What Type of Kids "Succeeded" in Behrens Study?

[Pile of shit]

Yep, we have heard that before.  Give spammy Danny twenty minutes he'll be at it again.  WOW!!!

[Whooter]

These final results indicated that adolescents who
had lower levels of psycho-social symptoms at admission (adolescent report), the absence of a
mood disorder, a positive experience in the program, a sense that their problems had improved,
and parents who were satisfied with the program were more likely to report positive outcomes at
discharge from residential treatment.

Well, there goes the "programs help kids with severe problems - too severe for local treatment" angle.

I think this is a really good point.
Kids with severe problems will not do well in these programs and will probably be released.  The kids who are most likely to succeed would be those who had the lower levels of problems (which makes sense).... the ones with the more difficult issues have a lower likelihood of succeeding.



...

[Troll Control]

Kids with severe problems will not do well in these programs and will probably be released.

Why would they be accepted in the first place?  Just to collect a few checks until they become a handful?  Why no screening of placements?

Also, Ms. Behrens released them from her data sample as well in order to scrub the results clean.  Not exactly the way scientists behave, eh?  No wonder this work was never reviewed or published.

[Whooter]

Kids with severe problems will not do well in these programs and will probably be released.

Why would they be accepted in the first place?  Just to collect a few checks until they become a handful?  Why no screening of placements?

Also, Ms. Behrens released them from her data sample as well in order to scrub the results clean.  Not exactly the way scientists behave, eh?  No wonder this work was never reviewed or published.

good question. They lose money on the kids they place and then end up leaving.  When a kid enters a program they budget and project earnings based on a 12 to 16 month stay and if the kid leaves then they realize a financial loss.

They screen the kids the best they can.  My daughter was required to be tested prior to acceptance and sometimes they just mis diagnose kids.  The kid enters the program and just doesn't fit in.  Instead of keeping the kid on and collecting money from the parents they release him back.  Its the right thing to do in my opinion.  
I think the study was clear that they didn't include these kids in the data set.  The reason they note it is so people can understand the population which was studied.  If they included the kids that were released then that would be noted also.

If they can improve on their acceptance criteria and reduce their rejection rate well below 8% they would be more efficient as a program.



...

[Troll Control]

Just to be clear, 8% is not a "rejection rate."  It's the percentage of kids that they willingly accept and then later can't handle.

I also disagree that they lose money on these kids.  They're clocking over $5k/month per kid and not even providing treatment.  That's $5k or more per month for babysitting and/or locking up kids.  So even if they pay some cromagnon staff member $25k/per year, they'd make out like a bandit even if they had to use one on one enforcement techniques.

Plus, you claim their budget numbers infer that the kids will be there 12-16 months, but even this crappy study shows they only average 8.6 months - almost no kids stay for the time Aspen wants them to stay.  

They obviously know this, so it appears they're taking inappropriate placements to make up for losses.

[Whooter]

Just to be clear, 8% is not a "rejection rate."  It's the percentage of kids that they willingly accept and then later can't handle.

I also disagree that they lose money on these kids.  They're clocking over $5k/month per kid and not even providing treatment.  That's $5k or more per month for babysitting and/or locking up kids.  So even if they pay some cromagnon staff member $25k/per year, they'd make out like a bandit even if they had to use one on one enforcement techniques.

Plus, you claim their budget numbers infer that the kids will be there 12-16 months, but even this crappy study shows they only average 8.6 months - almost no kids stay for the time Aspen wants them to stay.  

They obviously know this, so it appears they're taking inappropriate placements to make up for losses.

I call it "Rejection rate" and/or "fall out".  I understand you disagree, and thats okay,  but I see it as a loss.  Anytime you take on a commitment for 8 months or 16 months (depending on the program) and the child stays less it is a loss and missed opportunity.

If for example they have an open bed and just want to fill it for a few months and take a parents money, well then that would not be a loss.  But any business plan would reject this , they would want to contract , lay off some staff and moth ball the bed rather than fill it for a few weeks.. especially with a kid that doesn’t fit in and may be disruptive.

The ideal situation is to properly screen the children and parents for those who will fill a peer group and run the full time.  This way they can predict their expenses and staff payroll.



...

[Troll Control]

That's funny.  Spoken like a person who has never seen the inside of a program business office...

Mothball an empty bed?  You're unhinged.  The program motto is "Heads in beds and asses in chairs."  I've heard this verbatim many times.  Empty beds means empty accounts.  That's definitley not how they operate.

The ideal situation is to properly screen the children and parents for those who will fill a peer group and run the full time.

Unfortunately I've seen that this is not remotely true.  They want the kids to be in a "forming" peer group as long as possible so they can tell the parents they haven't started the program yet and that it will be few extra months until they finish it.

[Whooter]

That's funny.  Spoken like a person who has never seen the inside of a program business office...

Mothball an empty bed?  You're unhinged.  The program motto is "Heads in beds and asses in chairs."  I've heard this verbatim many times.  Empty beds means empty accounts.  That's definitley not how they operate.

Its okay if you disagree,DJ, I happen to know differently.  This may have been the way in the programs you worked in.

I have seen the screening process and seen kids being rejected and the program moved forward with a lighter peer group.  They could have easily accepted one of those other kids for a few months until they filled the slot, but they didnt.



...

[Troll Control]

That's funny.  Spoken like a person who has never seen the inside of a program business office...

Mothball an empty bed?  You're unhinged.  The program motto is "Heads in beds and asses in chairs."  I've heard this verbatim many times.  Empty beds means empty accounts.  That's definitley not how they operate.

Its okay if you disagree,DJ, I happen to know differently.  This may have been the way in the programs you worked in.

I have seen the screening process and seen kids being rejected and the program moved forward with a lighter peer group.  They could have easily accepted one of those other kids for a few months until they filled the slot, but they didnt.

And, finally, once again, the truth comes out.  

Now where would Whooter, "Just a regular parent with no ties to the TTI," have seen the internal screening processes and selection cycles of programs?  How could he have been in the room when children were being evaluated, and seen the selection deliberations, I wonder?  

Wow.  Stunning admission there.  You can hear him saying "It might have been that way in programs you worked for DJ, but not the ones I work for.  Bravo.

Quoted For Truth, too.  That closes that issue.  Whooter admits working for programs.

[Whooter]

That's funny.  Spoken like a person who has never seen the inside of a program business office...

Mothball an empty bed?  You're unhinged.  The program motto is "Heads in beds and asses in chairs."  I've heard this verbatim many times.  Empty beds means empty accounts.  That's definitley not how they operate.

Its okay if you disagree,DJ, I happen to know differently.  This may have been the way in the programs you worked in.

I have seen the screening process and seen kids being rejected and the program moved forward with a lighter peer group.  They could have easily accepted one of those other kids for a few months until they filled the slot, but they didnt.

And, finally, once again, the truth comes out.  

Now where would Whooter, "Just a regular parent with no ties to the TTI," have seen the internal screening processes and selection cycles of programs?  How could he have been in the room when children were being evaluated, and seen the selection deliberations, I wonder?  

Wow.  Stunning admission there.  You can hear him saying "It might have been that way in programs you worked for DJ, but not the ones I work for.  Bravo.

Quoted For Truth, too.  That closes that issue.  Whooter admits working for programs.

lol, Jeesh, DJ, you really do have a thing for this whole Aspen employee spin.  I have explained this before.  There were a few kids at SUWS with my daughter who didnt get into ASR.  I spoke with the admissions director to ask if my daughter was accepted and how they determine this... long story short they dont accept kids if they dont think they will make the full term or have a history of violence etc.  As it turns out the peer group my daughter was in moved forward with 2 people short (2 empty beds).

So I know first hand how their screening process works.

[Troll Control]

Pure, unadulterated bologna.  You got pinched.  Took you a long time to slip up again since the "fiduciary duty" admission.  Yeah, maybe once is a mistake, but twice is a pattern...

[Whooter]

Kids with severe problems will not do well in these programs and will probably be released.

Why would they be accepted in the first place?  Just to collect a few checks until they become a handful?  Why no screening of placements?

Also, Ms. Behrens released them from her data sample as well in order to scrub the results clean.  Not exactly the way scientists behave, eh?  No wonder this work was never reviewed or published.

You raise a good question. They lose money on the kids they place and then end up leaving.  When a kid enters a program they budget and project earnings based on a 12 to 16 month stay and if the kid leaves then they realize a financial loss.

They screen the kids the best they can.  My daughter was required to be tested prior to acceptance and sometimes they just mis diagnose kids.  The kid enters the program and just doesn't fit in.  Instead of keeping the kid on and collecting money from the parents they release him back.  Its the right thing to do in my opinion.  
I think the study clearly spelled out the areas that didn't include these kids in the data set.  The reason they note it is so people can understand the population which was studied.  If they included the kids that were released then that would be noted also.  You need to read the tables carefully to understand which kids were included.

I think we can all agree, from a business standpoint, that  if a program can improve on their acceptance criteria and reduce their rejection rate well below 8% they would be more efficient as a program.



...

[Troll Control]

These final results indicated that adolescents who
had lower levels of psycho-social symptoms at admission (adolescent report), the absence of a
mood disorder, a positive experience in the program, a sense that their problems had improved,
and parents who were satisfied with the program were more likely to report positive outcomes at
discharge from residential treatment.

Well, there goes the "programs help kids with severe problems - too severe for local treatment" angle.

The kids who self-reported to have improved had no severe problems to begin with, no mood disorders and parents who were satisfied with their purchase.

So, the more or less "normal teens" showed improvement but the ones with real problems were pulled by their parents because they weren't improving or dropped from the program because they were accepted even though the program had no ability to help them (26% of participants).

Also keep in mind there has never been any follow up to determine if any of these results were lasting.  Previous research has shown severe degradation of results beginning immediately after discharge.

[Alvasin]

What they actually get from here that have to considered.Kids with severe problems will not do well in these programs and will probably be released.

[Whooter]

What they actually get from here that have to considered.Kids with severe problems will not do well in these programs and will probably be released.

Being released is not good for the schools success rate.  That is why the schools are getting more and more picky on who they accept into the program.  The better schools chose kids which they feel will succeed, move on to college etc.  Most schools dont want to take kids who are violent, low IQ, or have mental disorders because that will hurt their success rate and loser their chances of attracting the more affluent families who pay out of pocket with kids who have a higher chance of succeeding.



...