Vice article on The Troubled Teen Industry

[Whooter]

I'm surprised the industry hasn't tried to buy and pay for more studies given the Miller hearing in which MIller verbally slapped around the NATSAP flunkie Jan Moss on CSPAN. She  just sort of sat there and looked silly while not really being able to respond.

I recall them having that horridly flawed Beherens study that was funded by Aspen, no compromised ethics there of course.. pbbbtt.. lol.

NATSAP really doesnt have any power over the industry.  The Aspen study was solid as I remember.  It was overseen by a third party and showed about an 80% success rate in some areas.



...

[psy]

Overseen by a third party?   Paid for by Aspen, you mean.  There are plenty of problems with that "study".  So many, in fact, that I thought you had long ago given up on defending it.  Here's a detailed thread on the topic (of which there are many).  Let's keep discussion of the Behrens study to that thread, if we can, as it's closer to the topic than this thread.  Far too many threads have been derailed talking about that study.

[Whooter]

 But most of the harm that those in this community have experienced are context specific.  I think we have to admit that there are some interventions that may have harmed us, that have actually helped others - and that the help and impact are real (leaving aside the question of whether they could have been helped in another way).  But on the flipside, there should be some recognition by those who work in the industry, that there are interventions that they use that are likely to cause harm should they be used on the wrong person.  Given the difficulty that even child protection specialists have with discerning the truth when a parent says one thing and a child says another, it's hard to believe that even in the best of circumstances that a parent will always be a reliable communicator of a child's needs and situation.

Good point, Blombrowski,Personally I maintain that many of these programs should only be used as a last resort.  A time when all other local options have been exhausted.  I agree that many kids do not do well in these programs because they are not suited for them.  I think the programs have evolved over time to better recognize which kids will most likely be successful and which will probably not.  I know for certain that there were many kids who were rejected by ASR because they were not a good fit.. too aggressive, running away etc. If the programs would submit to a 3rd party sign off I think this would further screen out kids who should not be there.



...