Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Troubled Teen Industry => Topic started by: Anonymous on June 07, 2006, 07:43:00 PM
-
At least one ?regular? ?around here? asserts that wilderness programs (among other teen therapeutic programs) are harmful, and have never been shown to be effective. In particular, the poster wrote (on 6/6) it ?is research-proven ineffective through clinical study and the results are incontrovertible?. That poster is flat-out wrong! Period.
Anyone who holds the view that they can be good for some adolescents is told by the poster, in its kindest form, that they have not done adequate research. That same ?regular? also has claimed that no decent research has shown good effects from wilderness programs, and that studies that are not inconclusive ?show? or ?prove? that they are harmful. The poster also advised a search of the matter on a major search engine, as if it would produce results supporting his/her position.
Using the search subject ?(?wilderness program? OR ?wilderness therapy?) effectiveness (study OR research)? on two major search engines produced a large number of sites ? as expected. The top 50 or so on each (by computer-assessed relevance) covered around 40 or more studies or reports. NONE of those reports indicated wilderness programs had negative effects. (One did note that there have been injuries and fatalities, largely due to inadequately supervised operations, but those issues, while legitimate concerns for parents and operators, go to supervision and control, not the essentials of the wilderness therapy process.) Some of the reports reached no conclusion due to data issues, and a few found no impact. However, the greatest number by type of report indicated positive value from wilderness therapy programs.
In fact, one report prepared at UCLA in 2003 said, in part: ?Research has overwhelmingly confirmed that wilderness therapy is a successful treatment for adolescent populations and may be more successful than traditional treatment programs. (Cason & Gillis, 1994; Hans, 2000; Hattie, Marsh, Neill, Richards, Garry, 1997; Sheen and Denhol, 1997; Williams, 2000).
I?m still unable to find the responsible research that shows the opposite. The poster claims to have ?pointed out many, many sources to research studies, ??. I found the research studies from many sources, but still not those she/he seems to find, so I guess they are well hidden. All I do find are assertions, generally in this venue, that the evidence is negative, but still not that alleged ?evidence?.
Frankly, I was surprised to find as much positive as I did, and was also surprised to have found zip (as in nada, zero, nothing) evidencing the reverse.
I?d not claim every ?troubled? kid should be sent to a wilderness program. And, for those who well might benefit, I?d not recommend every program. In fact, some programs could be poor choices for some kids, while other programs could be great; it is not ?one size fits all?.
It is unlikely that the ?regular? poster will change tunes, and is likely to continue to use unsupported arguments to justify his/her own views and look to put down those who hold otherwise. But at least here there are a half-dozen findable references, and not an ?I?ve done it before, and if you can?t find it I want you to try harder? putdown. If repeating the references is so tedious, why not just have a standard ?refer to post xyz.123? so folks don?t have to search for something that doesn?t seem to be there, or at least is not very visible?
-
Please post the links to the studies and reports you claim are evidence that these programs are good for kids.
-
No evidence.
No links.
Not even a username.
I call troll.
-
Wow, I just did the same search and didn't find any real evidence (from actually independent sources) that these places work...
-
here are 5 of the papers, including a link on one of them. sorry, digging for links is not so rewarding, but your local library might be able to provide you copies through an online research service - at least some libraries in the northern plains do.
Cason, D., & Gillis, H. L. (1994). A meta-analysis of outdoor adventure programming
with adolescents. The Journal of Experiential Education, 17, 40-47
Hans, T. A. (2000). A meta-analysis of the effects of adventure programming on locus of
control. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 30, 33-52; http://www.wilderdom.com/pdf/Hans2000Ad ... alysis.pdf (http://www.wilderdom.com/pdf/Hans2000AdventureTherapyLOCMetaanalysis.pdf)
Hattie, J., Marsh, H. W., Neill, J. T., & Richards, G. E. (1997). Adventure education and
Outward Bound: Out-of class experiences that make a lasting difference. Review of Educational
Research, 67, 43-87
Sveen, R. L., & Denholm C. J. (1997). Testing the theoretical fit of an abseiling harness:
A study of an Australian primary and secondary prevention program. The Journal of Primary
Prevention, 18, 213-225
Williams, B. (2000). The treatment of adolescent populations: An institutional vs. a
wilderness setting. Journal of Child and Adolescent Group Therapy, 10, 47-56
-
On 2006-06-07 16:56:00, Anonymous wrote:
"No evidence.
No links.
Not even a username.
I call troll."
well ... now you have the citations, including one link and directions for others (or do your own search on the title)
as for username, it rather seems that using one would expose ones mailbox to hatemail. a "simple" matter of limiting garbage.
-
On 2006-06-07 17:02:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Wow, I just did the same search and didn't find any real evidence (from actually independent sources) that these places work..."
Get a new computer, use a new search engine, or read down more than two listings.
Also, please explain why the argument of research "proving" negative impact isn't challenged for proof of existance - because that surely isn't there.
-
Almost none of those studies are *controlled* (no control group) and if you actually read the papers, not just their listings, you will find that most of them don't look at *outcomes* in terms of how the kids behaved afterwards.
There's lots of theory and lots of anecdote, basically, but almost no objective, measurable outcomes like less drug use (by drug test, not just parent report) or fewer arrests.
If you actually read the meta-analysis, which is online fulltext somewhere, you will find in it a statement to the effect of, the better methodology the study had, the less effect the programs did.
Not a good sign!!!
If you look at the OBHIC "study" -- which, again, had no control group and was not published in a peer-reviewed journal (and look at where the studies were published-- most are not scientific journals but wilderness publications)-- you will find an enormous self-selection bias.
The Justice Department reviewed the wilderness literature in 1998 and found the same thing as it found for boot camps, basically. Either the wilderness did worse or there was no significant difference or the methodology was so bad, you couldn't draw any real conclusions:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/works/chapter9.htm (http://www.ncjrs.gov/works/chapter9.htm)
-
Hmm. Who are you going to believe? Self-selected, hopelessly biased anti-studies published in places that are rather akin to Nintendo plumping for its own games in Nintendo Power...
...or the Department of Justice?
Yeah, that's what I thought too.
Owned.
Next troll please.
-
On 2006-06-07 16:43:00, Anonymous wrote:
"At least one �regular� �around here� asserts that wilderness programs (among other teen therapeutic programs) are harmful, and have never been shown to be effective. In particular, the poster wrote (on 6/6) it �is research-proven ineffective through clinical study and the results are incontrovertible�. That poster is flat-out wrong! Period.
Anyone who holds the view that they can be good for some adolescents is told by the poster, in its kindest form, that they have not done adequate research. That same �regular� also has claimed that no decent research has shown good effects from wilderness programs, and that studies that are not inconclusive �show� or �prove� that they are harmful. The poster also advised a search of the matter on a major search engine, as if it would produce results supporting his/her position.
Using the search subject �(�wilderness program� OR �wilderness therapy�) effectiveness (study OR research)� on two major search engines produced a large number of sites � as expected. The top 50 or so on each (by computer-assessed relevance) covered around 40 or more studies or reports. NONE of those reports indicated wilderness programs had negative effects. (One did note that there have been injuries and fatalities, largely due to inadequately supervised operations, but those issues, while legitimate concerns for parents and operators, go to supervision and control, not the essentials of the wilderness therapy process.) Some of the reports reached no conclusion due to data issues, and a few found no impact. However, the greatest number by type of report indicated positive value from wilderness therapy programs.
In fact, one report prepared at UCLA in 2003 said, in part: �Research has overwhelmingly confirmed that wilderness therapy is a successful treatment for adolescent populations and may be more successful than traditional treatment programs. (Cason & Gillis, 1994; Hans, 2000; Hattie, Marsh, Neill, Richards, Garry, 1997; Sheen and Denhol, 1997; Williams, 2000).
I�m still unable to find the responsible research that shows the opposite. The poster claims to have �pointed out many, many sources to research studies, ��. I found the research studies from many sources, but still not those she/he seems to find, so I guess they are well hidden. All I do find are assertions, generally in this venue, that the evidence is negative, but still not that alleged �evidence�.
Frankly, I was surprised to find as much positive as I did, and was also surprised to have found zip (as in nada, zero, nothing) evidencing the reverse.
I�d not claim every �troubled� kid should be sent to a wilderness program. And, for those who well might benefit, I�d not recommend every program. In fact, some programs could be poor choices for some kids, while other programs could be great; it is not �one size fits all�.
It is unlikely that the �regular� poster will change tunes, and is likely to continue to use unsupported arguments to justify his/her own views and look to put down those who hold otherwise. But at least here there are a half-dozen findable references, and not an �I�ve done it before, and if you can�t find it I want you to try harder� putdown. If repeating the references is so tedious, why not just have a standard �refer to post xyz.123� so folks don�t have to search for something that doesn�t seem to be there, or at least is not very visible?
"
You give youreslf away with your inappropriate overuse of quaotation marks! :wstupid:
-
Your mom gives herself away with her inappropriate overuse of quotation marks!
-
No form of therapy should subject kids to the risk of death. If so much money and power weren't shoring up the Wilderness industry it would be gone, along with rebirthing and all the other risky experimental "therapies".
If these children could speak, what might they say about wilderness 'therapy'?
Eric S. Schibley
Bernard Reefer
Robert Zimmerman
Charles Lucas
James Lamb
Robert D. Erwin
Lyle Foodroy
Tammy Edmiston
Leon Anger
Mario Cano
Danny Lewis
Michelle Sutton
Kristen Chase
John Vincent Garrison
Shawn Diaz
Ryan McCandless
David Sellers
Paul Choy
Unnamed San Francisco Youth
Aaron Bacon
Shinaul McGraw
Lorenzo Johnson
Carlos Ruiz
Dawnne Takeuchi
Gina Score
Eddie Lee
Michael Wiltsie
Michael Ibarra
Joseph D. Bolt
Katherine Lank
Erica Harvey
Ian August
Charles Moody
Corey Baines
Travis Parker
-
On 2006-06-07 18:16:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
Almost none of those studies are *controlled* (no control group) and if you actually read the papers, not just their listings, you will find that most of them don't look at *outcomes* in terms of how the kids behaved afterwards.
There's lots of theory and lots of anecdote, basically, but almost no objective, measurable outcomes like less drug use (by drug test, not just parent report) or fewer arrests.
If you actually read the meta-analysis, which is online fulltext somewhere, you will find in it a statement to the effect of, the better methodology the study had, the less effect the programs did.
Not a good sign!!!
If you look at the OBHIC "study" -- which, again, had no control group and was not published in a peer-reviewed journal (and look at where the studies were published-- most are not scientific journals but wilderness publications)-- you will find an enormous self-selection bias.
The Justice Department reviewed the wilderness literature in 1998 and found the same thing as it found for boot camps, basically. Either the wilderness did worse or there was no significant difference or the methodology was so bad, you couldn't draw any real conclusions:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/works/chapter9.htm (http://www.ncjrs.gov/works/chapter9.htm)
"
1 SOME of the studies, if not necessarily all those cited before, did have controls.
2 If you actually read the papers, outcomes are discussed, and some actually report post-program "condition" at 3, 6 and 12 months - even longer
3 I'm not big on "somewhere you will find a statement to the effect of", preferring the actual statement in such cases
4 Gee ... are the Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, or Journal of Child and Adolescent Group Therapy "wilderness publications"?
5 The justice department review you referenced lumped boot camps together with wilderness programs, and judged boot camps effective, at least for adults! Three of four adolescent wilderness programs cited were state-run and of unknown type, duration, or even program design, so not such a hot job either. Still, even this report fails to show negative impact.
6 Not all reports on much of anything will have exactly the same conclusions, but on this subject, I still see none saying negative, and the greatest concentration saying positive. No, I've not read every word ever written on the subject, but have read perhaps a bit more than some would credit.
-
Oversight of youth-offender camps
often falls short
By Sam Stanton and Mareva Brown
Bee Staff Writers
(Published June 29, 1998)
AURORA, Colo. -- When California sent dozens of teenage felons to the Excelsior Youth Center, the state may have expected to hear about it from Colorado officials if something happened to any of the girls there.
But when a male staff member seduced one of the center's 169 girls, California officials never heard about it from Colorado authorities, according to the Colorado licensing caseworker assigned to oversee Excelsior. In fact, if California officials had asked, it is questionable whether they even would have been told about that incident of sexual abuse or any of the other three abuse allegations lodged against the center since 1995.
"We'd have to be careful about giving states abuse reports," said Fred Alderman, the Colorado licensing worker assigned to oversee Excelsior. If probation or social service workers call, "We usually tell them they (the homes) have a valid license or whatever," but make no mention of the number or nature of complaints lodged against the agency.
This is the massive hole in the system governing the roughly 1,000 boys and girls California sends to other states for juvenile reform.
While California has some of the strictest guidelines in the nation governing privately run juvenile programs, the state has no control and often no knowledge of what happens in centers beyond its borders. And recent history has shown that in some states there have been serious failings in how such programs are inspected and licensed, a three-month investigation by The Bee has found.
"Some people make the assumption that licensing is equal, and certainly it's an expectation, but it's far from being the case," said Ira M. Schwartz, dean of the University of Pennsylvania's School of Social Work and a member of VisionQuest's board of directors.
In Colorado, as in California, child abuse files are strictly confidential. It is UP TO THE PRIVATE FACILITY TO VOLUTEER INFORMATION to counties that send youths to it of any programs. Licensing reviews regarding abuse allegations, however, are a matter of public record as of 1996. But when Alderman was asked to produce the public file on four complaints about Excelsior -- considered by placing officers to be one of the nation's finer programs -- he could not find it.
Three allegations were found to be unsubstantiated; the fourth dealt with the staffer seducing the girl and was found to be true, according to Alderman, who read from a file he said was private. The staffer was fired but it is unclear what action, if any, Colorado took.
Colorado has had an especially rocky history of regulation.
In late April, state officials shut down the High Plains Desert Youth Center in Brush, Colo., after female staffers were found to be having sex with the youths they were supposed to supervise as well as providing the teenagers with beer and, at one point, a pornographic movie, according to the spokesman for Colorado's Department of Human Services. No California wards were housed there.
Staff members there also were using excessive force to restrain youths, according to Dwight Eisnach, spokesman for the department, which licenses and oversees such programs. He said there were 132 reports of child abuse at High Plains in February and another 121 in March, as compared with 187 reports for all of 1997 in a similar program.
"It seemed their staff was quick to use physical force," he said. "They went right from nothing to a four-point restraint on the floor on top of a kid's back. There was nothing in between."
Had High Plains been operating in California, it would have been allowed to use some restraints because it was a residential treatment program. Such programs operate under different guidelines than out-of-state detention programs, which technically are group homes. Restraints are not permitted in group homes in California.
Eisnach said that while state officials knew there were "chronic" problems with staff qualifications and training for at least two years before the program closure, Colorado's need for the 40 to 60 beds at High Plains Youth Center overrode regulators' concerns about youth safety.
"We always felt we didn't have a big hammer we could hold over their heads because we were so desperate for bed space," he said. "Had we taken our kids out in earlier years, we wouldn't have had anyplace else to go with them. So we were stuck between a rock and a hard place."
In December 1995, Illinois investigators warned Colorado about the High Plains facility after making an unannounced visit there and finding sexual offenders mixed with other residents in locked, six-bed dormitories, according to an Illinois regulators' report.
One youth had been serially raped for months, according to a report filed with the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services. When he pounded on the door for help late one night, a staff member told him to go back to bed, the report said.
Schwartz, who also serves as dean of the University of Pennsylvania's School of Social Work, finds Colorado's system particularly troubling.
"You bet it's a problem," he said. "The information ought to be broadly shared and made available to the media and to judges."
But there have also been troubling lapses in oversight elsewhere.
Investigators from Illinois who paid two unannounced visits four weeks apart to an Oklahoma sex offender treatment program in 1996 found filthy living conditions, gang graffiti on walls, evidence of inappropriate sexual behavior and questionable documentation by staff of suspicious incidents.
An Oklahoma investigator visited the same program between the two visits and noted none of those problems, according to an Illinois Department of Children and Family Services report.
"In every case where we have discovered substandard programs in out-of-state facilities, we invariably find that the in-state agencies charged with monitoring and licensing responsibilities have failed (often miserably) to do their jobs," Ron Davidson, director of the University of Illinois, Chicago, Mental Health Policy Program, wrote to Illinois state officials.
In Nevada, Rite of Passage houses 283 California boys on two American Indian reservations in the high desert and a smattering of group homes in Nevada and California, at a cost of roughly $11.8 million annually.
Because the camps are on Indian land, they are exempt from oversight by Nevada's Division of Children and Family Services Administration. Instead, tribal representatives inspect both sites.
Child abuse allegations are referred to the state's division of children and family services and they are "strictly confidential," said Nancy Angres, Nevada's chief deputy attorney general. If charges are filed with county prosecutors, they become public in the courthouse at the county seat.
Rite of Passage officials refused to allow The Bee to see their camps, saying that "based on the general climate in the state of California" in the wake of the March 2 death of Nicholaus Contreraz at the Arizona Boys Ranch, they feared public scrutiny, according to Suzanne Schulze, special projects coordinator.
And Rite of Passage has had its share of bad publicity.
In 1986, a Contra Costa probation officer pulled two youths from a camp and filed child abuse complaints charging they were neglected and deprived of adequate clothing and shelter, according to a General Accounting Office review of the situation.
Two U.S. representatives -- from Nevada and California -- demanded a federal probe to see if there was adequate oversight and if it was proper for federal money to help defray county costs. Ultimately, the camp was allowed to remain open, but it has since added permanent buildings and heaters.
Six years later, a SAN FRANCISCO YOUTH FELL INTO A COMA DURING A RESTRAINT by two staff members after he allegedly didn't complete a required exercise routine, according to news accounts at the time. A lawsuit in the case has been sealed.
"He's a vegetable," said Jani Iwamoto. an attorney for the boy's family. "Western medicine can't do anything anymore."
Meanwhile, Larry Bolton, the chief counsel for California's Department of Social Services, has criticized Arizona's oversight agency for what he perceives as ineffective policing of the Arizona Boys Ranch. California had placed more of its juvenile offenders in Boys Ranch than in any other out-of-state facility, until Contreraz died and the state prohibited new placements.
Bolton said he is particularly uncomfortable with a practice that allows the Boys Ranch attorney to sit in when child abuse investigators interview staff, a practice that resulted from a lawsuit filed against the Arizona Department of Economic Security after Boys Ranch disagreed with 13 incidents of alleged abuse that DES substantiated in 1993 and 1994. The lawsuit claims investigators were incompetent.
Bolton also criticized DES for allowing Boys Ranch to decide whether to report abuse claims to the state. Instead, Boys Ranch was allowed for a time to report such incidents only to the juvenile's probation officer. Claims of abuse now are reported to both entities.
And Bolton raised questions about how complete the Boys Ranch disclosure is even today, two years after Arizona and the facility hammered out an operating agreement.
A comparison by The Bee of Arizona's licensing files on Boys Ranch and VisionQuest, both large, Arizona-based programs that deal with similar populations and take large numbers of California youth, show a wide disparity in what is reported to authorities.
VisionQuest appears to self-report every incident in which a child is harmed, from claims of physical abuse to scraped knees on the basketball court. The Arizona Boys Ranch files are not as detailed, but Thomas said the ranch reports what they are required to.
Other reports from the ranch center on items such as meal plans and how often the swimming pool is cleaned.
Bolton said that while California and Arizona laws do not differ significantly in forbidding abusive punishment, he sees vast differences in enforcement.
"Maybe we just view licensing as more proactive here," he said. "If I feel there's enough to sustain a licensing action, we will often shut the facility down before the (law enforcement) investigation is completed."
However, that diligence does not extend to out-of-state facilities.
A review by The Bee of the public licensing files in Arizona and Colorado, which oversee four private programs that house more than half of the delinquents that California places out of state, indicates that no state officials or any of 58 county probation departments has requested information on three of the four facilities within the past five years.
The lone exception is the Arizona Boys Ranch, about which several counties wrote letters of inquiry after three runaways claimed they were abused there in 1994. Alameda County subsequently pulled all of its wards out of Boys Ranch.
Were it not for a media firestorm and the unprecedented intervention of the state of California, it is unclear whether probation officers outside Sacramento County would have heard about the Contreraz death -- except through the grapevine.
Arizona Boys Ranch policy in case of death is to notify its state licensing body and the county that placed the youth.
That is why without strict oversight by other states, California is left to depend on individual county probation officers to monitor how their wards are being treated.
But probation officers are overworked and understaffed. Counties have been stretched thin by a decade of downsizing which, in most cases, has hit probation especially hard.
California's Department of Social Services, which technically approves the transfers of juvenile offenders to out-of-state facilities, takes no role in monitoring children elsewhere. Department officials don't even know for certain how many youths are out of state or where they are. In March, the agency conducted a telephone survey of county placements, but was unable to reach every county.
The result, say some child advocates, is that in an era of chronic overcrowding and diminished budgets, oversight takes a back seat to need.
"The programs aren't going to complain that they're not looked at carefully enough," said Loren Warboys, an attorney for the Youth Law Center in San Francisco.
"Probation isn't going to say they're not doing a good enough job," he said. "And nobody else knows what's happening."
Overextended caseworkers often visit out-of-state facilities less frequently than called for in their own policies.
When officers do come, they typically coordinate the agenda in advance with program administrators. Marketers of out-of-state programs say they regularly offer to fly out California officials and buy them meals.
Last month, Sacramento Juvenile Court Judge Kenneth G. Peterson was offered a plane ticket to see local youths graduate at Glen Mills Schools in Pennsylvania. He declined the ticket, deciding instead to use court funds to visit the site.
However, Sacramento's Probation Department accepts such freebies from Glen Mills twice a year, then pays its own way twice more annually, said Michael Elorduy, probation's chief deputy for placement. The practice of accepting free trips is under review.
Unannounced visits, which are supposed to be the hallmark of regulators, do happen. For instance, Sacramento County officials said they made several such visits this year, including one to the Arizona Boys Ranch. But they are the exception.
"Our visits are scheduled, they know we're coming," said Elorduy. But he argues that his officers' oversight is thorough because they ask probing questions.
And surprise visits are particularly difficult given the remote locations of many of the programs. But it is exactly that isolation that worries some advocates.
"Their chances of abuse go up dramatically," Warboys said. "And nobody knows until something horrible happens. Nobody gets access, nobody can visit. . . . It's a closed-door world."
http://www.sacbee.com/static/archive/ne ... 02_01.html (http://www.sacbee.com/static/archive/news/projects/guarding_kids/part02_01.html)
-
"after female staffers were found to be having sex with the youths they were supposed to supervise as well as providing the teenagers with beer and, at one point, a pornographic movie,"
Hey, now that's a program I can get behind! Where do I sign up?
-
On 2006-06-07 18:02:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2006-06-07 17:02:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Wow, I just did the same search and didn't find any real evidence (from actually independent sources) that these places work..."
Get a new computer, use a new search engine, or read down more than two listings.
Also, please explain why the argument of research "proving" negative impact isn't challenged for proof of existance - because that surely isn't there."
This one pertains to confrontational therapy.
http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/oct2004/od-15.htm (http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/oct2004/od-15.htm)
This one refers to bootcamps specifically but as we all know many of the same emotional, if not physical tactics are used in wilderness programs, emotional growth schools, BMs, RTCs etc. etc. etc.
http://www.nmha.org/children/justjuv/bootcamp.cfm (http://www.nmha.org/children/justjuv/bootcamp.cfm)
So, since these places are claiming the efficacy of their programs shouldn't the burden be on them to provide research that proves their methods? We shouldn't have to prove that it does damage (even though we clearly can) if you can't even prove it works at all.
-
I have been up against the controversy surrounding wilderness programs since my daughter, Michelle, died in one.
Wilderness programs are as good as the people selling them. It's a Buyer Beware, lucrative Industry.
There are those who will say a wilderness program saved their life. And, there are those who will say a wilderness program tarnished their life. It is my opinion the ones who had a good experience were "lucky." There are NO laws in place to protect the children. Well, I take it back, there are two federal laws that should protect children in wilderness programs, but they are not being enforced. There is NO screening process in place. The wilderness industry is known for being a one size fits all experience. The industry has earned the reputation of accepting any child, and their parents money. One has to ask themselves, "How much does it cost for lentils, beans, rice, oatmeal, raisins, etc." Why are these programs so expensive? The overhead is minimal.
I experienced firsthand what can go wrong within the wilderness experience. I know what to look out for now. It's too late for my daughter. It's not too late for others.
Who are these people who are out in the middle of the desert with the children? The counselor who was with my daughter filled out an application prior to employment. For position desired, he put...."slave." We later learned through our lawsuit discovery that the counselor who was 'sold' to us as a highly trained survival expert, was in fact an ex-felon.
When a California, Court-Adjudicated Youth, died in the Vision Quest program, Arizona, I began looking into this industry as well. I found the same fatal flaws existed in both privately owned lucrative industries. The only difference between the two is, how the child is sent, and where the money comes from.
In the privately owned Court-Adjudicated Industry, we the tax payers, and the state the child resides in fund the program. In the privately owned Wildernesss Program, insurance companies and the parents fund the program.
One has to ask, "how much do the counselors get paid to live out in the middle of the boonies for weeks on end with these children." Vision Quest is known for advertising in local newspapers for their hired help. I understand they pay their counselors minimum wage to travel with the wagon train. One has to ask, "what kind of help is willing to work for minimum wage and live out in the boonies." Vision Quest is known to have qualified teachers working with the youth. But, the so-called counselors have been known to abuse the children.
Where both entities fall short is with the level of expectation and quality of care.
All too often, transient, untrained, underqualified individuals are allowed to take children out into the desert for "treatment." Who's watching the children? Who's watching the industry?
The problem is, there is NO law to say what happened to these children is against the law. It's legal child abuse in the name of help and therapy. The wilderness/boot camp industry has earned the reputation that we are talking about on this thread. I believe the industry should stand up and be measured by supporting Congressman George Miller with the passing of bill 1738, to "End Institutionalized Child Abuse."
-
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... H5N9M1.DTL (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/02/12/INGHIH5N9M1.DTL)
-
Confrontational therapy, particularly of the type used in boot camps, is not the same thing as the approach used in many wilderness programs. Sure, some places may use it, but not all places are good. Also, at some level, confrontation is a part of life, if only at the very mild level of gently reminding someone of something they avoid or otherwise put off. That is quite different from an in-your-face shouting.
A generalized assertion that this talks about A but really pertains to D ought to be made more specific. What specific emotional and physical tactics of boot camps are used in the good wilderness programs, and in what way does use of them there differ from what a licensed mental health practitioner or school teacher might use?
"So, since these places are claiming the efficacy of their programs shouldn't the burden be on them to provide research that proves their methods?" BUT when they provide the research, you claim it is tainted since they provided or arranged for it. And for the research from the non-industry journals cited, I've not read a counter here.
"We shouldn't have to prove that it does damage (even though we clearly can) if you can't even prove it works at all." Same song! To the extent there is proof of anything, is would seem to be in the research papers, of which the few cited are so far awaiting a counter made with like reviewability. The poster whose assertions prompted the original entry in this thread said there was proof of damage from the therapeutic approach [which excludes accidental injuries just as schools provide phys.ed. classes even though kids might get hurt], but hasn't provided it in any recognizable comparable form.
The good programs in the industry are dominated by the idea that society as a whole has certain standards of expected conduct, and that clear expectations and an understanding that decisions have consequences are important. They also develop protections for staff and participants. Is the rule that you have to make a fire to have hot food harsh? Should program staff cook and serve all meals? And while pain may produce growth in some situations, it is hardly the underlying philosophy of good programs. Actually, the philosophy is more like removing someone from familiar surroundings will help them to open up and express themselves, and at the same time, self-esteem will grow from the accomplishments along the way.
And the 1998 article about Oversight of youth-offender camps often falls short is credible, but really doesn't address effectiveness of well-run wilderness programs.
SO ...
-
...SO, you're not naming names.
What ARE the good wilderness programs, if such things exist?
-
"And while pain may produce growth in some situations,"
No.
Don't fucking make me bring back Luke. I have a hard time posting as him, because if he really existed he would have beat your ass into the ground LONG AGO, but this kind of bullshit calls for him.
-
I liked Luke. I wouldn't mind seeing him around again. His imagination is fantastic.
-
On 2006-06-07 20:32:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2006-06-07 18:02:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2006-06-07 17:02:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Wow, I just did the same search and didn't find any real evidence (from actually independent sources) that these places work..."
Get a new computer, use a new search engine, or read down more than two listings.
Also, please explain why the argument of research "proving" negative impact isn't challenged for proof of existance - because that surely isn't there."
This one pertains to confrontational therapy.
http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/oct2004/od-15.htm (http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/oct2004/od-15.htm)
This one refers to bootcamps specifically but as we all know many of the same emotional, if not physical tactics are used in wilderness programs, emotional growth schools, BMs, RTCs etc. etc. etc.
http://www.nmha.org/children/justjuv/bootcamp.cfm (http://www.nmha.org/children/justjuv/bootcamp.cfm)
So, since these places are claiming the efficacy of their programs shouldn't the burden be on them to provide research that proves their methods? We shouldn't have to prove that it does damage (even though we clearly can) if you can't even prove it works at all."
The first link you provided, a summary press release of the NIH report on prevention of violence, never mentions confrontational therapy. Don't assume that this term is synonymous with the therapies mentioned in the NIH report.
In addition, the full NIH report was a summary of discussions about EXISTING research specific to preventing violence. The fact is, there are lots of position papers and propagandea pieces, but very few scientific studies.
The NIH panel members didn't perform any studies; they read and discussed existing reports and reached certain conclusions about them. No one mentions who provided their sources, or what the criteria for validation were.
The second item is about boot camps---which are not the same thing as wilderness programs at all. They don't look alike, and don't operate in the same way.
-
So, has anyone come up with any studies to prove the effectiveness of this type of "therapy"? We've provided links to two separate studies (actual research, nothing anecdotal). Did ya find anything yet?
And again, since you're the one claiming the efficacy the burden falls upon you to prove it, not us to disprove it (even though we have).
Confrontational therapy applied to kids in this manner with little to no training is inherently DANGEROUS.
-
On 2006-06-08 09:35:00, Anonymous wrote:
"...SO, you're not naming names.
What ARE the good wilderness programs, if such things exist?"
that is an invitation to set them up for attacks. most of the worst have received a good amount of coverage in this forum though, but it is clear that one unhappy camper will turn it into a condemnation, attracting mindless followers who will spout the same story, perhaps embellished. much the same happens with some political parties, where hoardes follow the party line withut independent assessment.
-
that is an invitation to set them up for attacks. most of the worst have received a good amount of coverage in this forum though, but it is clear that one unhappy camper will turn it into a condemnation, attracting mindless followers who will spout the same story, perhaps embellished. much the same happens with some political parties, where hoardes follow the party line withut independent assessment.
This is a bullshit copout.
If you don't have an answer, just say so. Why don't you provide the "independent assessment" to avoid the contrived "issue"? If there is none, again, just say so.
When we get down to the brass tacks, as usual, we have one opinion from one anonymous poster that programs are "good." There's no credibility in this type of backpeddling.
Are you going to skin your smokewagon or just whistle Dixie?
-
On 2006-06-08 10:48:00, Anonymous wrote:
"So, has anyone come up with any studies to prove the effectiveness of this type of "therapy"? We've provided links to two separate studies (actual research, nothing anecdotal). Did ya find anything yet?
And again, since you're the one claiming the efficacy the burden falls upon you to prove it, not us to disprove it (even though we have).
Confrontational therapy applied to kids in this manner with little to no training is inherently DANGEROUS."
the studies showing efficacy requested have already been identified.
if the two links you say were provided refer to the nih.gov and nmha.gov links, they refer to studies on confrontational therapy and boot camps, but not wilderness programs. at least one of them says its all the same approach, but it isn't, and they did not look at wilderness programs.
any why does the assertion that you've disproven anything keep popping up when you haven't shown that, and you won't even look at anything that says anything positive?
as for confrontational therapy being inherently dangerous, what does that have to do with the price of frankfurters?
-
Your mother has something to do with the price of frankfurters. :smile:
-
There are some independent studies in progress (people collecting data) but I have not found any completed independent studies myself. With that said there is a wilderness program that I have some first hand knowledge of and they have had very good results (In and of itself) although like most programs the success is partially dependent on follow thru and structuring a healthy environment following the wilderness program. The place I speak of is in North Carolina and calls itself ?SUWS of the Carolinas?. I would encourage any parent looking at wilderness programs to add this program to their search.
Some of their results are as follows:
Outcome Studies
Several research projects have documented the effectiveness of SUWS programs:
A study conducted one-year post-SUWS found that of students who continued therapeutic treatment:
88% showed significant improvement in Family Relationships
80% showed significant improvement in School
81% demonstrated a noticeable increase in Self-Esteem
Another study documented a 90% improvement in the sustained progress of students at therapeutic boarding schools following completion of SUWS.
Here is a link:
http://www.suwscarolinas.com/testimonials.htm (http://www.suwscarolinas.com/testimonials.htm)
Hope this helps
-
Hmm...ok, but one should beware of these "statistics" presented.
-
On 2006-06-08 11:41:00, Anonymous wrote:
and you won't even look at anything that says anything positive?
If you'd give me a fucking link to look at I'd be happy to. If you're just gonna continue to tell me that they've already been posted I won't.
as for confrontational therapy being inherently dangerous, what does that have to do with the price of frankfurters?"
It's OK. I didn't really expect you to get it.
-
To the poster who was claiming that the Justice Department review lumped wilderness and boot camps together, s/he obviously didn't read it very closely:
Here's the section on wilderness-- no lumping:
One type of program particularly popular during the late 1970s and early 1980s was the wilderness or outward bound-type programs. These programs emphasize physical challenge and demand that individuals excel beyond what they feel they can do. Winterdyk and Roesch report that they found well over one hundred wilderness programs for treating delinquent youths in North America in the early 1980s. Outcome evaluations have been extremely rare (Gendreau and Ross 1987). Recently, several other wilderness-type programs have been studied. The results are shown in Table 8. All of these programs consider themselves wilderness programs. Perhaps the most frequently cited study of this type of program in the VisionQuest study by Greenwood and Turner (1987). They examined the behavior of the juveniles during the six to 18 months after release from the program (controlling for prior arrests). Youth from VisionQuest had fewer rearrests than youth who had served time in a probation camp or who had refused to accept the VisionQuest placement and were placed in other programs. While the results appear positive, as noted on the table the research methodology makes it impossible to draw conclusions regarding the program's effectiveness.
In a more recent study, Deschenes, Greenwood and Marshall (1996) examined the Nokomis Challenge Program in the Michigan Department of Social Services. Nokomis was designed as an intensive treatment program for low to medium risk juveniles. The focus of the program was on relapse prevention. Male youth were expected to spend less time in the residential facility but a longer time in community treatment when compared with youth in the training schools. Findings (see Table 9-8) indicated that the Nokomis youth had more felony arrests after release than did the comparison (significant). It is important to note that the examination of the implementation of the program revealed that the aftercare phase of the program failed to provide many of the expected treatment programs. There was limited substance abuse treatment and control group youth had more family counseling than the treatment group.
Castellano and Soderstrom completed a study of the Spectrum program in Illinois. This wilderness program was modeled after outward bound. The thirty day course focuses on teaching wilderness survival and group living skills to pre-delinquent and delinquent juveniles. A comparison of recidivism rates indicated that 75 percent of the Spectrum participants were rearrested in the follow-up period compared with 62.6 percent of the matched comparison group (nonsignificant).
In a random assignment study, RAND researchers examined the effectiveness of the Paint Creek Youth Center (PCYC) in southern Ohio (Greenwood and Turner 1993). The program targeted youth convicted of serious felonies who were required to spend an average of almost a year in residential treatment. While the program was located in a rural setting, it would not be classified as a wilderness or challenge program because these activities were not a major component of the program. The distinguishing features of the PCYC were: small size, problem oriented focus, cognitive/behavioral methods, family group therapy and intensive community reintegration and aftercare. Youth were randomly assigned to either the PCYC or regular training schools. Their behavior in the community after release was compared. The design was weakened because a relatively large number of the youth (25 percent) were removed from the PCYC and sent to the training schools to serve the remainder of their term. Furthermore, 27 percent of the remaining youth did not complete all three phases of the residential program. Official records of recidivism indicated that 50.7 percent of the PCYC youth (including those who were removed) and 61.3 percent of the control group had been arrested during a one-year follow-up. The difference was nonsignificant. The small numbers of offenders in the study limits the power to detect differences between groups. This along with the loss of 25 percent of the PCYC youth makes it difficult to draw any definitive conclusions from the research.
Overall, these studies of juvenile residential programs had very mixed results. Although several of the studies were well designed, problems with the small number of subjects, attrition and program implementation limit the conclusions that can be drawn about the effectiveness of the programs in preventing crime. The one program that included both a strong research design and a reduction in recidivism, although this difference was not significant, was Paint Creek. Interestingly, this program followed many of the principles proposed by Andrews et al. (1990). High risk youth were targeted for participation an the intensive program that used a cognitive/behavioral mode of treatment. However, problems with the research design severely limited the potential for detecting differences even if the program had indeed been effective. Most notably, the focus of the program was not on wilderness or challenge activities.
The other programs reviewed in this section either targeted individuals who were lower risks for recidivism (Nokomos, Spectrum), were of short duration (Spectrum), were less behavioral in treatment philosophy, or focused on non-criminogenic factors such as physical challenge (Spectrum). Thus, from the perspective of the research on rehabilitation (see section on rehabilitation and the Andrews et al. 1990 study), we would not expect them to be effective in reducing future criminal behavior.
Table 9-8. Studies of youth residential programs showing scientific methods score and findings.
Study Scientific Findings
Methods Score
Greenwood and Turner 2 VisionQuest (39%) fewer arrests than
(1987) YCC Control (71%), S.
Deschenes et al (1996) 3 Nokomis group (48%) had more arrests
than control (23%), S.
Greenwood and Turner 3 Paint Creek youth had fewer
(1993) official arrests (51%) than control
youth (61%), NS.
Paint Creek youth self-reported more
serious offenses (75%) than control
(62%), NS.
Castellano and Soderstrom 2 Spectrum youth did not differ from
(1992) control youth in recidivism, NS.
Note: NS=nonsignificant, S=significant
Note the low methods scores (5 is the best).
Regarding the meta-analysis:
Here's a good summary quote "Two trends in the literature were noted. First, although many studies report benefits from participation in wilderness therapy programs, MOST IF NOT ALL studies appear to be plagued with methodological problems and HAVE NOT PROVIDED CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE THAT WILDERNESS THERAPY IS EFFECTIVE. And second, the majority of studies FAILED TO USE FOLLOW UP MEASURES OR ONLY USED SHORT TERM FOLLOW-UP, SUGGESTING A LACK OF LONGITUDINAL STUDY DESIGN IN THE LITERATURE.
http://www.obhic.com/research/doctoral.pdf (http://www.obhic.com/research/doctoral.pdf)
And this is a review by one of the leading supporters of wilderness-- he admits that there's no good evidence to favor it and calls for more study, basically. Also note that the programs he does additional research on in this meta-analysis have models that are supposed to avoid humiliation and confrontation-- so that even if the studies show these do work, it wouldn't prove that the in-your-face stuff that goes on in so many of these programs is helpful.
In fact, one of the main reasons that wilderness treatment is so problematic is that, as Cathy Sutton's story illustrates and that of Aaron Bacon and his family, parents cannot tell whether they will actually *get* kind, caring gentle treatment in these programs or abuse. Because of low pay and high turnover, the idea that a program is "good" can change overnight if they hire staff from one that is abusive.
-
The Who, I found this website more helpful
North Carolina Governor's Advocacy Council for Person's With Disabilities (GACPD--Newsletters
The DANET TEAM: (death/abuse/neglect/exploitation team)
The DANET team responds to complaints, and conducted a through investigation of the SUWS of Carolina Wilderness program; finding the following:
The program was not licensed
IN FACT, the State's Division of Facility Services (DFS) had never heard of the camp.
The camp had minimal accomodations: inadequate sleeping quarters, inadequate food, inadequate hygeine supplies.
SUWS ONLY responded to DFS demand to bring the facility up to licensing standards AFTER SUWS issued a closure letter. Only then, did SUWS apply for licensing.
DFS and GACPD continue to monitor this facility.
This newletter should be of more interest to potential "CLIENTS" than a bunch of "testimonials" wouldn't you think?
-
Link to Gorvernor's Advocacy Council for Person's With Disabilities GACPD Newletters
http://www.doc.state.nc.us/gacpd.newsletters.htm (http://www.doc.state.nc.us/gacpd.newsletters.htm)
-
On 2006-06-08 13:10:00, Anonymous wrote:
"The Who, I found this website more helpful
North Carolina Governor's Advocacy Council for Person's With Disabilities (GACPD--Newsletters
The DANET TEAM: (death/abuse/neglect/exploitation team)
The DANET team responds to complaints, and conducted a through investigation of the SUWS of Carolina Wilderness program; finding the following:
The program was not licensed
IN FACT, the State's Division of Facility Services (DFS) had never heard of the camp.
The camp had minimal accomodations: inadequate sleeping quarters, inadequate food, inadequate hygeine supplies.
SUWS ONLY responded to DFS demand to bring the facility up to licensing standards AFTER SUWS issued a closure letter. Only then, did SUWS apply for licensing.
DFS and GACPD continue to monitor this facility.
This newletter should be of more interest to potential "CLIENTS" than a bunch of "testimonials" wouldn't you think?
"
Yes, actually I heard all about it. They have a copy hanging in their ?Family Hall? area, they got a little chuckle from it. The governors office was a little red faced with SUWS response. The people who conducted the visit were new and unaware of Wilderness programs.
They got written up for:
had minimal accomodations: inadequate sleeping quarters, inadequate food, inadequate hygeine supplies
The accomidations are the Blue ridge mountains of North Carolina, its called a Wilderness Program!!! That?s where they sleep so the governor is calling his state inadequate, inadequate food, They carry all their food with them and yes deodorant is in short supply. It was embarrassing that this is all they found and SUWS purchased this land and buildings from the Boy Scouts of America.
They were not closed on the spot for not having a license, so it was not that critical. How many of us would have drivers licenses if we were not forced to have one, does it make us better drivers?
So to bring it up to standards they completely renovated one of the old boy scout buildings, put a nice bed, plumbing,deoderant and air conditioner in it for visiting inspectors to sleep in when and if they come back. Problem solved.
But in all fairness I would not base my decision on web site testimonials, alone, it is a start but one should dig a little deeper and maybe ask to speak with some former parents etc.
-
Hey, idiot, the inspectors were there. That means they looked at what the place was supposed to be about. They probably knew significantly more than you do (although that's not very hard). Again, it's a matter of who you're going to believe: inspectors or programmies?
I'll take one junior inspector's word over every last programmie that ever lived.
You refer to the parents as "former" parents, and that's accurate; their children are either dead or have disowned them.
-
Every year, more kids die in our local public schools than all of the TBS, Wilderness Programs and Boot Camps combined... throughout the entire country. Bad food, bad plumbing, inadequate heating and cooling, filth, and rampant crime are facts of everyday life in America's Public Schools. The world (especially after school)is not a safe place. My son feels more equipped to cope with the world after having gone to a Wilderness Program. He would go again-
-
Hey, idiot, the inspectors were there. That means they looked at what the place was supposed to be about. They probably knew significantly more than you do (although that's not very hard). Again, it's a matter of who you're going to believe: inspectors or programmies?
Why so closed minded? I think parents should look at all the reports, inspectors, previous parents, kids who attended, programmies and make a well informed decision.
I'll take one junior inspector's word over every last programmie that ever lived.
If it was my child I wouldn?t. I would seek opinions from all arenas as I stated above, you should not take the opinion of just one person.
You refer to the parents as "former" parents, and that's accurate; their children are either dead or have disowned them.
Hmmm. Okay
-
On 2006-06-08 15:16:00, wild fig wrote:
"Every year, more kids die in our local public schools than all of the TBS, Wilderness Programs and Boot Camps combined... throughout the entire country. Bad food, bad plumbing, inadequate heating and cooling, filth, and rampant crime are facts of everyday life in America's Public Schools. The world (especially after school)is not a safe place. My son feels more equipped to cope with the world after having gone to a Wilderness Program. He would go again- "
Funny you should mention that, there was a kid that went thru with my daughter who said he would like to go thru it again. At the end of their stay some of the kids demonstrated some things they learned and you could tell the ones that really enjoyed their experiences by their enthusiasm.
-
My son really enjoyed the challenge. He worked his way up to the "Air Phase"- the highest level of the program and felt an enormous sense of accomplishment and achievement- two things that had been missing in his life prior to Second Nature. Some of his friends were miserable and it was ineffective. It's not right for every kid.
-
EMERGENCY EMERGENCY!
FACTS DISCLOSED!
PROGRAMMIE SQUAD: POST BULLSHIT UNTIL THEY GO AWAY!
-
One of my father's friends owns a Teen Help wilderness program. The irony of reading this board is that the program supporters believe the posters on this site aren't concerned with the welfare of the children. This is the only reason why they post here is because they know first hand of the negative effects of unnecesary incarceration. I know my father's friend and he could care less about teens, he is a business man. He is in it for the money, and nothing else. I hope parents understand an important fact, this man laughs at you at our dinner engagements. He can't believe why you spend so much money on a glorified summer camp. He laughs about how he gives his staff new age names like 'Forest' and 'Soaring Eagle', gives them the title of life counselor, and how the parents eat it up. Those of us who have seen the industry from the inside in some way know the truth, you are being scammed in most cases. This industry attracts many unscrupulous types because it is completely unregulated. A pedophile, a convicted pedophile, could start a camp. Think about that long and hard before you send your child away. There is lots of money to be had, and the gold rush is on. These modern day forty-niners don't care about the kids. If they did they would leave the job for the professionals -- the people who dedicate their life to helping teens -- not the bottom dollar. Instead these unregulated fly-by-night teen help camps plaster the internet with their websites. They pay thousands of dollars in free tuition and cash to other parents and random people to refer kids to their facility. They use high pressure sales tactics and fear mongering to seal the deal. As I write this I recall the image of this overweight, middle age man laughing with his mouth full, boasting to my father at how much money he is making. It made me sick, and I hope the parents here blindly supporting programs in general recognize the irony of their position. Fornits is the only forum I've read that contains actual truth about these programs. Keep up the good fight!
-
For those who say more kids die in public school, look at the denominator-- ie, there are more kids *in* public school, so of course more kids will die there.
the real number is proportionate-- and there, the specialty programs are going to fail big time.
and they would even if they actually worked, because if you aggregate the most troubled kids who are already at high risk for problems, they are going to die at a higher rate than the lower risk kids.
if you used the same logic, you could say far more people die at cancer hospitals than die in the general population. that would be true because anything short of 100% cure rate would mean that cancer patients will die at a higher rate than the general population. even at the best cancer hospital in the world, the death rate will be higher for the simple reason that people with cancer are more likely to die than people without it.
so that's a completely meaningless comparison.
-
On 2006-06-08 15:16:00, wild fig wrote:
"Every year, more kids die in our local public schools than all of the TBS, Wilderness Programs and Boot Camps combined... throughout the entire country. Bad food, bad plumbing, inadequate heating and cooling, filth, and rampant crime are facts of everyday life in America's Public Schools. The world (especially after school)is not a safe place. My son feels more equipped to cope with the world after having gone to a Wilderness Program. He would go again- "
Your account of the public school system is completely false. Do a Google search on kids dying in public schools and you find little except articles about Columbine. In fact, I was unable to locate any news stories about deaths in US public schools in 2005 or 2006.
You certainly have a negative, and inaccurate view of the world.
-
Google isn't the best source. Try D.C. Schools, Chicago, New Orleans and Miami.
-
On 2006-06-08 19:12:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Google isn't the best source. Try D.C. Schools, Chicago, New Orleans and Miami.
"
Or try the schools where the kids were taken from, that would be the most relevant.
-
On 2006-06-08 18:55:00, AtomicAnt wrote:
"
On 2006-06-08 15:16:00, wild fig wrote:
"Every year, more kids die in our local public schools than all of the TBS, Wilderness Programs and Boot Camps combined... throughout the entire country. Bad food, bad plumbing, inadequate heating and cooling, filth, and rampant crime are facts of everyday life in America's Public Schools. The world (especially after school)is not a safe place. My son feels more equipped to cope with the world after having gone to a Wilderness Program. He would go again- "
Your account of the public school system is completely false. Do a Google search on kids dying in public schools and you find little except articles about Columbine. In fact, I was unable to locate any news stories about deaths in US public schools in 2005 or 2006.
You certainly have a negative, and inaccurate view of the world."
BINGO!!! YOU GOT IT!!!
Since you didn't find anything about deaths in public schools in 2005, there must not have been any. Sort of seems like if you didn't find anything positive about something it couldn't be good,
Funny thing though is here if someone who could only find good or neutral and nothing negative thought the deal was probably good, they are told they didn't look enough. What is it in this case?
-
On 2006-06-08 12:31:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2006-06-08 11:41:00, Anonymous wrote:
and you won't even look at anything that says anything positive?
If you'd give me a fucking link to look at I'd be happy to. If you're just gonna continue to tell me that they've already been posted I won't.
as for confrontational therapy being inherently dangerous, what does that have to do with the price of frankfurters?"
It's OK. I didn't really expect you to get it. "
did you already try the following, already-posted link? http://www.wilderdom.com/pdf/Hans2000Ad ... alysis.pdf (http://www.wilderdom.com/pdf/Hans2000AdventureTherapyLOCMetaanalysis.pdf)
-
On 2006-06-08 15:16:00, wild fig wrote:
"Every year, more kids die in our local public schools than all of the TBS, Wilderness Programs and Boot Camps combined... "
Fig,
Don't be a fear mongerer.
Where might one find those statistics?
1 in 1,000,000 homicides/suicides in public schools.
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... 945#182369 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=2826&forum=9&start=945#182369)
At $5000+ per month for an isolation bubble to protect kids from the risks out here in the real world, there should be no deaths in programs. And we know that is not the case.
-
BINGO!!! YOU GOT IT!!!
Since you didn't find anything about deaths in public schools in 2005, there must not have been any. Sort of seems like if you didn't find anything positive about something it couldn't be good,
Funny thing though is here if someone who could only find good or neutral and nothing negative thought the deal was probably good, they are told they didn't look enough. What is it in this case?
I honestly don't understand what you are getting at.
I'm just sensitive when people thoughtlessly toss out the media myths of the day like rampant youth crime and our public schools being in a crisis. These views are simply not true.
You guys can argue about your studies all you want. I've been conducting studies for over 20 years and so know the limitations on them. They don't do much for me. I'll take common sense, any day.
Common sense tells me that many wilderness programs are unregulated and unsupervised. There are many media reports of bad things that go on in them. There is pretty much no way to tell the good programs from the bad. So, you are rolling dice. And for the kid out there in the middle of nowhere, there is no protection at all from even one bad counselor in an otherwise 'good' program. So there is a risk. If this is my kid, I'd rather not roll the dice with his well being.
And that is just addressing the safety of the program. Whether the program actually has any benefit is another matter. The one-size-fits all approach doesn't work for me. I read the programs websites and there is no way in hell you can convince me they can help with ADHD or Dyslexia or any other biologically based diagnosis. These guys claim they can cure anything. That's just stupid and flies in the face of common sense. They claim they can help with depression. They don't even distinguish clinical from situational. Some forms of depression are biologically based.
Can wilderness experience be a good thing? Sure it can. I went on an Outward Bound style program and loved it. Was it useful? Yes. Was it life changing? Not really.
But that's not the kind of thing we're objecting to here. We are objecting to escorting teens into situations against their will where they may or may not be safe, where they may or may not be 'helped' and just hoping for the best. If it works, great, you get another testimonial. If it doesn't work, blame the kid. The program is still good because it helped someone else.
Sorry, that kind of treatment is just irresponsible. You are playing Russian Roulette with someone's life and mental well-being and worse you are playing it against that person's will. That is just wrong.
-
One of my father's friends owns a Teen Help wilderness program. The irony of reading this board is that the program supporters believe the posters on this site aren't concerned with the welfare of the children. This is the only reason why they post here is because they know first hand of the negative effects of unnecesary incarceration. I know my father's friend and he could care less about teens, he is a business man. He is in it for the money, and nothing else. I hope parents understand an important fact, this man laughs at you at our dinner engagements. He can't believe why you spend so much money on a glorified summer camp. He laughs about how he gives his staff new age names like 'Forest' and 'Soaring Eagle', gives them the title of life counselor, and how the parents eat it up. Those of us who have seen the industry from the inside in some way know the truth, you are being scammed in most cases. This industry attracts many unscrupulous types because it is completely unregulated. A pedophile, a convicted pedophile, could start a camp. Think about that long and hard before you send your child away. There is lots of money to be had, and the gold rush is on. These modern day forty-niners don't care about the kids. If they did they would leave the job for the professionals -- the people who dedicate their life to helping teens -- not the bottom dollar. Instead these unregulated fly-by-night teen help camps plaster the internet with their websites. They pay thousands of dollars in free tuition and cash to other parents and random people to refer kids to their facility. They use high pressure sales tactics and fear mongering to seal the deal. As I write this I recall the image of this overweight, middle age man laughing with his mouth full, boasting to my father at how much money he is making. It made me sick, and I hope the parents here blindly supporting programs in general recognize the irony of their position. Fornits is the only forum I've read that contains actual truth about these programs. Keep up the good fight!
VERY WELL SAID from the poster who's father's friend has spoken the truth from the inside out.
Those who had a great experience in a lucrative, unregulated wilderness program were lucky!
These programs are only as good as the people selling them...........and they charge WAY too much for lentils, peas, rice, oatmeal and raisins. Wilderness programs are known for hiring transient, poorly trained, underqualified counselors to be out in the middle of the boonies with children who aren't allowed to talk to their parents. By the time the parents receive their first letter (which is read first), it can be too late.
-
In addition to the inherent risks and deaths associated with programs, one would be wise to understand the methods employed in 'changing' their childs behavior.
How BM in programs works:
http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.ph ... 25&forum=9 (http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=6625&forum=9)
Against the aggregation of distressed teens:
http://www.wpic.pitt.edu/aacp/Vol-15-3/Youth.html (http://www.wpic.pitt.edu/aacp/Vol-15-3/Youth.html)
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... rt=0#61673 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=6625&forum=9&start=0#61673)
More ills of institutional treatment in this thread:
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... rt=0#61673 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=6625&forum=9&start=0#61673)
ACAPN Declaration
http://www.teenliberty.org/ACAPN.htm (http://www.teenliberty.org/ACAPN.htm)
-
Those of us who have seen the industry from the inside in some way know the truth, you are being scammed in most cases. This industry attracts many unscrupulous types because it is completely unregulated.
Ma'am, you hit it right on the head. People who know the business don't need to speculate or prosletyze. We already know the unscrupulous people who are in this business - we know them personally and are well aware of their world views.
I don't need to hear someone like The Who say "Maybe they did it because..." I know why they do what they do and how they do it. More and more ex-staff are speaking up as well. It's frustrating sometimes to see people who are so painfully unaware regurgitating the rote statements that we know are the party line of the programs and that have absolutely no bearing on reality.
95% of the "customers" of these programs have no clue whatsoever of what really happens inside these facilities or the thinking behind it.
Thanks for the reality check about the unscrupulous, uncaring men and women behind these programs.
-
On 2006-06-08 14:23:00, TheWho wrote:
"
On 2006-06-08 13:10:00, Anonymous wrote:
"The Who, I found this website more helpful
North Carolina Governor's Advocacy Council for Person's With Disabilities (GACPD--Newsletters
The DANET TEAM: (death/abuse/neglect/exploitation team)
The DANET team responds to complaints, and conducted a through investigation of the SUWS of Carolina Wilderness program; finding the following:
The program was not licensed
IN FACT, the State's Division of Facility Services (DFS) had never heard of the camp.
The camp had minimal accomodations: inadequate sleeping quarters, inadequate food, inadequate hygeine supplies.
SUWS ONLY responded to DFS demand to bring the facility up to licensing standards AFTER SUWS issued a closure letter. Only then, did SUWS apply for licensing.
DFS and GACPD continue to monitor this facility.
This newletter should be of more interest to potential "CLIENTS" than a bunch of "testimonials" wouldn't you think?
"
Yes, actually I heard all about it. They have a copy hanging in their ?Family Hall? area, they got a little chuckle from it. The governors office was a little red faced with SUWS response. The people who conducted the visit were new and unaware of Wilderness programs.
They got written up for:
had minimal accomodations: inadequate sleeping quarters, inadequate food, inadequate hygeine supplies
The accomidations are the Blue ridge mountains of North Carolina, its called a Wilderness Program!!! That?s where they sleep so the governor is calling his state inadequate, inadequate food, They carry all their food with them and yes deodorant is in short supply. It was embarrassing that this is all they found and SUWS purchased this land and buildings from the Boy Scouts of America.
They were not closed on the spot for not having a license, so it was not that critical. How many of us would have drivers licenses if we were not forced to have one, does it make us better drivers?
So to bring it up to standards they completely renovated one of the old boy scout buildings, put a nice bed, plumbing,deoderant and air conditioner in it for visiting inspectors to sleep in when and if they come back. Problem solved.
But in all fairness I would not base my decision on web site testimonials, alone, it is a start but one should dig a little deeper and maybe ask to speak with some former parents etc.
"
Blather, rinse, repeat.
Who, you fell for Aspen Education Group hook, line and sinker. I'm sure they all enjoyed separating you from your money. Not only are you a sucker, they get free advertising from you, too. They gotta be laughing all the way to the bank...
-
Who: some parents give "nice little testimonials" about WWASPTranquility Bay too, you know.
And some give these "tesitmonials" about many other abusive facilities...even wilderness programs where children actually were eyewitnesses to one of their fellow-campers dying right before their eyes due to the neglect and lack of training of the field instructors.
You can not EXPLAIN this away.
You may be able to CHUCKLE about the neglect of children; but there is no humor in the fact that children are neglected and die in these wilderness programs. NO HUMOR WHATSOEVER.
-
I think that the great shame of it all is that the idea of Wilderness camps or outward bound programmes for older kids and teenagers is a good one in theory. It could do great things for kids and not just troubled kids.
When i was a recent uni grad (2000) I did the year off to do the back pack thing and worked in one of your American summer camps. Aside from the odd bout of home sickness the kids seemed to have a great time & be forever engaged in some kind of fun activity. They were too busy to get in trouble & the staff were mostly enthusiastic & idealistic 20 somethings who liked kids or wanted to see the world or both. The approach was about giving them a good time not punishment & it was a tradition that I always thought had a positive impact on kids.
With strict regulation & state govts to took duty of care laws seriously, & a culture which is not about being punitive but encouraging teenagers to try new things and push themselves this could be a really positive industry. What is so tragic is that most of the websites advertising these programmes (even the ones that look quite professional and safe) seem to talk about changing the way kids behave and think and in most cases this seems to involve the idea that kids are bad an so deserve to be stripped of all that they enjoy and then when they conform they can "earn" these rights back. Why emphasise a culture of treating kids as if they are irredeemable criminals when they are just young and bored and trying to figure out who they are and what they want out of life.
Why has no one just made Wilderness programmes about giving teenagers and their parents a break from each other & the stresses that are trying everybodies patience & encouraging the kids to have some fun & learn some new skills?
-
On 2006-06-09 07:21:00, Pls help wrote:
"I think that the great shame of it all is that the idea of Wilderness camps or outward bound programmes for older kids and teenagers is a good one in theory. It could do great things for kids and not just troubled kids.
When i was a recent uni grad (2000) I did the year off to do the back pack thing and worked in one of your American summer camps. Aside from the odd bout of home sickness the kids seemed to have a great time & be forever engaged in some kind of fun activity. They were too busy to get in trouble & the staff were mostly enthusiastic & idealistic 20 somethings who liked kids or wanted to see the world or both. The approach was about giving them a good time not punishment & it was a tradition that I always thought had a positive impact on kids.
With strict regulation & state govts to took duty of care laws seriously, & a culture which is not about being punitive but encouraging teenagers to try new things and push themselves this could be a really positive industry. What is so tragic is that most of the websites advertising these programmes (even the ones that look quite professional and safe) seem to talk about changing the way kids behave and think and in most cases this seems to involve the idea that kids are bad an so deserve to be stripped of all that they enjoy and then when they conform they can "earn" these rights back. Why emphasise a culture of treating kids as if they are irredeemable criminals when they are just young and bored and trying to figure out who they are and what they want out of life.
Why has no one just made Wilderness programmes about giving teenagers and their parents a break from each other & the stresses that are trying everybodies patience & encouraging the kids to have some fun & learn some new skills?
"
Good point ?Pls Help?. I think many of the wilderness programs are just that, hiking in the woods and staying out of trouble with counselors who like kids. But they are marketing to parents who are also looking to remove their kids from an unpleasant environment and get them back on track . Many kids have a really good experience. Like I have heard here many times ?Same place different packaging?
-
Who: some parents give "nice little testimonials" about WWASPTranquility Bay too, you know.
And some give these "tesitmonials" about many other abusive facilities...even wilderness programs where children actually were eyewitnesses to one of their fellow-campers dying right before their eyes due to the neglect and lack of training of the field instructors.
You can not EXPLAIN this away.
Explain what away?
People give testimonials about abusive and non abusive places. It will always be that way. If you read my posts you would see that I encourage parents to not decide based on these alone and if you read some more you will also read that someone who said they would take the word of one person (an inspector) over the word of several people and decide their childs destiny based on 1 inspector. This may have been your post, and if it was, you are preaching out of the side of your mouth.
Testimonials are the best responses out of all of them. There are people who write in and say their kid had a horrible time and did not improve, but they are not going to post them its bad for business. There are very few people in business who would do this and parents know this. But it is also important to show your success stories
You may be able to CHUCKLE about the neglect of children; but there is no humor in the fact that children are neglected and die in these wilderness programs. NO HUMOR WHATSOEVER.
Again, read the posts, I don?t take humor in kids being abused; you are mixing up your posts.
-
http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.ph ... 22&forum=9 (http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=8222&forum=9)
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... rt=0#24671 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=3349&forum=9&start=0#24671)
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... rt=0#41302 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=4836&forum=9&start=0#41302)
-
2002 Mar- L. Jay Mitchell (Founder of Alldrege Academy) has thought deeply about the nature of human beings, and has developed ways to impact children based on principles that he has formulated about human nature. Not bad for an attorney, which was his profession before he helped found the SUWS program in the early 1980s, and more recently, Alldredge Academy.
Some first-hand experiences
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?forum=9&topic=1047 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?forum=9&topic=1047)
-
PLS HELP, I think your experience most probably didn't involve a Behaviorial Modification program, where the kids were sent for drug problems, deliquency problems, psychological problems--- and as a "stepping stone" to a long-term treatment program---like the one your niece is facing at Majestic Ranch.
LOTS of kids go to "CAMP"--but a wilderness treatment program is a whole different ball game.
IT AIN'T SUPPOSE TO BE FUN!!!!!!!!!!
-
On 2006-06-09 07:55:00, Anonymous wrote:
"IT AIN'T SUPPOSE TO BE FUN!!!!!!!!!!
"
Why?
which expert has proven that the only way kids can learn and "grow" is through abuse, adversity, deprivation? Adversity can certainly develop character, but can also harm when intentionally heaped on by another human.
It's been suggested by numerous people that more fun and laughter, positive regard, and doing away with deprivation would go a long way in genuinely helping 'angry' kids find some peace in a fucked up culture. Deprivation, forced marches through the desert, marching and sleeping in the open in sub-zero and 100+ temps, teaches nothing. Except the degree to which your parent will go to punish you, and how to ?act? to avoid further mistreatment.
Do they really have a choice but to demonstrate what is expected? Is that real ?growth? or acting?
How does deprivation and abuse cure depression?
Laughter trumps abuse/deprivation in terms of treating depression.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=& ... depression (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=laughter+%2B+depression)
I didn?t see any smiles or hear any laughter in the Brat Camp expose except when they were served decent food. I saw long, sad, painful faces on kids being force marched in adverse conditions.
Maybe unhappy/hopeless kids need a retreat from the irrational demands of their parents and society where they can play and laugh for a couple of months and learn "Cultural" survival skills for day-to-day living in an insane world.
-
Couldn?t say it better myself. A change of environment, laughter, learning something new, being with peers, experiencing the sense of accomplishment all add to raising a childs self esteem, personal growth and getting them on track to a happy life.
-
SIBS -- The Wave of the Future in Drug Treatment.?
-
Education by force, punishment and repression, will only train a generation of slaves.
-Aristotle.
I shall only ask him, and not teach him, and he shall share the enquiry with me
-Plato.
I think you probably get my meaning.
The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. ... All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
--Hermann Goering, Luftwaffe commander, sentenced to death at Nuremberg
-
On 2006-06-09 10:40:00, TheWho wrote:
"Couldn?t say it better myself. A change of environment, laughter, learning something new, being with peers, experiencing the sense of accomplishment all add to raising a childs self esteem, personal growth and getting them on track to a happy life."
Unfortunately, this isn't how the programs operate. It's more like browbeat, intimidate, threaten, punish, humiliate and silence.
-
On 2006-06-09 11:24:00, Dysfunction Junction wrote:
"
On 2006-06-09 10:40:00, TheWho wrote:
"Couldn?t say it better myself. A change of environment, laughter, learning something new, being with peers, experiencing the sense of accomplishment all add to raising a childs self esteem, personal growth and getting them on track to a happy life."
Unfortunately, this isn't how the programs operate. It's more like browbeat, intimidate, threaten, punish, humiliate and silence.
"
I can partially agree with you DJ. This can apply to many households or many programs but not all. Some programs are abusive, some households are abusive. I personally do not refer to them in absolute terms.
-
I will continue to refer to programs the way I do until I see evidence that there are indeed good ones. I've never seen one and never heard of one, so it is absolute to me in that sense.
-
On 2006-06-09 11:43:00, Dysfunction Junction wrote:
"I will continue to refer to programs the way I do until I see evidence that there are indeed good ones. I've never seen one and never heard of one, so it is absolute to me in that sense.
"
I can see how you feel,DJ, We need to respect each others viewpoints and base our positions on what each of us knows and have experienced.
-
It's not really a feeling, it's empiricism.
I've yet to see any benefit to residential placement for anybody other than severely mentally ill and violent/suicidal clients.
Patients who aren't severely disturbed and suicidal/violent are best served in the community and all the research I've ever studied bears this out.
Also, all treatment must take place in the least restrictive environment possible - this is a basic tenet of psychological treatment. Programs, by definition, are not the least restrictive environment and also employ ineffective and damaging techniques.
-
There are good wilderness camps, they're the ones that take children who actually want to go.
The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.
O'Brien, the apparatchik
-
Your mother wants to go to them.
-
On 2006-06-09 12:03:00, Dysfunction Junction wrote:
"It's not really a feeling, it's empiricism.
I've yet to see any benefit to residential placement for anybody other than severely mentally ill and violent/suicidal clients.
Patients who aren't severely disturbed and suicidal/violent are best served in the community and all the research I've ever studied bears this out.
Also, all treatment must take place in the least restrictive environment possible - this is a basic tenet of psychological treatment. Programs, by definition, are not the least restrictive environment and also employ ineffective and damaging techniques.
"
Sorry, Cant agree with you there, DJ, I am sure your personal expereince may show this but mine has been different.
-
Your mother's personal experience has been different. :wave:
-
On 2006-06-09 11:24:00, Dysfunction Junction wrote:
"
On 2006-06-09 10:40:00, TheWho wrote:
"Couldn?t say it better myself. A change of environment, laughter, learning something new, being with peers, experiencing the sense of accomplishment all add to raising a childs self esteem, personal growth and getting them on track to a happy life."
Unfortunately, this isn't how the programs operate. It's more like browbeat, intimidate, threaten, punish, humiliate and silence.
"
Well, so you say. But there are many who found no browbeating, no intimidation, no threats, no punishment, no humiliation and no silent treatment in their wilderness program -- a program that also gave them the time and environment to reflect on their life, to consider past behaviors and ways of avoiding the temptation of drugs and addiction to same, and overall learn ways to enjoy better things of life. They weren't forced to do these things. In fact many did go voluntarily, and could walk away at will, but more than one who decided to walk then thought better of it and returned, and at the end of it was proud of their accomplishment.
-
And the name of this was...?
Because it's starting to sound more and more like summer camp than anything we'd refer to as a program.
If there really is a wilderness program that doesn't do the bullshit, fucking NAME IT.
-
On 2006-06-09 11:43:00, Dysfunction Junction wrote:
"I will continue to refer to programs the way I do until I see evidence that there are indeed good ones. I've never seen one and never heard of one, so it is absolute to me in that sense.
"
Unsurprising. Your words in another thread asserted wilderness programs were harmful, and that was a proven fact. You said such proof was available, yet posts here don't show any such proof. Yes, one post did have a credible assessment of one program with outcomes worse than a like group treated differently (but also not provided follow-up that was to be part of the deal). The same report had another program with positive outcomes. The positive outcomes even in that report would seem to say that at least some wilderness programs are effective.
You've not given any of your so-called incontrovertable proof that wilderness programs are inherently harmful You've not responded to the references, including links to evidence of positive effects.
That you've never seen one and never heard of one shows only that your eyes and ears, or is it mind, is closed. So I imagine you will continue the same.
-
On 2006-06-09 12:03:00, Dysfunction Junction wrote:
"It's not really a feeling, it's empiricism.
I've yet to see any benefit to residential placement for anybody other than severely mentally ill and violent/suicidal clients.
Patients who aren't severely disturbed and suicidal/violent are best served in the community and all the research I've ever studied bears this out.
Also, all treatment must take place in the least restrictive environment possible - this is a basic tenet of psychological treatment. Programs, by definition, are not the least restrictive environment and also employ ineffective and damaging techniques.
"
A pity that you have focused on the LEAST RESTRICTIVE environment and not on the POSSIBLE. If treatment in the least restrictive environment is not effective, then moving to a more restrictive one is often in order, and often works. The same rules and same principal apply under the federal laws on special education, and the goal is all kids in regular classrooms, but they still have special ed classes, and even special ed schools. You need something that WORKS, not just something least restrictive.
And, what do you do if "the community" doesn't have the resources needed for an individual?
-
On 2006-06-09 13:46:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2006-06-09 12:03:00, Dysfunction Junction wrote:
"It's not really a feeling, it's empiricism.
I've yet to see any benefit to residential placement for anybody other than severely mentally ill and violent/suicidal clients.
Patients who aren't severely disturbed and suicidal/violent are best served in the community and all the research I've ever studied bears this out.
Also, all treatment must take place in the least restrictive environment possible - this is a basic tenet of psychological treatment. Programs, by definition, are not the least restrictive environment and also employ ineffective and damaging techniques.
"
A pity that you have focused on the LEAST RESTRICTIVE environment and not on the POSSIBLE. If treatment in the least restrictive environment is not effective, then moving to a more restrictive one is often in order, and often works. The same rules and same principal apply under the federal laws on special education, and the goal is all kids in regular classrooms, but they still have special ed classes, and even special ed schools. You need something that WORKS, not just something least restrictive.
And, what do you do if "the community" doesn't have the resources needed for an individual?"
What evidence do you have that the more restrictive one often works besides parent testimonials? In fact the do nothing option with conduct disorder, which is a considerably worse prognosis than ODD has more successsful outcomes than residential treatment. Are you interested in the best odds?
-
A pity that you have focused on the LEAST RESTRICTIVE environment and not on the POSSIBLE. If treatment in the least restrictive environment is not effective, then moving to a more restrictive one is often in order, and often works. The same rules and same principal apply under the federal laws on special education, and the goal is all kids in regular classrooms, but they still have special ed classes, and even special ed schools. You need something that WORKS, not just something least restrictive.
OK, I can see you're not grasping the principle of the statement or you would agree with me. Treatment must always be delivered in the least restrictive environment. That is a basic fact of psychology.
The thing that you really missed is that it is the very job of the therapist to treat in the least restrictive environment which ranges from being on one's own to being locked involuntarily in a psychiatric ward. You missed that entirely. If a lockdown is the the least restrictive environment possible for a particular patient, then so be it.
It's your judgement about what the least restrictive environment is that is troubling.
The problem is that the kids that are forced involuntarily into these programs are not being treated correctly, nor is the treatment likely to work at all. People can't be forced into treatment. Treatment doesn't work unless it's voluntary.
So, you missed the argument entirely.
And, what do you do if "the community" doesn't have the resources needed for an individual?
I can almost guarantee you that if you can afford a program you can find quality, appropriate care within easy driving distance from wherever you live. This concept is a non-starter entirely. For what programs cost you can have the best and most reputable care - delivered.
_________________
"Compassion is the basis of morality."
-Arnold Schopenhauer[ This Message was edited by: Dysfunction Junction on 2006-06-09 15:33 ]
-
You've not given any of your so-called incontrovertable proof that wilderness programs are inherently harmful You've not responded to the references, including links to evidence of positive effects.
You'll have to quote what you think I need to explain and I'll do it for you. If you say that I said something you should at least provide the quote so I know what you're talking about.
I have not seen a single credible study of the so-called "wilderness therapy" programs' effectiveness. Show me something tangible and I'll review it. I'm not interested in shill pieces and industry literature - I already know better than that type of nonsense. I've seen and studied the approach and I can't find any measurable benefit whatsover, but I can see a lot of serious problems. I've also seen quite a few young adults with serious problems caused by this type of "help."
It is inherently harmful to place a child in a program unwillingly by coercion or force. It is inherently harmful to make them stay by the same means.
I'm a rational human being. I connect the dots - there's a clear pattern. I have no idea in the world why this infuriates some people so badly.
-
What makes a WWASP salesperson think they're qualified to determine what a Least Restrictive Environment is? They NEVER suggest going home and trying something else. They have little or no education or experience working with teens in effective settings.
I would think that a good program would insist that parents implement at least three or four parenting strategies, giving each one at least a month to see if it might work, and then have parents work at home with a therapist before they dare imply that their jails are the "least restrictive environment". You can't possibly spin a law intended to protect children as having anything to do with the child torture that occurs at WWASP.
-
On 2006-06-09 07:32:00, TheWho wrote:
"
On 2006-06-09 07:21:00, Pls help wrote:
"I think that the great shame of it all is that the idea of Wilderness camps or outward bound programmes for older kids and teenagers is a good one in theory. It could do great things for kids and not just troubled kids.
When i was a recent uni grad (2000) I did the year off to do the back pack thing and worked in one of your American summer camps. Aside from the odd bout of home sickness the kids seemed to have a great time & be forever engaged in some kind of fun activity. They were too busy to get in trouble & the staff were mostly enthusiastic & idealistic 20 somethings who liked kids or wanted to see the world or both. The approach was about giving them a good time not punishment & it was a tradition that I always thought had a positive impact on kids.
With strict regulation & state govts to took duty of care laws seriously, & a culture which is not about being punitive but encouraging teenagers to try new things and push themselves this could be a really positive industry. What is so tragic is that most of the websites advertising these programmes (even the ones that look quite professional and safe) seem to talk about changing the way kids behave and think and in most cases this seems to involve the idea that kids are bad an so deserve to be stripped of all that they enjoy and then when they conform they can "earn" these rights back. Why emphasise a culture of treating kids as if they are irredeemable criminals when they are just young and bored and trying to figure out who they are and what they want out of life.
Why has no one just made Wilderness programmes about giving teenagers and their parents a break from each other & the stresses that are trying everybodies patience & encouraging the kids to have some fun & learn some new skills?
"
Good point ?Pls Help?. I think many of the wilderness programs are just that, hiking in the woods and staying out of trouble with counselors who like kids. But they are marketing to parents who are also looking to remove their kids from an unpleasant environment and get them back on track . Many kids have a really good experience. Like I have heard here many times ?Same place different packaging?"
This is just my point though. I have only just started to research this industry and i am sure that not every programme is designed to fail kids, but even the reputable looking ones place an emphasis on changing the kid and making the kid compliant. If a kid has a sever problem which requies clinical treatment i am flummoxed as to what a walk in the woods could do to help, but if your kid is just being adolescent & driving everone nuts in the process, there is no point in trying to change them. Sending them away for a few weeks in theory may just help everyone decompress though if it is not about the "troubled" label. But this is it. Wilderness programmes seem to push the idea that your kid is troubled or struggling.
Aaron Bacon's mother, for example, thought she was just sending him to get some exercise, talk things out with a caring adult & think things through. Because the industry markets the idea that your kid is bad & at risk of doing something criminal she sent him by escort ( i realise that the boy was experiencing some isues). How haunting must it have been for that poor woman to realise the last moments between her and her son were angry and negative. I am not suggesting that every progamme is abusive but they push the idea that your kid has something wrong with them instead of bringing out the best in the kid.
-
Dysfunction Junction Wrote: OK, I can see you're not grasping the principle of the statement or you would agree with me. Treatment must always be delivered in the least restrictive environment. That is a basic fact of psychology.
The thing that you really missed is that it is the very job of the therapist to treat in the least restrictive environment which ranges from being on one's own to being locked involuntarily in a psychiatric ward. You missed that entirely. If a lockdown is the the least restrictive environment possible for a particular patient, then so be it.
I would like to jump in here if I may.
So continuing along the same line of thinking it seems you agree that ?Least restrictive? is a relative term depending on the individual. Some respond on ones own while others require involuntary residency in a psychiatric ward. You do not personally advocate placing a child in a TBS/wilderness, I know, but this does fall under the definition of ?Least restrictive? if previous environments ?Less restrictive? were found to be ineffective.
The problem is that the kids that are forced involuntarily into these programs are not being treated correctly, nor is the treatment likely to work at all. People can't be forced into treatment. Treatment doesn't work unless it's voluntary.
Again, I think, we need to define ?Forced?. If a child is given an option to get on the school bus in the morning or stay home and play video games then which ever he choose would be considered voluntary. If his mother said get dressed you are going to school. This would be considered involuntary. He may be forced to go, but most kids eventually accept their course and learning does take place.
I think your argument would hold up if we found these kids to be in a constant high level of distress and just wanting to run away, but this just isn?t true. Many of the kids (not all) adjust well to being away from their old environment, feel safe and respond very well to therapy (if they are receiving any).
I can almost guarantee you that if you can afford a program you can find quality, appropriate care within easy driving distance from wherever you live. This concept is a non-starter entirely. For what programs cost you can have the best and most reputable care - delivered.
I think most parents try these options prior to choosing a TBS or wilderness, again starting with the least restrictive, a very small percentage fail to respond at the lesser restrictive levels and need residential treatment.
So just to recap, your arguments may apply to some situations/children but many of these schools/wilderness programs provide a safe, unrestrictive environment where they can grow and mature naturally.
-
Dysfunction Junction wrote:
I have not seen a single credible study of the so-called "wilderness therapy" programs' effectiveness.
Nor a credible one that states they are ineffective. This is why it is important to review the statistics and success stories available. We cannot discount the kids lives that have been positively impacted and were placed on the right course due to these programs and schools.
Its important for parents to see that these are very viable options for some kids and they do work very well. Parents don?t need to just give up on their kids if local therapy/ counseling doesn?t take hold, these may be expensive decisions but the payoff can be enormous if the right school/programs is identified, but one needs to do their homework first, it is a big step and a commitment for your whole family.
-
"Nor a credible one that states they are ineffective."
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, LINKED TO RIGHT HERE ON THIS THREAD.
Your desperation is showing, Who.
-
On 2006-06-10 10:00:00, Anonymous wrote:
""Nor a credible one that states they are ineffective."
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, LINKED TO RIGHT HERE ON THIS THREAD.
Your desperation is showing, Who."
Showing they are ineffective or ran out of deodorant? I dont think they mentioned effectiveness; you might want to read it again.
What is it that I am so desperate to do?
-
Right here, idiot. (http://http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=15784&forum=9&start=30#200085)
You're so desperate to justify yourself that you don't even care about the evidence. You make up any kind of nonsense you can in order to hope to shove your bullshit down parents' throats. I got news for you Who- sane parents take one look at the horror stories on this site and they do the very logical action of running like fuck. Meanwhile you desperately try to convince yourself you did the right thing.
Your justfications are meaningless. You're still a failure as a parent, and you will die alone and unloved in a dilapidated nursing home.
-
You're so desperate to justify yourself that you don't even care about the evidence.
Okay calm down, here is a summary quote from your article:
While the results appear positive, as noted on the table the research methodology makes it impossible to draw conclusions regarding the program's effectiveness
The reports are 10 ? 30 years old and not one addressed any of the wilderness programs like SUWS. If you assume programs (businesses in general) grow and evolve over time, the scales are probably heavily in favor of the kids being successful. It would be nice to see a more recent report. But like I indicated earlier, we need to go by the data we have and the experiences of those that have been thru it.
You make up any kind of nonsense you can in order to hope to shove your bullshit down parents' throats. I got news for you Who- sane parents take one look at the horror stories on this site and they do the very logical action of running like fuck.
Hmmm? okay so if this is true, why are you so upset went I post my experiences.
Meanwhile you desperately try to convince yourself you did the right thing.
Your justfications are meaningless.
If my desperation is so obvious, this should make you happy.
You're still a failure as a parent, and you will die alone and unloved in a dilapidated nursing home.
Julie !!! your back, thanks for making this so personal, I recognize your deep seated hatred of any parent who cares for their kids more than you do, how is your book coming along?
ps, If you are not Julie, you guys would get along well
-
I have to give you credit, Who, no other poster can twist and spin and piss me off like you can. You could land a job in any oppressive government's propaganda department (or even our own government, for that matter) with ease. You should be in advertising.
In the reputable field of psychiatry, forced incarceration is reserved only for dangerous mental patients with a real, diagnosed, mental illness. It often requires a court order to enforce an involuntary commitment. It often requires periodic court hearings to keep them there. I know this. My ex-wife is a board-certified psychiatrist. She has worked in both State Hospitals and in prisons. There are some very seriously, disturbed and ill people in the world that require this kind of protection and treatment. I showed her your post about comparing putting kids onto a school bus with forced therapy. She has also worked with addicted teens in NYC. Her response was, "That is so wrong on so many levels that I won't even bother to address it." She went on to say that the only time a teenager would need a forced residential program would be if the kid were a hard core, living on the street, heroin addict. At that point she said what all you programmies say; "It's a last resort." She also said, "It almost never works."
My ex-wife is a very direct person. To your statement, "Many of the kids (not all) adjust well to being away from their old environment, feel safe and respond very well to therapy." She simply said, "Like he would know."
So I went on to mention we were discussing efficacy and studies on efficacy and she broke in, "I thought you were smarter than that." I asked her what she meant. She said, "You can't study the efficacy of a program like that. It isn't possible." "Why?" I asked. "Because you can't compare apples to oranges. You can't toss a bunch of random kids into the wilderness and then measure to see who gets arrested and who does not after the fact, then draw any kind of meaningful conclusions. That is why you can't find any good studies on this, they would never pass scrutiny, so you won't find them in the Journal of Medicine. It violates sound scientific practice."
She used an analogy where every patient who goes to a doctor is prescribed the same medicine regardless of what their complaint is. Then you measure to see whose symptoms were relieved. Some patients may have recovered from their illness on their own over time, for some it might randomly have been the right medicine and helped. Others might die. Any way you look at it, the doctor is irresponsible and there is no way to determine what the medicine does, or if it does anything at all.
"What about testimonials?" I asked. She said, "You could just watch infomercials where lots of people will praise some scam or other. We don't listen to them either, do we?"
-
Atomic Ant, My intent is not to piss people off but to add balance to a heavily one-sided forum. I don?t see it as twisting or spinning but merely adding a different perspective using first hand experience and existing data.
I actually agree with everything your wife (Ex) said. The studies are inconclusive because you cant really have a controlled study with some kids going to TBS and others not going because you could not get 2 control groups which are exactly the same because each of us is so different and there are so many variables to begin with. The other way to look at this would be to compare large samples of kids over time, but this would be a problem because TBS?s change their programs and evolve over time (so these variables would have to be considered).
There is data available from the public sector (School system) but even comparing that to TBS would be met with scrutiny because the kids at TBS would not be a representative cross section of kids like the public schools would be. The TBS kids would be considered a select group and therefore could not be compared to the general population of public schools.
My analogy with taking the school bus was a simple demonstration that voluntary and involuntary are relative terms. There is hand cuffing a child and dragging him off and then there is ?You have 2 options go live with aunt Martha for the summer or attend SUWS wilderness?. In one scenario he may live in rage for 6 weeks and come out worse off in the other he may grow from it and get back on track.
So are wilderness programs/TBS?s the right thing for our kids? We need to talk to people, research different programs, read testimonials (understanding they are the best of the best), read here at fornits most of which are of those that had a poor experience, read reports and try to give our children choices and options.
I think a person taking the position that every kid does poorly or every kid does well is irresponsible and smacks of having an agenda and will not benefit the parents or the kids.
-
My intent is not to piss people off but to add balance to a heavily one-sided forum
This is what all the wackos and trolls say.
-
On 2006-06-10 13:27:00, TheWho wrote:
"Atomic Ant, My intent is not to piss people off but to add balance to a heavily one-sided forum. I don?t see it as twisting or spinning but merely adding a different perspective using first hand experience and existing data.
I actually agree with everything your wife (Ex) said. The studies are inconclusive because you cant really have a controlled study with some kids going to TBS and others not going because you could not get 2 control groups which are exactly the same because each of us is so different and there are so many variables to begin with. The other way to look at this would be to compare large samples of kids over time, but this would be a problem because TBS?s change their programs and evolve over time (so these variables would have to be considered).
There is data available from the public sector (School system) but even comparing that to TBS would be met with scrutiny because the kids at TBS would not be a representative cross section of kids like the public schools would be. The TBS kids would be considered a select group and therefore could not be compared to the general population of public schools.
My analogy with taking the school bus was a simple demonstration that voluntary and involuntary are relative terms. There is hand cuffing a child and dragging him off and then there is ?You have 2 options go live with aunt Martha for the summer or attend SUWS wilderness?. In one scenario he may live in rage for 6 weeks and come out worse off in the other he may grow from it and get back on track.
So are wilderness programs/TBS?s the right thing for our kids? We need to talk to people, research different programs, read testimonials (understanding they are the best of the best), read here at fornits most of which are of those that had a poor experience, read reports and try to give our children choices and options.
I think a person taking the position that every kid does poorly or every kid does well is irresponsible and smacks of having an agenda and will not benefit the parents or the kids."
Cindy, Cindy, Cindy, please dont tell me youre giving up so easy? Come on back to the HLA thread and accept your shame. See you over there real soon.
-
From the Journal of Child and Adolescent Group Therapy, vol. 10, no. 1, published in 2000, and likely written a bit (as it usually takes time to get articles accepted into such journals) ...
The national rate of recidivism for an adolescent placed in an institution for rehabilitation is 65% (Pommier and Witt 1995). Because this rate is so high, the mental health and judicial systems are interested in treatment and rehabilitation alternatives that can produce lower rates of recidivism. For this reason, the studies that evaluate the ef?cacy of adventure therapy programs have looked mainly at the issue of recidivism along with the many factors such as self esteem or locus of control that contribute to lower rates of recidivism. As a result, the small group interpersonal interactions that characterize adventure therapy, and directly contribute to it?s positive effects, have been overshadowed by rates of recidivism and data from clinical scales.
In some cases the literature provides only blanket statements such as, ?Across the board these programs seem to be successful. . . . we see lowered rates of recidivism,? (Golins, 1978, p. 26). However, such anecdotal responses can usually be backed up with evidence from empirical studies. Kelley and Baer (Wright, 1983) conducted a thorough and respected study in this area, involving 120 adolescent offenders. The treatment group participated in a twenty-six day therapeutic Outward Bound course and the control group received the routine treatment of institutionalization or parole (Wright, 1983). Nine-months following treatment, they found that only 20% of the treatment group in comparison to 34% of the control group had recidivated. At the one year mark, the treatment group?s rate of recidivism held at 20% whereas the control group?s had risen to 42%. In their long term follow-up, ?ve years after the experiment, 38% percent of the treatment group had recidivated in comparison to 58% of the control group (Wright, 1983).
Adams (Berman and Berman, 1989) found similar results with an adolescent inpatient psychiatric population. His follow-up study was conducted twenty-eight months after the treatment group had participated in a thirty day wilderness program, and the control group had participated in the standard hospital program. He found that those in the wilderness program had a recidivism rate which was 15% less than those in the standard program (Berman and Berman, 1989). These studies show that adventure therapy in a wilderness setting is not a panacea for this population, yet at the same time they demonstrate that adventure therapy consistently and signi?cantly proves to be more effective than the routine treatment of these adolescents.
Also ... Wright (1983) evaluated the effects of a
twenty-six day adventure therapy program on the self-esteem, self-ef?cacy, locus
of control, and problem solving skills of delinquent adolescents. Through the
use of quantitative and empirical measures he found that the 21 participants in
the treatment group showed statistically signi?cant increases in self-esteem, self-
ef?cacy, and internality (locus of control) in comparison to the 26 adolescents in
the control group (Wright, 1983).
-
I have a question here? wouldnt it be tricky to compare the sucess rate of a wilderness therapy programme with a prison. One has kids who have all done something criminal. The other has some kids who may have been sent there through thhe criminal system and many kids who are sent there by their families for a variety of reasons. In the event that the Wilderness therapy had a higher on paper sucess rate, surely the fact that some kids had not broken the law in the first place (or been caught) and therefore are unlikely to again would have some bearing on the stats.
Are the non criminal kids automatically eliminated from the study?
-
Yes, I was thinking the same thing, but as I reread it I saw that the study included 120 offenders, some went to wilderness others went to prison or parole and tracked their progress for several years.
They didn't include kids who were not in trouble with the law in the study.
-
On 2006-06-10 14:38:00, Anonymous wrote:
"From the Journal of Child and Adolescent Group Therapy, vol. 10, no. 1, published in 2000, and likely written a bit (as it usually takes time to get articles accepted into such journals) ...
The national rate of recidivism for an adolescent placed in an institution for rehabilitation is 65% (Pommier and Witt 1995). Because this rate is so high, the mental health and judicial systems are interested in treatment and rehabilitation alternatives that can produce lower rates of recidivism. For this reason, the studies that evaluate the ef?cacy of adventure therapy programs have looked mainly at the issue of recidivism along with the many factors such as self esteem or locus of control that contribute to lower rates of recidivism. As a result, the small group interpersonal interactions that characterize adventure therapy, and directly contribute to it?s positive effects, have been overshadowed by rates of recidivism and data from clinical scales.
In some cases the literature provides only blanket statements such as, ?Across the board these programs seem to be successful. . . . we see lowered rates of recidivism,? (Golins, 1978, p. 26). However, such anecdotal responses can usually be backed up with evidence from empirical studies. Kelley and Baer (Wright, 1983) conducted a thorough and respected study in this area, involving 120 adolescent offenders. The treatment group participated in a twenty-six day therapeutic Outward Bound course and the control group received the routine treatment of institutionalization or parole (Wright, 1983). Nine-months following treatment, they found that only 20% of the treatment group in comparison to 34% of the control group had recidivated. At the one year mark, the treatment group?s rate of recidivism held at 20% whereas the control group?s had risen to 42%. In their long term follow-up, ?ve years after the experiment, 38% percent of the treatment group had recidivated in comparison to 58% of the control group (Wright, 1983).
Adams (Berman and Berman, 1989) found similar results with an adolescent inpatient psychiatric population. His follow-up study was conducted twenty-eight months after the treatment group had participated in a thirty day wilderness program, and the control group had participated in the standard hospital program. He found that those in the wilderness program had a recidivism rate which was 15% less than those in the standard program (Berman and Berman, 1989). These studies show that adventure therapy in a wilderness setting is not a panacea for this population, yet at the same time they demonstrate that adventure therapy consistently and signi?cantly proves to be more effective than the routine treatment of these adolescents.
Also ... Wright (1983) evaluated the effects of a
twenty-six day adventure therapy program on the self-esteem, self-ef?cacy, locus
of control, and problem solving skills of delinquent adolescents. Through the
use of quantitative and empirical measures he found that the 21 participants in
the treatment group showed statistically signi?cant increases in self-esteem, self-
ef?cacy, and internality (locus of control) in comparison to the 26 adolescents in
the control group (Wright, 1983).
"
I would like to locate and read the studies. I would like to know the sample size an the Adams study. It is likely that the treatment group was not as ill as the control group. 15% is not much of a difference in a small sample size. Was this voluntary compliance? If it was, the differance could be the motivation of the patients? How well were the subjects matched? It is exceeding unlikely that a wilderness therapy program any effect on psychiatric hospitalization. What was the standard program? Did the same therapists treat the treatment group and control group? Were the medications and diagnoses matched? What care was given after the standard post hospitalization care? Was there a differance in family support and parenting skills? Did socioeconomic status or I.Q. affect the results?
In the Kelley and Baer Study without looking at it, we have a skewed population because part of the control group was institutionalized. You have more conduct disorder and anti-social personality disorder in the control group. Poorer outcomes to be expected. Let me see if I can find this study online without going to a research library.[ This Message was edited by: Badpuppy on 2006-06-11 14:37 ]
-
The Who wrote:
So continuing along the same line of thinking it seems you agree that ?Least restrictive? is a relative term depending on the individual.
Yes, this is true. And residential treatment should be considered only for the 1% or fewer of cases that are both seriously mentally ill and violent or suicidal. That's it.
Programs and "wilderness therapy" are forms of residential treatment. The children in them do not need to be there. Most of these kids haven't been diagnosed by a professional at all and the ones that have been are usually labeled "LD" or "ODD" - neither of which conditions (ODD is very often used as a convenient label, BTW, as over 90% of ODD cases are under the age of 10) require residential care.
One step further: If a child did indeed meet the very stringent criteria for residential placement, programs and WT would be woefully inadequate to meet their treatment needs.
So yes, you do understand the basic concept, but your misinterpretation of how it is applied shows abject ignorance of the subject matter. This is what I keep telling you - you don't fully understand the debate and this is why your "arguments" and "analogies" are dismissed out of hand by people like AA, AA's ex (and many others) and myself who already know better than the tired, canned line you are regurgitating.
You seem to continuously miss one salient point. People who are educated, trained professionals in the arena of mental health don't need studies proving ineffectiveness as we are fully equipped through education and experience to make value judgements on the effectiveness and appropriateness of treatment. You, Who, clearly are not equipped to make such discernment and it is painfully obvious.
-
On 2006-06-10 15:48:00, TheWho wrote:
"Yes, I was thinking the same thing, but as I reread it I saw that the study included 120 offenders, some went to wilderness others went to prison or parole and tracked their progress for several years.
They didn't include kids who were not in trouble with the law in the study."
Outward Bound, the program mentioned in the study, only takes volunteers. Those that went to Outward Bound chose to go there instead of going to a traditional JDC or other alternative. OB does not accept 'escorted' kids. If you want to view Outward Bound as a program, then I would agree that you have found a good one. They are not run like a boot camp and they don't use the coersive pursuasion techniques.
Keep in mind programs specifically advertise to parents of 'at risk' or 'pre-delinquent' teens. In some sense, they are billing themselves as a means to prevent actual delinquency and so comparing 'at risk' teens to delinquents is not so valid. But again, how do you measure a preventive program's success? You have no idea if the 'at risk' teen will ever become delinquent or just grow out of it.
-
This outward bound thing looks excellent from its website. This is why i am fast becoming against wildreness "programmes" which just seem to (from what i have so far seen) be designed to punish/reform convicted felons or force other kids to "modify" their behavour and in some cases make a profit from being punitive or "therapudic".
I noted that the outward bound programme was marketed to the kids not to the parents. I also noted that it is a not for profit org. This is what i was getting at earlier. This outward bound thing could possiblydo what "the programmes" claim they are there for by building confidence, giving families a break from each other and having kids achieve something in a fun setting. It is not about "modifying behavour" or stripping kids of basic privileges to create the perfect kid, it is about engaging young peole and bringing out their best. This seems to be exactly where the for profit progammes fail because even the"good" ones seem to focus on the negatives.
-
If anything the Outward Bound Program bolsters the arguement that when kids are having fun they are lot easier to connect to. Voluntary complance is a very powerful ethical and practical distinction. It actually is run more like a teen summer camp, than a Wilderness Therapy program. Interestingly enough, they manage to run their program without food deprivation, forced physical labor, or exercise used as torture to break kids. This program really doesn't belong in the typical Wilderness Therapy Class.
The typical use of a WT program is to make kids compliant so they will be more manageable in residential treatment. I believe 80% of the kids are being sent away after wilderness.
There is also the issue of the lack of oversight, standards of care, and fraudulant marketing. Most parents are clueless about credentialization and the deception of this industry makes choosing a total crapshoot.
Then there is the issue of cost-effectiveness. $20,000 buys twice a week therapy with an experienced professional for two years. Is Wilderness Therapy really the most judicious choice? PLS HELP and DJ, the points you made are excellent
-
When my son was 16 we sent him to Outward Bound. That is where he learned to smoke dope and then learned the value of taking sleeping pills to "get through" the solo. I know the programs O.B. offer vary, but we had a terrible experience. The staff never checked the meds the kids brought with them and did not monitor sexual behavior at all. The program backfired on us. $4,000 for three weeks of drug reinforcement. He had a GREAT time though.
-
Here's what your money buys:
Woodbury Reports survey on effectiveness
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... um=9#56579 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=6205&forum=9#56579)
1/3 were negative or unenthusiastic in their approval indicating they didn't feel they got their money's worth, Suggests inappropriate placements are happening too often, Suggesting that programs promised more than they could deliver....
-
On 2006-06-11 06:17:00, Dysfunction Junction wrote:
"
The Who wrote:
So continuing along the same line of thinking it seems you agree that ?Least restrictive? is a relative term depending on the individual.
Yes, this is true. And residential treatment should be considered only for the 1% or fewer of cases that are both seriously mentally ill and violent or suicidal. That's it.
Programs and "wilderness therapy" are forms of residential treatment. The children in them do not need to be there. Most of these kids haven't been diagnosed by a professional at all and the ones that have been are usually labeled "LD" or "ODD" - neither of which conditions (ODD is very often used as a convenient label, BTW, as over 90% of ODD cases are under the age of 10) require residential care.
One step further: If a child did indeed meet the very stringent criteria for residential placement, programs and WT would be woefully inadequate to meet their treatment needs.
So yes, you do understand the basic concept, but your misinterpretation of how it is applied shows abject ignorance of the subject matter. This is what I keep telling you - you don't fully understand the debate and this is why your "arguments" and "analogies" are dismissed out of hand by people like AA, AA's ex (and many others) and myself who already know better than the tired, canned line you are regurgitating.
You seem to continuously miss one salient point. People who are educated, trained professionals in the arena of mental health don't need studies proving ineffectiveness as we are fully equipped through education and experience to make value judgements on the effectiveness and appropriateness of treatment. You, Who, clearly are not equipped to make such discernment and it is painfully obvious.
"
I hate to be the one to point this out to you but studies are written specifically for other professionals, not to the public. Professionals rely heavily on studies to advise and treat their patients. Learning and education does not stop with a diploma, as it has with you, but continues throughout our professional lives. We depend on the results and recommendations of the latest studies and research, being a true professional is looked upon as fluid and a continuous process. Any professional who states ?We don?t need studies?. Because we are educated and experienced? raises a red flag and I would take a closer look at their credentials.
Just as a short example: There are studies which professionals spend a good part of their professional careers working on only to find they reached a dead end (or inconclusive results). But this is valuable information and would be published so other professionals will not follow the same path in their research. All studies are valuable, you should know this, if you are one, DJ.
Professionals in the mental health field are recommending TBS?s because they are finding them to be effective for select groups of children, they don?t recommend all schools but select ones which will benefit their patient. You keep lumping all RTCs together and ignoring the growth and specialization that is occurring because you claim to know it all, based on your past experience. The professionals that are making the recommendations are basing their decisions on the latest research, experience and studies Published in periodicals like JAMA. You can?t begin to compare your expertise to theirs because you stopped growing.
Open your mind up a little and recognize that treatment options are continuously changing and I want you to keep educating yourself to keep up. If I only had the experience of what treatment was like 10 or 20 years ago I may have a different opinion, but this is 2006 , kids needs are different and there are better solutions to choose from.
If you want to try to put HLA out of business and that makes you happy, great. If you want to advise parents and kids, on a professional level, try to keep up, read the latest studies and attend seminars etc., don?t pretend to know it all.
-
To a great many urban and suburban dwellers there is nothing of any relevance in learning to survive in the wilderness. The closest to the wilderness we will ever be, is watching the Nature Channel on high definition. The survival skills we need are hailing taxis in the rain, spotting the good mechanics, finding the best housing bargains and navigating urban transit. That is what will build our confidence, self esteem, and locus of control. I am thinking about setting up an Outward Bound in San Francisco, New York, Philadelphia, Fort Lauderdale, or Harvard Square in Boston. lol[ This Message was edited by: badpuppy on 2006-06-11 15:19 ]
-
On 2006-06-11 15:12:00, Badpuppy wrote:
"To a great many urban and suburban dwellers there is nothing of any relevance in learning to survive in the wilderness. The closest to the wilderness we will ever be, is watching the Nature Channel on high definition. The survival skills we need are hailing taxis in the rain, spotting the good mechanics, finding the best housing bargains and navigating urban transit. That is what will build our confidence, self esteem, and locus of control. I am thinking about setting up an Outward Bound in San Francisco, New York, Philadelphia, Fort Lauderdale, or Harvard Square in Boston. "
Hey, good idea,You may have something there.
-
On 2006-06-09 15:20:00, Dysfunction Junction wrote:
"
You've not given any of your so-called incontrovertable proof that wilderness programs are inherently harmful You've not responded to the references, including links to evidence of positive effects.
You'll have to quote what you think I need to explain and I'll do it for you. If you say that I said something you should at least provide the quote so I know what you're talking about.
I have not seen a single credible study of the so-called "wilderness therapy" programs' effectiveness. Show me something tangible and I'll review it. I'm not interested in shill pieces and industry literature - I already know better than that type of nonsense. I've seen and studied the approach and I can't find any measurable benefit whatsover, but I can see a lot of serious problems. I've also seen quite a few young adults with serious problems caused by this type of "help."
It is inherently harmful to place a child in a program unwillingly by coercion or force. It is inherently harmful to make them stay by the same means.
I'm a rational human being. I connect the dots - there's a clear pattern. I have no idea in the world why this infuriates some people so badly.
"
One post I recall - saying wilderness programs were proven harmful, is one I can't now find. Perhaps it was one in the program question thread that got edited. Perhaps it was elsewhere, or by someone else. Whatever.
Your post of 6/6 at 10:13 said ""Wilderness Therapy" is research-proven ineffective through clinical study and the results are incontrovertible."
I've not found or seen such proof - only "heard" of it on this site. Yet studies showing effectiveness and other observations of full-time professionals speaking of its value are out there.
On 6/11 at 6:17 your post contained: "You seem to continuously miss one salient point. People who are educated, trained professionals in the arena of mental health don't need studies proving ineffectiveness as we are fully equipped through education and experience to make value judgements on the effectiveness and appropriateness of treatment."
Still, I know two psychiatrists, two psychologists, and a CSW unaffiliated with any wilderness (or TBS) program who have recommended each in some instances - with positive outcomes.
So, I guess you don't have/can't identify the studies "proving" ineffectiveness. Did you just make it up as you went along, and now you don't need them?
Yet is nice to learn that you are a professional fully equipped with education and experience in mental health. What specialty/sub-specialty?
-
On 2006-06-11 14:24:00, Deborah wrote:
"
Here's what your money buys:
Woodbury Reports survey on effectiveness
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... um=9#56579 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=6205&forum=9#56579)
1/3 were negative or unenthusiastic in their approval indicating they didn't feel they got their money's worth, Suggests inappropriate placements are happening too often, Suggesting that programs promised more than they could deliver....
"
Also suggests 2/3 thought it worthwhile. But however you slice it, there are some good. The issue is two-fold: finding good placements, which is getting a bit easier but still is not easy; and getting acceptance that some programs etc are good, which for many here would be harder than a parent finding a good placement.
-
On 2006-06-11 12:50:00, Anonymous wrote:
"When my son was 16 we sent him to Outward Bound. That is where he learned to smoke dope and then learned the value of taking sleeping pills to "get through" the solo. I know the programs O.B. offer vary, but we had a terrible experience. The staff never checked the meds the kids brought with them and did not monitor sexual behavior at all. The program backfired on us. $4,000 for three weeks of drug reinforcement. He had a GREAT time though."
i am sorry that this happened to you. i think that this is a regulatory issue. I have been arguing that 2 things are wrong with this industry. The fist is lack of govt oversite which if adressed would ensure that kids get correct levels of supervision and care. The second is cultural change.
-
Cindy are you still talking about things you know nothing about? Come over to the HLA thread and acknowledge your incompetence before you start trying to force your lack of wisdom on more people.
-
Those 1983 studies you are discussing are amongst the ones that were reviewed in the meta-analysis and by the Justice Department and found to have methodological flaws that made them impossible to draw conclusions from. Generally, they lost too many people to follow up.
Just because someone thinks a study is OK to put in a discussion section doesn't mean that it is actually methodologically sound.
The consensus amongst those who have looked at this area objectively-- not people who make their business selling it or people who have an emotional attachment to the idea of it-- is that there is little evidence that wilderness programs help. The evidence that does favor the approach only favors voluntary programs which take a kind, gentle, supportive approach-- not those which use force or accept kids who do not want to be there.
And in the current lax regulatory environment, it is impossible for parents to know that that is what their kids will actually get.
People who believe in this business should be supporting strict regulation-- otherwise, they have no credibility. Those who say it's OK as it is but there are a few bad apples and you can find good programs if you know how to look don't recognize that high turnover and lack of regulation means that even good programs will often have bad employees who can be seriously dangerous to kids.
Unchecked power is corrosive and leads inevitably to abuse-- these programs do not have the kinds of checks and balances to protect kids in them. If you look at military boot camps or prisons or psychiatric institutions, they are filled with attempts to check power and keep the use of force on a tight rein. Even there, there are regularly abuses and problems because the situation of having people with absolute power over others will always produce abuses, the only thing you can do is try to minimize them. This is why you want to use the least restrictive setting for kids-- to avoid exposing them to inherently dangerous institutions.
With kids, there is an extra problem: pedophiles. Any place that has lots of children will attract pedophiles-- if you don't do background checks, require little education and hire kids who were previously troubled themselves as "role models," your program is going to be a magnet for them.
So, by sending your kids to these places as they stand now, you are not necessarily making them safer than they are on the street. Sure, drug scenes attract problem people too-- but at least there, the pedophiles can rarely prevent those who want to talk to their parents from doing so and at least there, the child will be believed if he complains of abuse-- not dismissed as "manipulative."
The troubled teen business has yet to recognize these risks-- and this is why it remains dangerous, even though there may well be some kids who could benefit from some things, like communion with nature or challenge in nature.
It's also why Outward Bound for *regular* kids-- not the program aimed at those in trouble-- is at least somewhat safer. When you have ordinary kids who choose to go, they are going to be believed when they complain-- whether its about abuse or illness.
Also, it is impossible to prove a negative-- you can only say that there's no evidence that is is effective. It's like if you say all swans are white-- you can't prove it. One black swan may exist somewhere.
-
One black swan may exist somewhere.
I believe she is known as KarenInDallas.
-
By the way, I sent my kid to an OB program for "regular" kids. I didn't appreciate that a bunch of hippies with no boundries taught my kid to smoke dope. Get over your "Karen in Dallas" label.
-
On 2006-06-11 14:53:00, TheWho wrote:
I hate to be the one to point this out to you but studies are written specifically for other professionals, not to the public. Professionals rely heavily on studies to advise and treat their patients. Learning and education does not stop with a diploma, as it has with you, but continues throughout our professional lives. We depend on the results and recommendations of the latest studies and research, being a true professional is looked upon as fluid and a continuous process.
I am going to invoke my ex-wife the psychiatrist again. She's not involved this time, only my own knowledge here. In order to maintain her credentials my ex has to take a certain amount of credits each year and become recertified every ten years. One of the things I admire about her is how well she keeps up with the new stuff. She also keeps a healthy skepticism and doesn't jump onto the bandwagon at every new fad.
I also see through her that doctors very frequently share their experiences and trade stories and information with other doctors. That is another way of keeping up.
But, I have also attended more dinners sponsored by pharmaceutical companies than I can count. These are held at very nice restaurants and hotels. The meals are lavish and they treat the doctors like royalty. Then they put on their dog and pony shows (using lots of Powerpoint slides) where they introduce the new drug or new use for a drug. They are armed with charts and graphs and the outcomes of studies and inform the doctors on who should take the drug, what dose, how long, what are the side-effects, how to deal with them, what are the dangers, etc. The problem is that these dinners are the ONLY source of information for these doctors. The intention is not just to inform. It is to sell. The free samples are passed out and we all go home. A bit scary, really.
It is the same with these WT programs. The studies all seem to be sponsored by the industry or related parties.[ This Message was edited by: AtomicAnt on 2006-06-11 16:31 ]
-
On 2006-06-11 16:14:00, Anonymous wrote:
"By the way, I sent my kid to an OB program for "regular" kids. I didn't appreciate that a bunch of hippies with no boundries taught my kid to smoke dope. Get over your "Karen in Dallas" label."
Why would you send your kid away if he was "regular"?
-
Atomic Ant wrote:
"One of the things I admire about her is how well she keeps up with the new stuff. She also keeps a healthy skepticism and doesn't jump onto the bandwagon at every new fad."
Responsible providers all do this. This is why we have professional associations and periodicals.
Saying that I don't need a study to prove a negative because I have an education and training to judge that on my own means in no way that I feel like I don't need to keep up with the times. That is another ridiculous strawman argument.
The bottom line, Who, is that you generally have no idea of what your talking about and you transfer your own ineptitude onto others. Just because you don't know what you're talking about doesn't mean others don't.
-
The other problem with Who is that he is borrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrring. Why even respond? He makes my eyeballs curl up.
-
On 2006-06-11 16:40:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2006-06-11 16:14:00, Anonymous wrote:
"By the way, I sent my kid to an OB program for "regular" kids. I didn't appreciate that a bunch of hippies with no boundries taught my kid to smoke dope. Get over your "Karen in Dallas" label."
Why would you send your kid away if he was "regular"?"
Because he asked to go.
-
On 2006-06-11 17:45:00, Anonymous wrote:
"The other problem with Who is that he is borrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrring. Why even respond? He makes my eyeballs curl up."
eyeballs curl up...
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
that was funny!!!
-
If he was 'regular' and asked to 'go' why not let him go...just be sure that there's toilet paper. :lol:
-
Further: You talk about kids that want to go- mine did...summer camp (Outward Bound)...never would do it again. Wilderness Camp became more to the point. He liked that too, except the absence of sex and drugs.
-
Why would you send your kid away if he was "regular"?
Because he asked to go.
[/quote]
Just make sure he has some toilet paper..
-
The issue in medical and psychological treatment is that the burden of proof falls upon the one trying to establish treatment as effective. It has to be this way to safeguard the public from deleterious medical approaches and fraud. In the case of TBS's there is an additional handicap in establishing effectiveness because the Surgeon General scrutinized the existing research and concluded that residential treatment is ineffective. The hole is much bigger. Practicioners don't have time to read every relevent unless it is in an area of their expertise, and they will weigh consensus from a generally unbiased source far more heavily. Any industry study is properly viewed with great suspicion. Any person conducting a study needs to have their study reviewed with a close eye twords particular affiliations. It doesn't mean that one automatically disreguards the outcome because of the source, but heavy caution and scrutiny needs to be used when you know the conductor of the research stands to gain from the outcome. [ This Message was edited by: Badpuppy on 2006-06-11 18:34 ]
-
Fuck....
-
Why would you send your kid to the john if he was "regular"?
Because he asked to go...
Better make sure there's some toilet paper..
-
On 2006-06-11 18:07:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2006-06-11 16:40:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2006-06-11 16:14:00, Anonymous wrote:
"By the way, I sent my kid to an OB program for "regular" kids. I didn't appreciate that a bunch of hippies with no boundries taught my kid to smoke dope. Get over your "Karen in Dallas" label."
Why would you send your kid away if he was "regular"?"
Because he asked to go."
That is the funniest shit I've heard all day.
-
[
That is the funniest shit I've heard all day."
[/quote]
Why would you think that some kids wouldn't want to do this? They volunteer for much more physically demanding endeavors This wouldn't be for me when I was a "youngun", but their are freinds of mine who would have found this cool. Now whether or not it was anything more than a nice camping experience is another question.
-
Your MOTHER would have found it cool......biatch! :wave: :lol:
-
You guys are hysterical! I'm peeing my pants! No wait, my MOTHER is peeing her pants. No, my Mother is peeing MY pants ::ftard::
-
:lol: :lol: :lol: .
-
What is so funny about a kid wanting to go to Outward Bound? I'm beginning to believe that all of you ex-program/life losers don't want to go anywhere or do anything but pontificate on this forum. You said yourselves it's like "summer camp." He chose to go, I paid for it and he learned to smoke dope- just that simple.
-
There is nothing wrong with outward bound for kids who wanna go there.
Faith, as well intentioned as it may be, must be built on facts, not fiction- faith in fiction is a damnable false hope.
--Thomas Edison, American inventor
-
http://www.passagestorecovery.com/family.htm (http://www.passagestorecovery.com/family.htm)
JOIN N TELL US !
MAYBE U COULD B ON STAFF THERE ?
-
On 2006-06-11 18:16:00, Badpuppy wrote:
"The issue in medical and psychological treatment is that the burden of proof falls upon the one trying to establish treatment as effective. It has to be this way to safeguard the public from deleterious medical approaches and fraud. In the case of TBS's there is an additional handicap in establishing effectiveness because the Surgeon General scrutinized the existing research and concluded that residential treatment is ineffective. The hole is much bigger. Practicioners don't have time to read every relevent unless it is in an area of their expertise, and they will weigh consensus from a generally unbiased source far more heavily. Any industry study is properly viewed with great suspicion. Any person conducting a study needs to have their study reviewed with a close eye twords particular affiliations. It doesn't mean that one automatically disreguards the outcome because of the source, but heavy caution and scrutiny needs to be used when you know the conductor of the research stands to gain from the outcome. [ This Message was edited by: Badpuppy on 2006-06-11 18:34 ]"
Please, where may I find a copy of the report stating that "the Surgeon General scrutinized the existing research and concluded that residential treatment is ineffective"?
-
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/m ... #treatment (http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/mentalhealth/chapter3/sec7.html#treatment)
-
These are some items from the Surgeon General's report. Some of them should sound awfully familiar - this is the position statement of most of the posters on this site.
Outpatient treatment:
"Newer outpatient interventions (e.g., case management, home-based therapy) that were developed more recently for youth with severe disorders are provided with greater frequency (i.e., daily) in the home, school, or community."
What it is used for:
"...applied to problems such as anxiety, depression, or withdrawal (internalizing problems) or to hyperactivity and aggression (externalizing problems) (Kazdin, 1996)."
The results:
"The major findings indicated that the improvements with outpatient therapy are greater than those achieved without treatment; the treatment is highly effective..."
Compare this to residential treatment:
"Residential treatment centers are the second most restrictive form of care (next to inpatient hospitalization) for children with severe mental disorders."
What it is used for:
"The types of treatment vary widely; the major categories are psychoanalytic, psychoeducational, behavioral management, group therapies, medication management, and peer-cultural. Settings range from structured ones, resembling psychiatric hospitals, to those that are more like group homes or halfway houses. While formerly for long-term treatment (e.g., a year or more), RTCs under managed care are now serving more seriously disturbed youth for as briefly as 1 month for intensive evaluation and stabilization."
The results:
"...failure to learn behavior needed in the community; the possibility of trauma associated with the separation from the family; difficulty reentering the family or even abandonment by the family; victimization by RTC staff; and learning of antisocial or bizarre behavior from intensive exposure to other disturbed children (Barker, 1998)."
"Although removal from the community for a time may be necessary for some, there is evidence that highly targeted behavioral interventions provided on an outpatient basis can ameliorate such behaviors (Brestan & Eyberg, 1998). For children in the second category (i.e., those needing protection from themselves because of suicide attempts, severe substance use, abuse, or persistent running away), it is possible that a brief hospitalization for an acute crisis or intensive community-based services may be more appropriate than an RTC."
I'm not sure how it could be any more clear. This is a common-sense, mainstream view of the flow of mental health care.
Residential treatment is at best mildly effective and at worst terribly damaging. The most positive treatment results with the fewest collateral problems come from treatment in the community and a higher level of care should be needed only in extreme circumstances.
Most of the "program parents" out there are paying top dollar for the most irresponsible and ineffective "treatment" that money can buy.
It's a damn shame that an industry that pushes involuntary residential treatment in one-size-fits-all franchised teen warehouses be allowed to operate at all, but it's even more of a shame that they've gotten some of you to believe that this is the only choice you have or your kid will be "dead, insane or in jail."
-
On 2006-06-12 16:14:00, Dysfunction Junction wrote:
"These are some items from the Surgeon General's report. Some of them should sound awfully familiar - this is the position statement of most of the posters on this site.
Outpatient treatment:
"Newer outpatient interventions (e.g., case management, home-based therapy) that were developed more recently for youth with severe disorders are provided with greater frequency (i.e., daily) in the home, school, or community."
What it is used for:
"...applied to problems such as anxiety, depression, or withdrawal (internalizing problems) or to hyperactivity and aggression (externalizing problems) (Kazdin, 1996)."
The results:
"The major findings indicated that the improvements with outpatient therapy are greater than those achieved without treatment; the treatment is highly effective..."
Compare this to residential treatment:
"Residential treatment centers are the second most restrictive form of care (next to inpatient hospitalization) for children with severe mental disorders."
What it is used for:
"The types of treatment vary widely; the major categories are psychoanalytic, psychoeducational, behavioral management, group therapies, medication management, and peer-cultural. Settings range from structured ones, resembling psychiatric hospitals, to those that are more like group homes or halfway houses. While formerly for long-term treatment (e.g., a year or more), RTCs under managed care are now serving more seriously disturbed youth for as briefly as 1 month for intensive evaluation and stabilization."
The results:
"...failure to learn behavior needed in the community; the possibility of trauma associated with the separation from the family; difficulty reentering the family or even abandonment by the family; victimization by RTC staff; and learning of antisocial or bizarre behavior from intensive exposure to other disturbed children (Barker, 1998)."
"Although removal from the community for a time may be necessary for some, there is evidence that highly targeted behavioral interventions provided on an outpatient basis can ameliorate such behaviors (Brestan & Eyberg, 1998). For children in the second category (i.e., those needing protection from themselves because of suicide attempts, severe substance use, abuse, or persistent running away), it is possible that a brief hospitalization for an acute crisis or intensive community-based services may be more appropriate than an RTC."
I'm not sure how it could be any more clear. This is a common-sense, mainstream view of the flow of mental health care.
Residential treatment is at best mildly effective and at worst terribly damaging. The most positive treatment results with the fewest collateral problems come from treatment in the community and a higher level of care should be needed only in extreme circumstances.
Most of the "program parents" out there are paying top dollar for the most irresponsible and ineffective "treatment" that money can buy.
It's a damn shame that an industry that pushes involuntary residential treatment in one-size-fits-all franchised teen warehouses be allowed to operate at all, but it's even more of a shame that they've gotten some of you to believe that this is the only choice you have or your kid will be "dead, insane or in jail."
"
Nice of you to add emphasis not in the original. Also clever of you to omit in your "results" excerpt the words preceeding, which say that these are some of the risks [- risks which it would seem can be addressed]. The report also notes that "For most children (60 to 80 percent), gains are reported in areas such as clinical status, academic skills, and peer relationships."
I do agree with you that addressing the issues at home and/or in the child's local community is the first choice, but that is another matter. Not all communities have appropriate resources available, and for some that have the resources, they don't have the capacity to meet the demand.
"One size fits all franchised warehouses are bad for most. One size fits all (absent the franchise or warehouse) won't be right for most either, and may be damaging for some as well. But that doesn't address the fact that a good wilderness program can be of outstancding benefit for a good many.
-
On 2006-06-12 11:13:00, Anonymous wrote:
"http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/mentalhealth/chapter3/sec7.html#treatment"
Thanks for the link.
Actually the Surgron General's report DID NOT say that residential treatment was ineffective. It said that "there is only weak evidence for their effectiveness", as well as that there were only three controlled studies of which they named only two. The studies were published in 1974 and 1978, which is over a quarter century ago. It would be good to have more current research, but I can't create it here. Still what I've seen still doesn't come out negative specifically on wilderness.
They also said "The outcomes of not providing residential care are unknown", and "An intensive long-term program such as an RTC with a high staff to child ratio may be of benefit to some children".
A major problem with using the report in looking at one type of facility is that they group a wide range of things ranging from structured ones, resembling psychiatric hospitals, to those that are more like group homes or halfway houses in the group. No differentiation of behavior mod warehouses from government-run boot camps or either from wilderness programs. And that doesn't even get to diffentiating between types of boarding school approaches or wilderness program styles.
Anyway, no negativity, although appropriate caution.
-
On 2006-06-12 06:55:00, S wrote:
"http://www.passagestorecovery.com/family.htm
JOIN N TELL US !
MAYBE U COULD B ON STAFF THERE ?"
Who runs the Sweat Lodges?
How are they ran? Who trained the staff?
Any Native Americans on staff?
Only Breakfast & Dinner- Hiking and sweating and No Lunch? How many calories per day?
-
Why would the presence of Native Americans be an issue Debs?
...it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate,
tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds..
--Samuel Adams
-
hi-yuh hi-yuh hi-yuh...o
oops, sorry- wrong forum.
-
"One size fits all franchised warehouses are bad for most. One size fits all (absent the franchise or warehouse) won't be right for most either, and may be damaging for some as well. But that doesn't address the fact that a good wilderness program can be of outstancding benefit for a good many.
This is a very good point. The programs themselves are becoming more and more ?Results Driven? and therefore are not accepting kids who they feel will not benefit or do well in their program. The programs are also slowly becoming more and more specialized (not one size fits all) over time which should result in an increase in effectiveness over the next decade.
-
BTW, "weak evidence" is frequently scientist speak for "it doesn't work."
Not always, but frequently.
Sometimes, it means there has been little research done. Sometimes it means there has been substantial research and it's clear that if something "works" at all, the effects are small enough to be negligible.
Scientists phrase things very carefully. They speak in code, and you don't know what they really mean unless you know how to translate the code.
"Strong evidence" usually means: "We've proved it, dammit."
"Weak evidence" usually means: "Our best professional opinion is that whatever it is is flat wrong."
"Weak evidence" is a term usually not used when the body of research is just not sufficient to draw a conclusion. If there is a gap where nobody has bothered to research a particular question, usually they just say that.
The term "weak evidence" is the second most damning thing any scientist will ever say about any theory or assertion. The only thing stronger is "no evidence," and that label is very rarely applied. In practice, "weak evidence" is what scientists say when anyone speaking plainly would say, "It's bullshit."
The things that scientists label "weak evidence" in formal papers are the same things that, if you're a student or someone they know and they're speaking off the record, they'll say flat out, "It's bullshit."
Scientist-speak is like diplomat-speak and lawyer-speak. The words they use frequently mean different things from what they'd mean in plain English.
-
On 2006-06-13 08:35:00, Anonymous wrote:
"BTW, "weak evidence" is frequently scientist speak for "it doesn't work."
Not always, but frequently.
Sometimes, it means there has been little research done. Sometimes it means there has been substantial research and it's clear that if something "works" at all, the effects are small enough to be negligible.
Scientists phrase things very carefully. They speak in code, and you don't know what they really mean unless you know how to translate the code.
"Strong evidence" usually means: "We've proved it, dammit."
"Weak evidence" usually means: "Our best professional opinion is that whatever it is is flat wrong."
"Weak evidence" is a term usually not used when the body of research is just not sufficient to draw a conclusion. If there is a gap where nobody has bothered to research a particular question, usually they just say that.
The term "weak evidence" is the second most damning thing any scientist will ever say about any theory or assertion. The only thing stronger is "no evidence," and that label is very rarely applied. In practice, "weak evidence" is what scientists say when anyone speaking plainly would say, "It's bullshit."
The things that scientists label "weak evidence" in formal papers are the same things that, if you're a student or someone they know and they're speaking off the record, they'll say flat out, "It's bullshit."
Scientist-speak is like diplomat-speak and lawyer-speak. The words they use frequently mean different things from what they'd mean in plain English.
"
OK, though i'd have thought it was more of "there may be something, but not enough to convince", else i'd have said no evidence. anyway, if there is no evidence (at least that they found) it works, why, in the same section, did they write "For most children (60 to 80 percent), gains are reported in areas such as clinical status, academic skills, and peer relationships."????
Incidentally, the same report also says there are 3 studies of a particular type, summarizes one, and then says the only other one ... That accounts for 2, what about the third?
-
On 2006-06-13 04:08:00, MightyAardvark wrote:
"Why would the presence of Native Americans be an issue Debs?
...it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate,
tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds..
--Samuel Adams
"
As you said in another thread:
Exactly, a lot of the stuff that these hellholes call "manipulation" is really perfectly interaction. It's important though to undertand that the "Teenhelp" industry makes a habit of hijacking the terminology of legitimate psychology and twisting it to fit a totally different agenda.
First, I agree with you. When a kid is persistent with his/her pleas or attempts to ?negotiate? the thing they want, it is labeled manipulation. Parents don?t want to be bothered with rational discourse, negotiation, or debate. Kid is supposed to accept No without explanation or discussion. Parents are ?afraid? of being manipulated because they can?t hold a firm line.
One of the top reasons my son spent 20 months in pergatory. Did they 'cure' him? Nope, much to his father's distress I'm sure. As he has aged, it's seen as drive, assertiveness,one of the 7 characteristics of successful people.
Now to the Native issue. Just as programs have hijacked and twisted psych terms, so have many of the programs co-opted and bastardized Native culture and spirituality. Vision Quest and Sweat Lodges are considered sacred ceremonies and only to be conducted by a recognized and traditionally trained person.
?more than 100 years of forced assimilation (brainwashing) of the Lakota, Dakota and Nakota peoples, our ways of praying and conducting ceremonies have also been desecrated, contaminated, profaned, misused and abused.
When a way of living means the survival of a nation of people, then is it harsh to ask that some respect be shown to those peoples' lifeways? (I cannot even say "religion" because that concept is too shortsighted and narrow.)
The total destruction of the people's lifeways was the reason for taking away the language, banning the "religion" and stopping the singing of sacred songs, besides destroying the sources of economics. Destroying the total lifeways of a nation of people would destroy those people as a nation. They would no longer be Lakota, Dakota, Nakota but would be ... tahdah: American. That is what happened.
When I was much younger, I heard elders talking about a time when the non-Indians were going to come to indigenous people and say, "Teach us how to pray." And I remember the sadness in their voices as they continued by saying, "They took everything and now they want our way of praying."
In the sixties, the hippies were among the first in the Southwest to begin appropriating Indian lifeways, as if the Creator told them to do this. Then it spread like wildfire until by the 1990s there were pictures in major international magazines of Sun Dances being held in Germany. with only white people. The disrespect knew no bounds.
I find it ironic that the same culture that economically devastated Natives, forced their children into white boarding schools (programs), stripped them of their traditional customs and spirituality, now co-opt Native culture/ spirituality in brainwashing programs for their own children. And, for profit. These ceremonies were never for profit. No money was/is exchanged.
While sweating is not unique to Natives, and not all Natives conducted Sweat Lodges, they all had some method of purging toxins from the body. The tribe I?m descended from chose a more gentle approach- lounging in hot springs. The Lakota and others preferred a more intense method.
Why do the programs call them Sweat Lodges? Hold Vision Quests? Issue Native names? Smudge with sage sticks?
Finns knew the value of sweating. Why not put in a sauna and teach the value of eating well and sweating?
Why not hold communion and/or baptize them?
Would it be appropriate for a staff member to do either?
I would like to think that their use of Native spirituality was an admission that it has value. I think it?s more to do with- Nostalgia sells.
My new-agey neighbor sent her kid to Skyline Journey, in spite of warnings, because she felt he had a ?spiritual connection? with the owner of the program- from a past life. SJ was shut down after his death and they opened a new program called Distant Drums. The family had some connection with the BIA (I believe it was).The mom excused his death as "karma". :scared:
It sickens me to think that these kids may believe they are having a traditional Native experience, and/or that they will make a negative association with things Native (or nature in general) due to the deplorable conditions they are forced to live in at programs.
As for Vision Quest, another Native ceremony- Natives would shutter to know how white people were conducting them in programs-. which bears no resemblance to a Native Vision Quest. It?s disrespectful.
Again, Natives don?t hold a patent on going into the woods to reflect, re-evaluate, and envision the future of one?s life- programs could do this without implying that it?s Native. I have to question how much value would be derived from being forced to participate. Did you see the 14 yr old kid in Brat Camp? He was shaking and crying for his mother. He was not properly prepared. If it were done traditionally, his parent, siblings, and other family would have been there supporting him. He also would not have been forced to stay out if he weren?t ready for the passage- it's okay, you can try again next month/year. I noticed they didn?t force him to do rock climbing, but they did leave him alone in the desert to deal with his fears. Sorry, that?s just sadistic. And given that this was the final ?challenge?, I?m sure it made a strong impression and worked to keep him in line after he returned home. Who would want to be returned to such sadistic torture. I?d sure tow the line. It served the adults purposes. I feel certain it didn?t serve him at all.
I would want to know who is running the Sweat Lodge, how they had been trained, who monitors the kids to ensure they don?t overheat. Ignorant people have died in sweats? and saunas. Given the lackadaisical attitude toward providing kids needs in programs, I consider this to be highly risky. I personally would not allow my child to participate in a Sweat Lodge with any stranger. I would want to know their background and experience and what values they were going to impress upon my child in the process.
To the program person- how far do you take this? Do the kids sing and pray? Do kids on VQ make prayer ties? etc.etc.etc. Is there a Native on staff or consulting?
And I'm still curious, why no Lunch? How many calories in Breakfast and Dinner?
-
Saw this today, She found her daughter in the midwest, in the back of the van with skin heads (she is Jewish) injecting drugs. Talk about just in time. Anyway it was a short interview, but looks like a good book.
Check it out.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/Books/sto ... 525&page=4 (http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/Books/story?id=2058525&page=4)
-
On 2006-06-13 10:32:00, TheWho wrote:
"Saw this today, She found her daughter in the midwest, in the back of the van with skin heads (she is Jewish) injecting drugs. Talk about just in time. Anyway it was a short interview, but looks like a good book.
Check it out.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/Books/sto ... 525&page=4 (http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/Books/story?id=2058525&page=4)"
Some program-vet friends of mine describe similar situations. After leaving their programs, in which they were emotionally and physically abused, they starting using to cover up all the pain they now had to deal with -- in addition to all the problems they had originally (if any) -- that never got addressed.
The irony of this book is many teens will now be going down the path her daughter was, because of this book. I have many friends from WWASPS programs and they all say they are worse off today than before they went into the program.
Of course the lady writing this book doesn't care about that though.
-
Note that she said hospital psych ward, not a program. She might not even know such things exist.