Fornits

Fornits Home for Wayward Web Fora
An open discussion about the troubled parent industry

Studies my ass. I'd kill for a real study, and Ive been talking about it for ages.

There are two types of studies:

1. A study that is deliberately slanted to agree with the hypothesis of the party financing the study
2. A study that is independent and run by sociologists, using scientific method. Financiers play no part in reinforcing any sort of hypothesis. It is investigative.

For instance. I want a study. The main reason I want a study is to really get some solid numbers on WHATEVER the deal is. That's why I want it, for fucks sake, to determine what the hell is going on. I don't want to play any part in the process. That's what soc majors are for. I honestly wouldnt even know how to proceed in getting a control group and an experimental group.

All of us would like to have as independent a study as possible done in every situation.  There are still people who will not accept any cancer treatments because the studies were overseen by the government or financed by the drug companies.  Some demand a private third party with no ties or advocates or to government agencies.

There are others who wouldn’t accept any study which showed the programs to be effective because their minds are made up.  There is always a way to discredit a study if you look hard enough.

Since we cannot control the studies we look at the source, read the study and determine for ourselves whether we accept it or not.  Some studies are done by the institutions themselves and others (like this one) is given to an independent consulting firm which specialises in this area.  I think it would be difficult to get a private donation to pay for the study and even then if the donor had a neighbor who attended a program many would think it dirty and toss it aside.
 
The studies are not intended to sway anyone’s opinion here on fornits... your minds are already made up for the most part and view anything positive about programs as being fabricated somehow.

DJ’s question is regarding Aspen as an entity, not individuals within that organization.

Go back and read his post.  It was about a counsellor who wasn’t licensed... DJ made it seem like it was a therapist to mislead the readers here on fornits.  The scary thing is that DJ sells himself to be a therapist himself, yet he tries to damage others careers.  Nothing like the professionals I am use to dealing with.  Just a little weird if you ask me.
I mean we can look up the license of any of the Aspen therapists but we can’t do that for Dysfunction Junction.  We just need to take his word for it.

Wow, this study has caused such a stir to have everyone come out to try to discredit their findings.  Can anyone tell me which part of the study is so damaging to everyone here that they need to trash the Research firm and also the people who conducted the study?

The study is long but these findings of the study seem to upset many here: (not sure why)


Link1
Link2

These results suggest that Aspen Education Group's wilderness therapy programs are teaching important emotion regulation skills, as well as providing a climate for adolescents to rehearse newly acquired strategies to manage negative emotions such as worry, sadness, and anger. Overall findings provide considerable support for the use of wilderness therapy programs in treating resistant adolescents.

Research conducted by: Ellen Behrens, Ph.D., Canyon Research & Consulting, Inc.; Sarah (Salli) Lewis, Ph.D. and Ellen Leen-Feldner, Center for Research, Assessment, and Treatment Efficacy and Arkansas Institute of Developmental Science; Keith Russell, Ph.D., Outdoor Behavioral Healthcare Research Cooperative, University of Minnesota.

Mental health issues including stress, depression and anxiety are significantly improved. OBH treatment helped reduce stress, depression and anxiety in teens, especially in those with more extreme levels, with continued reduction shown at the six-month follow-up assessment.

Substance abuse and dependence is significantly reduced, with results lasting through the 12-month follow-up. Students experienced substance-related pathology within the clinically significant and elevated range pretreatment, but symptoms fell within a normal range upon graduation. Most importantly, these results were sustained through the three and 12 month follow-up assessments.

Social conflict and aggressive behaviors decrease. Reduction of these self-defeating behaviors continues post-graduation, with greatest improvement shown at the 12-month follow-up assessment.

Hey, Nigel, in light of this admission by AEG lawyers, under oath, in open court, on public record, how do you feel now about the "treatment" your son is allegedly receiving at Aspen Ranch?  

I'm interested to hear your response now that it is indelibly self-admitted by AEG that they provide no treatment or therapy as construed by any legal definition.  Or how about the fact that your son's "treatment records" can be willfully disclosed to the police or general public because Aspen, not being a provider of treatment, feels it is exempt from HIPAA laws?

Whoa!!  DJ, your desperation is showing. Nigel can easily check the credentials of his sons therapist.  The therapist is licensed and needs to adhere to the HIPPA laws which they do.  The counselors and staff who are not licensed do not need to adhere to these (see you misread it, the counselors and staff don’t need to be licensed).  Aspen education knows this and you just choose to misinterpret the posting.

You tried to blur the difference between therapist and counselor, DJ, Nice try.

Welcome back!!

Quote from: "Guest"

Quote from: "psy"

Quote from: "Ursus"

Moreover, there is no information in this overt piece of viral marketing regarding HOW these assays were conducted. "Informal surveys" sent out? Disregarding for the moment the general bias inherent in such surveys, what percentage were actually returned?

Not to metion: who filled out the surveys?  (Parents or the kids themselves?)...  Also, who is to say aspen gave a full list of students to the company performing the "research"?  Also, what is this independent group that did the research.  Do you mean independent like Behrens the ed-con (like last time)?

So where is the source for this information, Whooter?  I want details.  I don't see any sources or links in your original post. Also, I see the post only mentioning Suws of the Carolinas benefiting kids in the title.  Is Aspen at the very least willing to concede the majority of their "treatment" at the very least just plain does not work?

All very good questions, but I didnt conduct the study and it wasnt done by Aspen Education Group:

 Here are the people who did the study:This was an independent study conducted by Ellen Behrens, Ph.D.

...  and that was where I stopped reading. Really, Whooter.  An ed-con who pushes and refers to Aspen is Independent?!?!  Please.  Call me when you have a study done by people who don't have a financial interest in the outcome.

Ha,Ha,Ha,... saw the word "consultant" and you closed your mind and ran lol.  (I don’t expect to convince any of you guys).  Its a good study and it scares the hell out of a lot of people here, I understand that.  The industry is changing and it is going to get tougher and tougher to support your case with just pictures of the "Hobbit" and kids being forced to work in the company store at "Straight" from the 1970’s...or a 300lb guy sitting on a kid…… it just aint the same any more.  Those days are long gone.

Everyone here is slowly realizing that the kids are getting the help they need at these places.. there are over 500 programs today and the number of kids who have not benefitted from them are almost nill.

Psy, I understand there is a ton of room for improvement but we cant deny that kids lives are being immensely effected everyday for the better.  This is not the last study to be conducted and you can continue to find fault in everyone of them or start to read and understand the direction of the industry and how kids are being helped.  Its up to you.

You and I both know that you take the worst possible thing that  happens in a program and then apply it to all of them.  Not all programs listen to phone calls or censor mail.. has it happened?  Sure.  But it doesn’t happen everywhere… you are failing yourself by not seeing the shades of gray.. the changes that are occurring.  

There was a poster earlier who said we should do a study of the effectiveness of calling a kid a slut and a whore and screaming at them because they were raped.  Do you really belief that every rape victim is treated this way?  It  blows my mind that so many of you buy into this belief  and hold it up like some religious icon.

The industry will always be changing (for the better or for the worse) and we need to keep our finger on the pulse to make sure its moving in the right direction… but you are not doing any of that.  You only see what you want to see, living in the past.


Catch up!!!

What if the one kid is a step child being ousted by a new step parent? (Stephen Fredricksen, the young man in the TB documentary, for example) Or the one kid is the whipping child for the dominant parent.

Of course there are exceptions and I understand what you are saying.  We cant sit here and say the problem is with the parents or with the child.  This can only be determined by a third party.........  there are tons of probabilities....What if the other kids in the family are doing fine and the parents treat all the kids equally but this one child just acts out?  What if the parents are as engaged as can be but the one child just heads down a destructive path?

Quote from: "Guest"

Quote

When all your kids end up in programs, it is a good indication there's a problem with the parenting.

I see what you are saying, seems we agree somewhat.  So when the other siblings are doing okay and its just the one kid that needs a program then its a good indication it is just the kid who has the problem.  This has actually been my argument also.

Unless the kid has a parent like John D. Reuben

Yes there are exceptions.  I would agree that if all the kids in the family needed to be placed then there is something going on with the entire family or parenting.  But if all the kids are doing fine and there is one who is struggling then it is clearly not a parenting issue.  You dont need a professional to figure that out.

Wow, good find, Ursus.  Wish I could use the search function that well.  I used this to explain non profit to Ajax13 at one point.  Although I am not familiar with Canadian law so it may be a little different.

But basically Rueben can make a profit but STICC’s cannot.  At the end of the year they have to have a zero balance.  So as the end of the year comes around and there is still a million or two in the non profit businesses  account then the board is faced with the dilemma of putting an addition on his summer home, handing out one time salary adjustments to employees or sponsoring a few more kids to programs or both so that all the money is spent by the end of the year.

Similar to your local government…if it doesn’t snow a lot this year they can’t carry over the snow removal budget to next year they need to spend it.  They cant give out bonuses but they can buy new equipment or desks for the school etc. to spend down the excess so that the town isn’t making a profit.