Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > The Troubled Teen Industry

Behrens Study vs. ASTART Debate thread

<< < (5/8) > >>

psy:

--- Quote from: "Whooter" ---the programs themselves are not designed to be abusive as you have indicated.
--- End quote ---

No.  They're often not intended to be.  Malice or greed sometimes enters into the equation but it's not a requirement.  Many of these programs are created by people who are merely following what they were taught.  They experienced something they considered to be positive in the program they were in (as staff, participant, or both), and they decide to carry on that experience to others.  Often they believe they have a solution that is superior to psychology, to psychiatry -- to any sort of science.  They have the one true cure to all varieties of mental/social ills and it's their goal to bring it to all who need it, especially the children who in turn can bring the grand vision to others.

You see it all the time with religion, or with cults.  Evidence is not necessary and when it exists it's only to pander to those who demand it, and only so much as is necessary to obfuscate, to confuse, to keep the grand vision from any interference and provide it with a front of legitimacy to the uninitiated.  To me that's what these studies are.  Nothing more.  Of course you have to wonder what happens to the fundamentalist who is presented with hard evidence that their own methods do not work.

It reminds me of a bunch of Scientologists who once attempted to prove Hubbard's techniques to be scientifically valid using the scientific method.  Needless to say, they were all declared "supressive persons" for their efforts.  Not all of them lost their "faith", however (and ended up in the Free Zone if I recall).  In the industry I have to wonder what a program director who found out his methods didn't work would do.  A fundamentalist loses his faith and is confronted with the question: do I fake it and reap the benefits I've grown accustomed to -- perhaps trying to change things so they do work, do i deny the results of the study in the face of all the evidence, or do I admit defeat and leave?

My feeling is most on top choose the former -- often isolated from the results of what they've done.  Most of the boots on the ground, on the other hand, give up and leave after realizing all their efforts to treat kids and spread the grand vision was for naught, and that it might have actually done more harm than good.  I'd wager this is a good part of why the "grunt" staff turnover in so many programs is so high.  Eventually the facts on the ground that "shit just isn't working" becomes too much to ignore.  In the program I was in I witnessed two separate staff members expressing just this sentiment out loud.  One left.  One who was higher up attempted to change things.

Based on what I saw when returning later to survey the place, I don't think she was able to change much.  Perhaps she realized by changing the structure laid out by the founding fathers of theses systems, the thought reform environment would cease to function.  It's a bit like trying to redesign a car without even a basic understanding of mechanics.  Those who are able to manage, however, by comprehending the totality of the system -- those are the sociopaths.  They exist, but by and large I think most programs are rife with normal, misguided, people who are just trying to do what they can to help kids.  As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

blombrowski:
"Designed to be abusive" might not be the right terminology - the intent in most programs is not to abuse.  However, my hypothesis is that the CEDU influenced programs are designed in such a way that it should be expected to cause harm.

Lifesteps, raps, etc. were designed to be stressful.  If I take a group of a hundred random people and prepare them for a marathon exactly the same way, some people are going to be successful and be in the best shape of their life.  Some people are going to finish the marathon, but have permanent knee damage.  And probably at least one person will suffer a fatal heart attack, either before, during, or after the marathon.  

The people for whom the CEDU process is successful become its advocates (starting or working in programs, becoming educational consultants, fundraising for the industry).  The people for whom it was not successful are generally silenced (at least until this forum was developed).  It doesn't take away the fact that anyone with a modicum of knowledge about psychology should have known that the CEDU process was likely to cause harm in some of the people who were served by it.

To Mike's point, whether forcing this stress upon a person in an effort to change their behavior, even if objectively it was in their own best interest is an ethical dilemma that I don't care to engage in.

What does matter to me, is exposing that these negative outcomes are real, that they exist, and if nothing else raising the bar in what the public considers to be a good outcome.  

Kids were dying in programs, not because they were merely accidents, but because there was a pattern of staff not taking health complaints seriously because youth were viewed as being manipulative as a baseline.  I hope that it finally got through to people that, deaths such as these were not acceptable, and that the culture of the industry has changed to at least assume that potential life-threatening conditions are real, before assuming the kid is lying.  3 1/2 years without a parent-choice industry program death.  I sincerely hope that it's not a fluke, and it's result of programs looking at their practices and making the programs safer.  The industry had for years tried to make it seem that deaths were rare compared to other physical activities, and minimize the danger.  Pressure by advocates has changed the calculus to where a program death, particularly one caused by neglect, can put a program out of business.  

Similarly, there have been programs that have recognized that the transition from program back to community is challenging, and that there are many youth that experience a J-curve, (I would argue that it's more like a backwards-J curve or at least a U-curve), so a number of programs have developed some kind of after-care program.  The presence of these after-care programs has led to the occasional use of them as preventative-care programs, keeping youth from going into programs to begin with.  

The industry takes a strictly capitalist, individualist, parents' rights model of treatment.  If we assume a highly transparent system (of which the industry is still very opaque, but not nearly as opaque as it was many years ago), where the customer and the consumer are the same (this will never be the case), this model should be expected to lead to good outcomes on it's own - as individuals will cease purchasing a product that they know doesn't work.  This is not an industry where we would expect the free-market to work.  On the other hand, CAFETY for instance, bends socialist, collectivist, youth rights perspective. We can debate ideology, and never get anywhere.  Or we can debate actual outcomes.  What we might be saying here that complicates things, is that the outcomes that matter to the customer (compliant, law-abiding, college educated) are different than the resulting outcomes to the consumer (constantly anxious, loss of identity, loss of community).

First we have to make the point that the internal outcomes that the person who experiences a program, actually exists.  Then the industry has to figure out if they can achieve the first set of outcomes without the second set of outcomes.  Then they have to figure out if it's profitable to do so.

Whooter:

--- Quote from: "blombrowski" ---"Designed to be abusive" might not be the right terminology - the intent in most programs is not to abuse.  However, my hypothesis is that the CEDU influenced programs are designed in such a way that it should be expected to cause harm.

Lifesteps, raps, etc. were designed to be stressful.  If I take a group of a hundred random people and prepare them for a marathon exactly the same way, some people are going to be successful and be in the best shape of their life.  Some people are going to finish the marathon, but have permanent knee damage.  And probably at least one person will suffer a fatal heart attack, either before, during, or after the marathon.
--- End quote ---

I like that analogy better myself


--- Quote ---The people for whom the CEDU process is successful become its advocates (starting or working in programs, becoming educational consultants, fundraising for the industry).  The people for whom it was not successful are generally silenced (at least until this forum was developed).  It doesn't take away the fact that anyone with a modicum of knowledge about psychology should have known that the CEDU process was likely to cause harm in some of the people who were served by it.

To Mike's point, whether forcing this stress upon a person in an effort to change their behavior, even if objectively it was in their own best interest is an ethical dilemma that I don't care to engage in.
--- End quote ---

I think the industry has to get better at screening individuals which will do well in a program.  For example, Aspergers kids would suffer inside one of these places and never get anything positive out of it.


--- Quote ---What does matter to me, is exposing that these negative outcomes are real, that they exist, and if nothing else raising the bar in what the public considers to be a good outcome.
--- End quote ---
It isnt natural to expose ones dirty laundry or talk about the failures that one has encountered.  Its not good for business, but it doesn't mean they don't care.  


--- Quote ---Kids were dying in programs, not because they were merely accidents, but because there was a pattern of staff not taking health complaints seriously because youth were viewed as being manipulative as a baseline.  I hope that it finally got through to people that, deaths such as these were not acceptable, and that the culture of the industry has changed to at least assume that potential life-threatening conditions are real, before assuming the kid is lying.  3 1/2 years without a parent-choice industry program death.  I sincerely hope that it's not a fluke, and it's result of programs looking at their practices and making the programs safer.  The industry had for years tried to make it seem that deaths were rare compared to other physical activities, and minimize the danger.  Pressure by advocates has changed the calculus to where a program death, particularly one caused by neglect, can put a program out of business.  
--- End quote ---

I was tracking Death rates in programs vs the public school system for years and posted them here on fornits periodically and it is encouraging that the TTI has seen safer times.  I think awareness and training has a lot to do with the decrease in deaths within the programs.


--- Quote ---Similarly, there have been programs that have recognized that the transition from program back to community is challenging, and that there are many youth that experience a J-curve, (I would argue that it's more like a backwards-J curve or at least a U-curve), so a number of programs have developed some kind of after-care program.  The presence of these after-care programs has led to the occasional use of them as preventative-care programs, keeping youth from going into programs to begin with.  
--- End quote ---

This was a big issue with me at one time.  My daughter did not transition as easily as I would have liked and a more gradual hand-off from program to home life would have prevented a lot of problems and heartache on her part.  They have greatly improved in this area probably due to feed back from parents like myself.


--- Quote ---The industry takes a strictly capitalist, individualist, parents' rights model of treatment.  If we assume a highly transparent system (of which the industry is still very opaque, but not nearly as opaque as it was many years ago), where the customer and the consumer are the same (this will never be the case), this model should be expected to lead to good outcomes on it's own - as individuals will cease purchasing a product that they know doesn't work.  This is not an industry where we would expect the free-market to work.  On the other hand, CAFETY for instance, bends socialist, collectivist, youth rights perspective. We can debate ideology, and never get anywhere.  Or we can debate actual outcomes.  What we might be saying here that complicates things, is that the outcomes that matter to the customer (compliant, law-abiding, college educated) are different than the resulting outcomes to the consumer (constantly anxious, loss of identity, loss of community).

First we have to make the point that the internal outcomes that the person who experiences a program, actually exists.  Then the industry has to figure out if they can achieve the first set of outcomes without the second set of outcomes.  Then they have to figure out if it's profitable to do so.
--- End quote ---

The industry has to continue to do a better job and continue to improve if it is to keep and/or expand its market base.  The industry needs to attract outside agencies willing and interested enough to review their procedures, conduct further studies mirror their polices etc. so that they get more visibility and grow.



...

Whooter:

--- Quote from: "psy" ---
  Most of the boots on the ground, on the other hand, give up and leave after realizing all their efforts to treat kids and spread the grand vision was for naught, and that it might have actually done more harm than good.  I'd wager this is a good part of why the "grunt" staff turnover in so many programs is so high.  Eventually the facts on the ground that "shit just isn't working" becomes too much to ignore.  In the program I was in I witnessed two separate staff members expressing just this sentiment out loud.  One left.  One who was higher up attempted to change things.

Based on what I saw when returning later to survey the place, I don't think she was able to change much.  Perhaps she realized by changing the structure laid out by the founding fathers of theses systems, the thought reform environment would cease to function.  It's a bit like trying to redesign a car without even a basic understanding of mechanics.  Those who are able to manage, however, by comprehending the totality of the system -- those are the sociopaths.  They exist, but by and large I think most programs are rife with normal, misguided, people who are just trying to do what they can to help kids.  As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
--- End quote ---

I saw things a little differently.  The turn over rate is high because of the stress, long hours and dedication needed to make these programs successful.  I think if we were to measure the number of staff who watched these kids "to the end" and saw their growth at graduation, the number of staff who signed up for another group would be high.  All the staff that I met wanted to pick up a new peer group and start again.  Witnessing these kids transition and get reunited with their families was something they wanted to do again.  Some could not because of commitments to graduate school, career path obligations etc.



...

Pile of Dead Kids:

--- Quote from: "blombrowski" ---3 1/2 years without a parent-choice industry program death.
--- End quote ---

http://wiki.fornits.com/index.php?title=Victims

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page