Another death last week at an Aspen program

[AuntieEm2]

Hilarious. You look at the study and the first two sentences are these:

"There is a lack of research concerning the effectiveness of residential treatment for troubled adolescents. Due to a focus on internal controls in this area of research, there has been no conclusion as to how helpful such treatment is for real world clients."

The rest of what I read is speculative, full of phrases like "...is probably necessary," and "...were perceived to have improved." That's not hard data. The abstract concludes by saying that much more research needs to be done, and that the result of her research suggests--it does not prove--effectiveness.

Also note that she talks about "in-patient treatment," yet this is not what is offered at programs, clearly not at Aspen programs. Aspen admitted in court in August that they do not provide treatment. So an $83,000 a year babysitter?

Auntie Em

[Troll Control]

You don't recall correctly,  In fact, you didn't publish the full link to this psychology paper because the link is titled "student papers" and it's stored on a student server and has never been published anywhere, much less a science journal.  Busted again.

Let me help you:  http://http://groups.colgate.edu/cjs/student_papers/2002/VShapiro.pdf

The first page of the abstract states:  

"Results found that the majority of pathological and adaptive behaviors were perceived to have improved by both the students and parents, but that the standardized measures of patient relations, self-reliance, conduct, and self-reported depression were still well within the clinical range."[/u]

What does this mean?  It means that anecdotal evidence from parents and students is unreliable, as the data prove that in all areas the measured items failed to improve out of the clinical range, i.e. the treatment felt good to the parents and students, but was factually totally ineffective.

Shot yourself in the foot again, Whooter.

This "evidence" you provided actually invalidates your claims that student and parent stories reflect reality and that ASR's treatment is effective.  Too bad your reading comprehension skills are so low or you could have avoided this embarrassment.

Sorry, Whooter, but here are the real facts.  If Shapiro was "pre-doctoral" in 2007, then five years earlier she would have been a freshman psychology student (2002) when this paper was written.  A freshman psychology paper is not a university study.  Everyone understands this.

[Troll Control]

Hilarious. You look at the study and the first two sentences are these:

"There is a lack of research concerning the effectiveness of residential treatment for troubled adolescents. Due to a focus on internal controls in this area of research, there has been no conclusion as to how helpful such treatment is for real world clients."

The rest of what I read is speculative, full of phrases like "...is probably necessary," and "...were perceived to have improved." That's not hard data. The abstract concludes by saying that much more research needs to be done, and that the result of her research suggests--it does not prove--effectiveness.

Also note that she talks about "in-patient treatment," yet this is not what is offered at programs, clearly not at Aspen programs. Aspen admitted in court in August that they do not provide treatment. So an $83,000 a year babysitter?

Auntie Em

All true, AuntieEm. But the abstract says on the first page that the data that was able to be gathered showed no clinical improvement in any area:

...the standardized measures of patient relations, self-reliance, conduct, and self-reported depression were still well within the clinical range."

So the few pieces of data that she did gather and analyze prove that ASR is ineffective.

Now, where are the others of thes "multiple university studies published in university science journals," Whooter?

[Ursus]

Oh, I remember this study... From my previous comments on it:

"...Moreover, the actual number of participants in this survey is staggeringly low. It is impossible to draw any meaningful statistical conclusions from the data. There were fewer student surveys returned for analysis (17), than there are pages in this paper. Perhaps this is why the results discussed in the text, as well as the tables, are expressed almost exclusively in terms of

percentages."[/list]

Seriously, how can you generate twenty-plus pages of discussion, when only 17 students returned their surveys? Just how statistically relevant are said results ... extrapolated to the population at large?

[AuntieEm2]

There has been so much more research done on how profitable they are.

Aspen's parent company, CRC Health, reported earnings in 2007 of $460 million, up 69.6% over 2006. Nearly three quarters of the company’s increased revenue, or $131.4 million, came from their youth division, with an average net income per youth per day of $233.80—more profitable by far than its adult addiction recovery division which earns an average net income per patient per day of just $11.18.

Auntie Em

P.S. So those 17 ASR students produced $1.45 million dollars in profit per year.

[Whooter]

Here's one I found:
Colgate University
It was part of a study, there was a woman, Shapiro, who conducted an independent study of Therapeutic Boarding Schools and found them to be extremely effective.  She found no evidence of abuse.  It was published in a journal if I recall correctly.  She is currently working with “Students for Sensible Drug Policy” and “National Institute for Mental Health”.  She is pretty cool and really into helping kids.

Valerie Shapiro
She was selected to be the 2007 Gottlieb Fellow and awarded summer funding to participate in the NIH Multidisciplinary Predoctoral Clinical Research Training Program. In 2008-2009, she will work with the Social Development Research Group as an NIMH Prevention Trainee using a prevention science framework to research risk and protection factors in child development, the implementation of community-level interventions, and questions regarding the scalability and sustainability of tested-effective programs.

Currently she is working on papers examining whether the SSDP “Students for Sensible Drug Policy” intervention worked better (or worse) for people who were high in behavioral disinhibition/externalizing, as well as a qualitative paper examining the transition to adulthood for youths involved in crime and drugs during adolescence.

Link to Study

Thanks for the link.  I believe you were right this was published.  Here is an exerpt:

There are many advantages to treatment in a residential facility. As Wong (1999, p. 42) reports, “Adolescents with long-standing and intense aggressive, destructive, and disruptive behavior are not good candidates for short-term, outpatient, or in-home treatment. Simply put, youth in this state do not participate in or cooperate with therapy. Some type of extended residential or alternative living situation is probably necessary to provide a secure and controlled environment in which to instigate behavior change.” Inpatient care can provide immediate help in a crisis situation, and can remove the client from dangerous situations (Barker, 1974). More so than the average outpatient program, residential facilities offer more opportunities for therapeutic contact, more monitoring of dangerous and disturbing behaviors, and a more direct evaluation of aftercare options. Assessments that are hard to do as an outpatient can be done at these facilities, and at multiple intervals, and hence the reactions to medication and other interventions can be watched particularly closely

Great find Whooter:

There was no abuse noted and the program at ASR was found to be highly effective.  Lets take a closer look.

DJ no violence now!!!  Lets keep your temper at bay.

[Troll Control]

Highly effective?  Let's look at the data analysis again, shall we?  First page of the abstract clearly states:

"...the standardized measures of patient relations, self-reliance, conduct, and self-reported depression were still well within the clinical range."

So, no measurable improvement indicates "highly effective"?  You'll have to explain that to the rest of us round-worlders.

When a kid has finished 18 months at ASR, they will still be clinically depressed, have bad relations, low self-reliance and bad conduct.  So sayeth the Shapiro paper.  So parents are paying some $120k for 18 months of zero improvement.

Let's also not forget that Aspen's program rises to the level of child abuse under Oregon law.

[Troll Control]

*crickets*

Whooter gets fully owned in debate yet again after making demonstrably false claims of "multiple university studies proving effectiveness of programs and published in multiple university science journals."  Another crock of steaming shit served up by the ardent supporter of institutionalized child abuse.

So we're back to square one: No clinical trials have ever been conducted and the one piece of "evidence" Whooter holds out as proof of efficacy (a freshman psychology paper) actually says on the first page that programs, based on data, are completely ineffective and participants show no clinical improvement after successfully completing a $120k, 18 month institutionalization.

Next topic...

[Whooter]

I have to admit that I didnt think I would see the day where we were discussing a study together.  I am most surprised with you DJ and I am happy you are able to have a "back and forth" with a study in your hand vs just your feelings and emotions on the topic.  I noticed you didnt threaten anyone lol..... (just kidding).  This has been productive, though, even though we dont agree we are at least speaking from the same document for a change.... instead of this parent said this.. this survivor said this etc.

We are all quoting the study which is the important thing and we all chose to site different parts to support our thoughts and beliefs which is a huge step.  Here are a couple of  excepts that I found interesting:


My findings contradict the idea that making fundamental changes during late adolescence is nearly impossible (Loeber, 1991) and also dispel the myth that long-term treatment is detrimental to normal development. The most important finding of this study is that residential treatment for troubled adolescents has the potential to be extremely effective.
Colgate

The parents and students both perceived changes in the student from the time before treatment to the time of follow-up. Parents found the frequency of alcohol use and of cigarette smoking to have improved (p ? .01). Parents also found the following areas to have shown additional improvements (p ? .001): trouble making behavior at school, sexual promiscuity, desire to hurt oneself, the impact of alcohol use on daily life, the frequency of drug use, and the impact of drug use on daily life. Students had similar impressions of their own improvement.

[Ursus]

Students had similar impressions of their own improvement.

How many of those 17 students were still living at home when they filled out those surveys? And how many months had it been, since they graduated the program at ASR?

[Whooter]

Students had similar impressions of their own improvement.

How many of those 17 students were still living at home when they filled out those surveys?

I am not sure if the study was that specific in that area.  I'll go back thru it to see if they break that out.

[Troll Control]

Students had similar impressions of their own improvement.

How many of those 17 students were still living at home when they filled out those surveys?

I am not sure if the study was that specific in that area.  I'll go back thru it to see if they break that out.

Ha, ha, ha.

Study, my ass.  This is a paper written by a freshman student.  Still waiting, Whooter, for your links to the numerous clinical studies performed by universities and published in their science journals as you claimed earlier.  No links?  NEVER HAPPENED.

It wouldn't matter where they were living anyway.  there were only 17 responses from a hand-picked sample given to Shapiro by ASR.  this hand-picked sample is presumably the ones ASR thought would look the best, but, alas, the data show clearly that in ALL areas, these kids were still clinical in all areas after an 18 month program.  Not even one was "sub-clinical" much less symptom-free.

[Troll Control]

Highly effective?  Let's look at the data analysis again, shall we?  First page of the abstract clearly states:

"...the standardized measures of patient relations, self-reliance, conduct, and self-reported depression were still well within the clinical range."

So, no measurable improvement indicates "highly effective"?  You'll have to explain that to the rest of us round-worlders.

When a kid has finished 18 months at ASR, they will still be clinically depressed, have bad relations, low self-reliance and bad conduct.  So sayeth the Shapiro paper.  So parents are paying some $120k for 18 months of zero improvement.

Let's also not forget that Aspen's program rises to the level of child abuse under Oregon law.

First page, in cold print, all studied traits still in the clinical range.  No improvement.

[Ursus]

It wouldn't matter where they were living anyway.

You don't think that parental presence would have an impact on the students' answers? Maybe they could be sent away again.

Moreover, it would suggest that the student respondents were still in that honeymoon phase of trying to fit in with everyone's expectations of them. Hence my question of how much time had elapsed since they were in program...

[Whooter]

It wouldn't matter where they were living anyway.

You don't think that parental presence would have an impact on the students' answers? Maybe they could be sent away again.

Moreover, it would suggest that the student respondents were still in that honeymoon phase of trying to fit in with everyone's expectations of them. Hence my question of how much time had elapsed since they were in program...

I didnt see it listed anywhere, Ursus.  I dont think she broke it out that fine.  It would have been interesting to see how many are still at home and how many moved away or moved on to college/boarding school.