Programs In Behrens Study Charged with Abuse

[Whooter]

Prove one thing I've lied about.

Just as you need to listen to all of us saying how abusive it is/was without assuming we're lying.  There have been plenty of us who've had almost identical stories, coming out of different facilities because most of them use the same basic techniques that Straight did, although the programs now are much better at dressing it up for the marks....er, parents.

I dont assume all the stories are lies, Anne.  There are some that I dont believe, but most of them I believe.  Where we differ is the thinking that a few stories here on fornits represent all the kids who attend programs.  I showed you a 1,000 kids who told their story... did any lie?  Maybe... Do people lie on fornits?  Maybe.  We dont know for sure.  What we need to do is keep collecting stories and data and eventually the truth will rise to the top.

right now there are a 1,000 kids who had an opportunity to express how they felt and we should not try to silence their stories.  It wouldnt be right.



...

[Anne Bonney]

Prove one thing I've lied about.

I lied my ass off for months, even years.

Need I say more?

This is one reason why people think you're such an asshole.  You took what I said completely out of context.  I lied to and about Straight for fear that I'd be sent back.

Just knock it off.

[Anne Bonney]

right now there are a 1,000 kids who had an opportunity to express how they felt and we should not try to silence their stories.  It wouldnt be right.

I'm not trying to suppress them and I never said anything of the kind, so again....please stop putting words in my mouth or taking them out of context in your vain attempts to prove your point.....I'm simply questioning them because I knew I had to lie when I got out in order to avoid being sent back.  I suspect these kids are doing the same with their "exit surveys".  They're probably just as scared as I was.

[Troll Control]

Actually, Anne, if you look at the study, Behrens says right in it that there is strong bias toward reporting improvement for that very reason - so the kids could leave.  Whooter doesn't mention that part.

It doesn't take a genius to realize saying "I'm better now" will get a kid out of program faster than saying "This is bullshit."

[Whooter]

right now there are a 1,000 kids who had an opportunity to express how they felt and we should not try to silence their stories.  It wouldnt be right.

I'm not trying to suppress them and I never said anything of the kind, so again....please stop putting words in my mouth or taking them out of context in your vain attempts to prove your point.....I'm simply questioning them because I knew I had to lie when I got out in order to avoid being sent back.  I suspect these kids are doing the same with their "exit surveys".  They're probably just as scared as I was.

My daughter and all the kids were far from scared,  I can tell you first hand.  The program was a place where everyone could speak openly.  If anything most of them would have feared going back to their old world and leaving their comfort zone.



...

[Troll Control]

Actually, Anne, if you look at the study, Behrens says right in it that there is strong bias toward reporting improvement for that very reason - so the kids could leave.  Whooter doesn't mention that part.

It doesn't take a genius to realize saying "I'm better now" will get a kid out of program faster than saying "This is bullshit."

Lols.  Anne, he doesn't want you to look at that study now.  You might quote Behrens admitting this bias, like I did and there goes his "study."  It's laughable, really.

[Whooter]

Actually, Anne, if you look at the study, Behrens says right in it that there is strong bias toward reporting improvement for that very reason - so the kids could leave.  Whooter doesn't mention that part.

It doesn't take a genius to realize saying "I'm better now" will get a kid out of program faster than saying "This is bullshit."

Lols.  Anne, he doesn't want you to look at that study now.  You might quote Behrens admitting this bias, like I did and there goes his "study."  It's laughable, really.

Which study is that?

Oh this one?

Residential Treatment Outcome-Study



...

[Troll Control]

You do know what you keep linking to is not actually a study, right?  It's a synopsis report.  Just so we're clear.  Studies don't look like this.  Anyway, let's have a look, shall we?

On page 13 it clearly states that discharge status does not predict the degree of change; that is kids who dropped out did just as well as those who didn't.  This means the program was not the change driver or there was extreme bias.

Also, the researcher points out this strong bias by the reporters in the same paragraph.  Take a look:

The finding that discharge status does not predict the degree of
change is harder to understand. One possibility is that because parents are often confronted by
clinical staff if they discharge an adolescent against program advice, they, along with their
adolescent, may have a conscious or unconscious motivation to underreport problems. Perhaps
existing differences between those who discharged with and without program advice were
masked by a desire to “look good” in the group who discharged against program advice.

So either the program didn't drive any change and the study is worthless or there is strong bias and the study is worthless.  Take your pick.

[Whooter]

it goes on to say:

Another
possibility is suggested by the length of stay for those who discharge against program advice.



...

[Troll Control]

So, basically, the results were that it made no difference when the kid split - a week, a month,six months or the average stay of 8.6 months.  The length of stay had nothing whatsoever to do with outcomes, suggesting that no stay would produce similar results.  The researcher, unable to explain this phenomenon, speculated on a couple of reasons.  Either of which, if they explain the results, mean that one, the program was no change agent or two, the study is simply too biased to draw any conclusions.  Either way, the program did not help any kids and/or the data were bad based on bias.  The researcher herself admits this.

Which brings me to a second point.  With no control group, the fact that kids who stayed one day did just as well as those that completed the program cannot be explained other than the basic inference that the program itself did not induce any change and was not measured to have done so.

Which brings me to a third point.  With no follow up done, there can be no suggestion that any change that was self-reported lasted even one day after discharge.

So what does this study tell us?  Not much, really.  Only that it is self-admittedly biased and that kids who stayed one day did as well as kids who completed the program.  Both of which tell us the program doesn't actually do anything and that the study is deeply flawed based on the admitted bias.

These are the basic reasons why this study could never have passed peer review or withstood scrutiny to be published.  And "phase two" was never released even though it was completed several years ago because the results weren't to Aspen's liking.  They spun phase one into a marketing tool and phase two wouldn't aid sales so they punted it without ever even making the results public.  Anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see this quite easily.

[Whooter]

Good points, DJ, Many times parents see the results of the childs improvement (in earlier phases) and want to remove the child from the program early.  The final phase of the program is focused on getting the child ready for transition home and solidifying the changes that were made.  So the child that leaves early may report the same results as those who complete the program (because the results are the same)… or the child and parents may under-report problems to reinforce their feelings that the child has improved enough to leave, if they are taking their child out against the programs advice.
These are the biases that can exist in studies of this kind and was pointed out by Behrens.   This also shows that Behren was being open and honest with the data results and reporting and not just a puppet of Aspen Education for marketing purposes.

This is also why many studies will focus only on those students who complete the program and discarding  the data of those who leave early.

I tried to point out to you that the study wasn't just a polished marketing tool for Aspen Education.  Once you get into it you will see that there are pitfalls and downs sides to Residential Treatment along with the benefits.  This is the strength of doing studies.  As more studies are done we can begin to better solidify the results found here with Behrens Study and start to see the mean leangth of time it takes for a child to improve and solidify the improvement.  Maybe the studies will show that the program length should be shortened from 14 months to 8 months.

Good discussion.



...

[Troll Control]

Really, if you by Behrens' results, your kid doesn't need to spend more than a single day in a program to have the same results as a kid who finishes it.  My question then becomes why send your kid at all?  If they get full benefit in one day then they surely shouldn't spend any more than that.

This study may have been believable if there were a control group and a follow up, but, unfortunately, it has neither.  Also unfortunately, Aspen presented it as "proof Aspen programs work," when in fact, no such thing is proven at all.  That is shameless lying to promote its programs, an issue that even Ed Cons openly admit and discuss on their own websites while advising parents to simply "avoid Aspen Education programs."

Bottom line?  This study has no weight, is biased, unreviewed, unpublished, no control group and no follow up.  Despite these massive failures, Aspen holds it out as proof the programs in it "help kids," even though those same programs have been formally charged with abuse, killed children via abuse/neglect and were shut down by authorities for systemic child abuse.

All these facts add up and are reflected in Aspen Education's sliding income and worsening care standards, according to those in the business of referring kids to programs.  Parents would do well to simply avoid Aspen programs as many are now suggesting - even people who make fees for sending kids to Aspen.

[Whooter]

Really, if you by Behrens' results, your kid doesn't need to spend more than a single day in a program to have the same results as a kid who finishes it.  My question then becomes why send your kid at all?  If they get full benefit in one day then they surely shouldn't spend any more than that.

I agree if a child spends one day there and has the same results as a child who spends 14 months then the length of time should be shortened to 24 hours.  But I didnt see this in the study.  What I read was that the kids reported similar results whether they were released early or completed the program.  Like I mentioned most of the work is completed in earlier phases and the final phase is used to prepare the child for release and solidify the work that has been done.



...

[Troll Control]

Really, if you by Behrens' results, your kid doesn't need to spend more than a single day in a program to have the same results as a kid who finishes it.  My question then becomes why send your kid at all?  If they get full benefit in one day then they surely shouldn't spend any more than that.

I agree if a child spends one day there and has the same results as a child who spends 14 months then the length of time should be shortened to 24 hours.  But I didnt see this in the study.  What I read was that the kids reported similar results whether they were released early or completed the program.  Like I mentioned most of the work is completed in earlier phases and the final phase is used to prepare the child for release and solidify the work that has been done.



...

Right, no matter how early they left the results were similar.  Why stay more than a day then?

The final phase isn't assessed in this work because there was no follow up to check the results at any time after the day of discharge.  However, no matter how long they stayed, they didn't do any better than any other kids, so why stay?  There's no data in this work to suggest any benefit whatsover from staying longer than a day.  Let's face the facts.  This work is hokey at best.

[Whooter]

Really, if you by Behrens' results, your kid doesn't need to spend more than a single day in a program to have the same results as a kid who finishes it.  My question then becomes why send your kid at all?  If they get full benefit in one day then they surely shouldn't spend any more than that.

I agree if a child spends one day there and has the same results as a child who spends 14 months then the length of time should be shortened to 24 hours.  But I didnt see this in the study.  What I read was that the kids reported similar results whether they were released early or completed the program.  Like I mentioned most of the work is completed in earlier phases and the final phase is used to prepare the child for release and solidify the work that has been done.



...

Right, no matter how early they left the results were similar.  Why stay more than a day then?

The final phase isn't assessed in this work because there was no follow up to check the results at any time after the day of discharge.  However, no matter how long they stayed, they didn't do any better than any other kids, so why stay?  There's no data in this work to suggest any benefit whatsover from staying longer than a day.  Let's face the facts.  This work is hokey at best.

By final phase, I meant the last phase of the child stay at the program.  If you read the study and conclude that a child who spends a day receives the same benefit as those who spent months then that is your choice.

I think the main thing is that people start reading the study and getting out what they will on an individual basis.  Its a big step for you to read the study and to start discussing the results.  So I take this as a plus (even though we disagree on the findings).

I think we can both agree that if this were just a polished marketing campaign then the study would not reflect anything negative as you have pointed out.



...