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.
...