratable, consistant, and repeatable results.  That has never been done with the programs you support so highly.  One would think given the amount of money in this industry that if these programs actually worked there would be some independent, peer reviewed studies out there, but there aren't.  Why is that?

Oh, we have been through that psy.  there are plenty of studies to support that programs are effective.  But the ones that are independent are rejected here on fornits because of a previous employment to the industry or the results are not found to be popular so they are discarded out of hand or the published paper didnt have a sample size that suited everyone.  We all know the drill..

Interesting tactic.  Declare you've won without actually doing so.  What studies might these be, Whooter?  You say we've already been through this. For the benefit of those reading who haven't perhaps you can elaborate on which studies you are referring to.  Might it be the Behrens study (read that link if you're new here)?  Long story short: woman who did the story used to work at an aspen program and currently recommend and refers to them.  That's hardly an independent source of information.  She has a financial as well as an ideological interest in the outcome.  Got anything better, or are you just here to assure the parents that the studies exist without actually showing them the hard evidence?

So we can see that the only study to be accepted will have to be paid for by someone outside the industry and no one has volunteered yet.  Cant blame the industry for that.

As for the russian sauna,I cannot prove it works (at least none that I can think of) but experiencing it first hand convinces me that it does.

And I wouldn't contest since there is probably no great evidence to go either way.  I would, however, have a problem if you marketed it to cure cancer, it didn't work, and after the patient dies you sit there, shrug your shoulders and go "well.  I still believe it works".  It's false advertising.

[Whooter]

This is getting off topic but I’ll respond…

I checked your link and your first source is a random posting  with no back up where you tried to show she was a clinical director… also I couldn’t find any evidence that she is currently referring to aspen programs.  But even if she were you need to look at the time frame when the study was being done, not what she is doing today.  What if a researcher joins one of the companies they researched? Does this invalidated their previous work? Of course not.
This is what I mean about the studies being accepted here.  The study was conducted by “canyon Research” but since it doesn’t go along with your belief that programs are ineffective you wont consider the results and instead waste energy trying to discredit the results in an effort to keep your beliefs alive……  but like I said and your link shows we have been down this path already. This is an old discussion. (The people outside of fornits can rely on the studies)

So now that we see you dont accept any studies to date which show programs to be effective we will need to wait until someone outside the industry volunteers to fund a study.

Until that happens we will rely on the next best thing which is to speak to families which have had kids attend these programs, speak to and visit the programs themselves and consult professionals familiar with the industry to help guide us towards the better programs and solutions.

[Anonymous]

Oh, we have been through that psy. there are plenty of studies to support that programs are effective. But the ones that are independent are rejected here on fornits because of a previous employment to the industry or the results are not found to be popular so they are discarded out of hand or the published paper didn't have a sample size that suited everyone. We all know the drill.  So we can see that the only study to be accepted will have to be paid for by someone outside the industry and no one has volunteered yet. Cant blame the industry for that.

Programs are rejected for several reasons.  They are often rejected due to improper restraints, deaths, lack of medical care, poorly trained staff, lack of food, lack of water, poor living conditions, group sessions where children are forced to discuss personal issues, verbal abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse, censoring mail, physical restraint paperwork watered altered, excessive consequences, poor supervision, low staff to student ratio, lack of contact with parents, short telephone calls, lack of sleep during "marathon workshops", forced medication, lack of program oversight, staff with criminal records, poor education and dirty mind control tactics.   What studies are you  referring to?  You speak as if you are very familiar with the industry.  Am I correct or incorrect Whooter?

[wdtony]

Comparing apples to oranges and using logical fallacies doesn't equal proof. Mixing up different states and models with numbers that may or may not be accurate or using the same criteria seems awfully loose and fast to be considered factual.

It is possible to "improve" the public juvenile facilities without turning them into "therapy programs". I would say, first stop the abuses occuring in these facilities (by staff and other inmates) and then give these children some basic schooling and job training. Why would they need therapy? If you want to diminish recidivism, (long term, and not judging by a supposed 3 year outlook) take a look at what blombrowski has offered as possible solutions.

@exposecedu... I am an individual. I am not to be confused with any conglomerate or organization when it comes to my personal views and opinions. I do not represent HEAL and vice versa. Also, I have decided to resign my coordinator status at HEAL and, for now,  will not be working with that organization. As for what HEAL people think, I cannot offer any suggestions. You would have to ask them personally, but do ask them as individuals and not as a group.

[Whooter]

Comparing apples to oranges and using logical fallacies doesn't equal proof. Mixing up different states and models with numbers that may or may not be accurate or using the same criteria seems awfully loose and fast to be considered factual.

It is possible to "improve" the public juvenile facilities without turning them into "therapy programs". I would say, first stop the abuses occuring in these facilities (by staff and other inmates) and then give these children some basic schooling and job training. Why would they need therapy? If you want to diminish recidivism, (long term, and not judging by a supposed 3 year outlook) take a look at what blombrowski has offered as possible solutions.

@exposecedu... I am an individual. I am not to be confused with any conglomerate or organization when it comes to my personal views and opinions. I do not represent HEAL and vice versa. Also, I have decided to resign my coordinator status at HEAL and, for now,  will not be working with that organization. As for what HEAL people think, I cannot offer any suggestions. You would have to ask them personally, but do ask them as individuals and not as a group.

The Missouri model seems to be effective and strikes just the right balance utilizing therapy, schooling, job training and working to help ease their return into society and providing support once they get home.  Whether you choose to call them therapy programs or TBS’s they seem to be very effective and are taking hold throughout the country and bear watching.  Hopefully we can get some study results from the public sector which will help us to better understand how far reaching the success is.

I didn’t see where we were comparing apple and oranges.  The two reports went a long ways to validate each other with both reporting return rates in the 70% range utilizing the old prison system and reporting 7 – 11% return rate utilizing the Missouri model.  These are impressive numbers.



...

[Whooter]

 What studies are you  referring to?  You speak as if you are very familiar with the industry.  Am I correct or incorrect Whooter?

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.



...

[Anonymous]

 What studies are you  referring to?  You speak as if you are very familiar with the industry.  Am I correct or incorrect Whooter?

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.
...

Can you elaborate on your role in the industry?  

[Whooter]

 What studies are you  referring to?  You speak as if you are very familiar with the industry.  Am I correct or incorrect Whooter?

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.
...

Can you elaborate on your role in the industry?  

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]

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 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.

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.

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…

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

You answered your own question.

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.

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

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.



...