Westridge & Other Schools(Formerly LDS Perceptions thread)

[_Yoda]

Are there programs like this currently being spearheaded in Canada, Marg, or is this something you have read about that is happening in the US?

Yes I believe a company created the program and that it's been around for about 25 years and used in many countries. It's called multisystemic therapy or MST and the research is that it is a better more effective option than incarcerating youth for deliquency who aren't hardened serious criminals. Later I'll find a link and post it, with more details on the program.

Governments worldwide are using it including the U.S. but of course not private residential places because ..they aren't in that business of delivering in home treatment plans. West Ridge is affiliated with other similar for profit businesses...a wilderness program facility and a for profit residential treatment facility. So they are definitely operating to make money and apparently are structuring their businesses to operate like the LDS church..with their for profit businesses donating to their charity.. West Ridge.

This is really interesting. I had never heard about this type of program before. It sounds like it needs to be publicized more in the school systems, etc. I think that if parents knew about it, they would be more inclined to take advantage of it.

[_marg]

No one becomes a juvenile delinquent unless they are indulging in illegal activity, marg. In order to be delinquent, one must have done something illegal. Anyone convicted of a crime is a criminal, by definition. So... a juvenile who is deliquent is, by definition, a criminal.

Perhaps you should read up on some of the relevant case law, so you know which words to use.

Unless I'm seriously mistaken (which is entirely possible because I got bored long ago with the exchange between you and Jersey, and Lord knows GoodK has an axe to grind), none of the residents of the ranch in question is or was a juvenile delinquent. Which doesn't mean they shouldn't have been classified that way; that just means they hadn't gotten caught yet, so the nomenclature doesn't apply to them.

Sending a youth away to a facility in which they don't have access to phones freely except once a week if that and it's monitored by a therapist, in which communication with the outside world is heavily restricted, in which there is a virtually no grievance process, is no better than the criminal system which incarcerates youth in detention places...that Harmony is the point and reason I compare how the state treats youth who are classified as delinquent.

[_marg]

As I explained to Harmony I'm comparing research and how governments treat incarcerated youth because for all intents and purposes the facilities like West Ridge not only sound no better, they actually sound worse as far as treatment goes.

The following link discusses the negative affects on youth from being incarcerated...I took out relevant portions to quote.


http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/06-11_REP_DangersOfDetention_JJ.pdf

[quote]Congregating delinquent youth together negatively affects their behavior
and increases their chance of re-offending
Behavioral scientists are finding that bringing youth together for treatment or services
may make it more likely that they will become engaged in delinquent behavior. Nowhere
are deviant youth brought together in greater numbers and density than in detention
centers, training schools, and other confined congregate “care” institutions.
Researchers at the Oregon Social Learning Center found that congregating youth
together for treatment in a group setting causes them to have a higher recidivism
rate and poorer outcomes than youth who are not grouped together for treatment.
The researchers call this process “peer deviancy training,” and reported statistically
significant higher levels of substance abuse, school difficulties, delinquency, violence,
and adjustment difficulties in adulthood for those youth treated in a peer group setting.
The researchers found that “unintended consequences of grouping children at-risk
for externalizing disorders may include negative changes in attitudes toward antisocial
behavior, affiliation with antisocial peers, and identification with deviancy.”12
------------

Detention can slow or interrupt
the natural process of “aging out of delinquency”
Many young people in fact engage in “delinquent” behavior, but despite high
incarceration rates, not all youth are detained for delinquency. Dr. Delbert Elliott,
former President of the American Society of Criminology and head of the Center for
the Study of the Prevention of Violence has shown that as many as a third of young
people will engage in delinquent behavior17 before they grow up but will naturally “age
out” of the delinquent behavior of their younger years. While this rate of delinquency
among young males may seem high, the rate at which they end their criminal behavior,
(called the “desistance rate”) is equally high.18 Most youth will desist from delinquency
on their own. For those who have more trouble, Elliott has shown that establishing
a relationship with a significant other (a partner or mentor) as well as employment
correlates with youthful offenders of all races “aging out” of delinquent behavior as
they reach young adulthood.

Whether a youth is detained or not for minor delinquency has lasting ramifications for
that youth’s future behavior and opportunities. Carnegie Mellon researchers have shown
that incarcerating juveniles may actually interrupt and delay the normal pattern of “aging
out” since detention disrupts their natural engagement with families, school, and work.19

------------
WSIPP found that, for every dollar spent on county juvenile detention systems, $1.98 of
“benefits” in terms of reduced crime and costs of crime to taxpayers was achieved. By
sharp contrast, diversion and mentoring programs produced $3.36 of benefits for every
dollar spent, aggression replacement training produced $10 of benefits for every dollar
spent, and multi-systemic therapy produced $13 of benefits for every dollar spent. Any
inefficiencies in a juvenile justice system that concentrates juvenile justice spending on
detention or confinement drains available funds away from interventions that may be
more effective at reducing recidivism and promoting public safety.


Given the finding by the Journal of Qualitative Criminology that the cost of a youth
offender’s crimes and incarceration over their lifetime (including adult) can cost as much
as $1.7 million,45 a front-end investment in interventions proven to help young people
would seem to be more effective public safety spending.


A better future: invest juvenile justice funds in programs proven to work
If detention reform is successful, communities should be able to reinvest the funds once
spent on detention beds and new detention centers in other youth-serving systems, or
other interventions proven to reduce recidivism.
The Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, the Washington State Institute for Public Policy, and a plethora
of other research institutes have shown that several programs and initiatives are proven
to reduce recidivism and crime in a cost-effective matter. Some common elements in
proven programs include:
• Treatment occurs with their family, or in a family-like setting
• Treatment occurs at home, or close to home
• Services are delivered in a culturally respectful and competent manner
• Treatment is built around the youth and family strengths
• A wide range of services and resources are delivered to the youth, as well as their
families.

Most of these successful programs are designed to serve the needs of youth in family-
like settings, situated as close to home as possible with services delivered in a culturally
sensitive and competent manner.
These proven programs identify the various aspects of a youth—their strengths and
weaknesses as well as the strengths and resources of their families and communities.
Progress is based on realistic outcomes and carefully matches the particular needs of the
youth and family to the appropriate intervention strategy.

[_marg]

This is really interesting. I had never heard about this type of program before. It sounds like it needs to be publicized more in the school systems, etc. I think that if parents knew about it, they would be more inclined to take advantage of it.

Liz this is one site with information on it..there is also something else known as the "wrap around process" but I believe that's more about finding the programs in the community which will help support the individual and their family.

http://www.minddisorders.com/Kau-Nu/Multisystemic-therapy.html

Now whether or not this is available to a parent who simply has a rebellious child they don't know how to handle, or a child that is into drugs or other issues I don't know. That's why I said in a previous post, Eric would probably have been better of getting into trouble and having the state get involved.

This is the intro:

Definition

Multisystemic therapy (MST) is an intensive family- and community-based treatment program designed to make positive changes in the various social systems (home, school, community, peer relations) that contribute to the serious antisocial behaviors of children and adolescents who are at risk for out-of-home placement. These out-of-home placements might include foster care, group homes, residential care, correctional facilities, or hospitalization.
Purpose

MST is licensed by MST Services, Inc., through the Medical University of South Carolina and operates with the fundamental assumption that parents (defined as guardians), or those who have primary caregiving responsibilities to children, have the most important influence in changing problem behaviors in children and adolescents.

The primary goals of MST are to:

* develop in parents or caregivers the capacity to manage future difficulties
* reduce juvenile criminal activity
* reduce other types of antisocial behaviors, such as drug abuse
* achieve these outcomes at a cost savings by decreasing rates of incarceration and other out-of-home placements

MST was created approximately 25 years ago as an intensive family- and community-based treatment program to focus on juvenile offenders presenting with serious antisocial behaviors and who were at-risk for out-of-home placement. The program has been shown to be effective with targeted populations that include inner-city delinquents, violent and chronic juvenile offenders, juvenile offenders who abuse or are dependent on substances and also have psychiatric disorders, adolescent sex offenders, and abusive and neglectful parents. A more recent focus (1994–1999) of MST has been to treat youths with psychiatric emergencies such as suicidal ideation, homicidal ideation, psychosis, or threat of harm to self or others due to mental illness. The results are promising and indicate that MST is an effective alternative to psychiatric hospitalization. Some treatment conditions and interventions were modified to take care of this population, including developing a crisis plan during the initial family assessment and adding child and adolescent psychiatrists, psychiatric residents, and crisis caseworkers to the MST treatment team. Supervision of the treatment team was initially increased from weekly to daily meetings. Caseloads of MST therapists were reduced from five to three families, increasing the intensity of the intervention. When some adolescents were hospitalized for safety, the MST staff maintained clinical responsibility for the adolescent who was insulated from the usual activities due to inpatient care.

[_truth dancer]

This contrasts with how the government operates, in that it is interested in juvenile offenders being treated effectively but also at least cost. So they are willing to research and consider other alternatives than the one approach residential treatment facilities offer which is to incarcerate youth. What they are finding is that the most effective, and lowest cost treatment is to provide services in the home environment which work with the family to provide the skills necessary to deal with the issues.

Exactly!

Also, these children in institutions as far as I can tell are not in the juvenile justice system.

When a child is identified as "at risk" or if a family is asking for assistance, and DSS intervenes, EVERYTHING possible is done to help the family and the child without removing the child from the home.

I think institutions are the very last resort and appropriate only in those rare cases when a child is a danger to himself/herself or others; still in my opinion the facility should have extraordinary safeguards in place to protect the child, and the primary goal should be to return the child to his/her home as soon as possible. (Of course if the home is unsafe, the goal would be to find a home for the child).

~td~

[_marg]

If you don't mind me asking T.D. what is your line of work? I appreciate your perspective and approach which looks at the psychology involved.

[_marg]

I think institutions are the very last resort and appropriate only in those rare cases when a child is a danger to himself/herself or others; still in my opinion the facility should have extraordinary safeguards in place to protect the child, and the primary goal should be to return the child to his/her home as soon as possible. (Of course if the home is unsafe, the goal would be to find a home for the child).

Yes they are a last resort.

U.S. Dept of Justice..Residential programs :

Description: " Residential Treatment Centers (RTCs) are residential treatment facilities offering a combination of substance abuse and mental health treatment programs and 24-hour supervision in a highly structured (often staff-secure) environment. They usually house youth with significant psychiatric or substance abuse problems who have proved too ill or unruly to be housed in foster care, day treatment programs, and other nonsecure environments, but who do not yet merit commitment to a psychiatric hospital or secure corrections facility. Although such treatment centers must be licensed by the State, they are frequently run by private, for-profit and nonprofit institutions, and the treatment approaches and admissions criteria used by RTCs vary widely from State to State and institution to institution."

Secure/Residential Programs

"Juveniles whose offenses are serious or who fail to respond to intermediate sanctions are handled at a different level of the juvenile justice continuum. These youth may be committed to out-of-home placement in an institutional or camp-like setting, or they may be eligible for an alternative placement, such as community confinement. In 1999, nearly one in four adjudicated delinquency cases resulted in out-of-home placement. Placement cases grew 24% from 124,900 in 1990 to 155,200 in 1999. The largest percentage increase was in the number of drug offense cases resulting in placement, which grew 73% from 1990 to 1999. Placement grew 56% for public order offense cases and 48% for person offense cases, but declined 6% for property offense cases (Puzzanchera, 2003). Residential placement facilities for youth should offer comprehensive treatment programs for these youth with a focus on education, skills development, and vocational or employment training and experience (Howell, 1998). Procedures through which facilities meet these objectives generally follow a shared criteria, but often vary in structural as well as program components.

Lipsey, et al (2000), performed a meta analysis of research on programs for both institutionalized and non institutionalized serious juvenile offenders conducted in the United States by psychologists, criminologists, or sociologists, and that were published after 1970. Two program types showing relatively large, statistically significant mean effects on recidivism for institutionalized offenders across all estimation procedures were interpersonal skills programs, and teaching family home programs. Behavioral programs, community residential programs, and multiple service programs also showed positive effects, however the results were less consistent. Mixed (but generally positive) recidivism effects were shown for individual counseling, guided group counseling, and group counseling. Employment programs, drug abstinence programs, and wilderness/challenge programs showed weak or no effects, although evidence was inconsistent. Finally, Milieu therapy (highly structured therapeutic communities) consistently showed weak or no effects on recidivism.

Unfortunately, publications on individual programs reported in this effort date back at least 15 years or more. While information on process and outcome evaluation are becoming more readily accessible, very little substantial literature exists on programs evaluated for effectiveness within the last decade. The programs considered in this section include programs from all residential settings, including secure and non-secure residential facilities, institutions, training schools, hospitals, group homes, shelters, foster care, treatment facilities, camps/wilderness programs, among others. This section does not include system-wide approaches or process or evaluations of systems or individual facilities."

[_Alter Idem]

Harmony I've been reading your posts and you sound like you don't know what the hell you are talking about and in addition have an axe to grind, so forgive me if I ignore you, at least for the time being. I will later post about MST as well as research findings of the effects of incarcerating youth.

Okay, I HAVE to speak up.

I usually find you to a be an intelligent, reasonable poster, Marg, but this can't go unchallenged. From what I read, Harmony clearly knows her stuff and has Goodk pegged perfectly. And there was no "axe grinding" in her comments--more like "sour grapes" on your part that she was besting you in an argument and in typically Harmony fashion, would not back down.

Her accurate assessment of Goodk is probably one reason why he's left(though who knows if it's permanent)--and I think too many posters were getting a little too close to the truth for his comfort.

The MST information you posted is interesting, but there will still be some cases where a child MAY do better in a private facility or it may be a last resort. From the interactions I've seen of Goodk on this board, I think his parents had their hands full with him, and were desperate for some kind--any kind of help. There are always two sides to a story, and as for Goodk's, we've ALWAYS only gotten only one side--his side. I don't know how anyone here can make a fair assessment with only one side offered.

[_marg]

I usually find you to a be an intelligent, reasonable poster, Marg, but this can't go unchallenged. From what I read, Harmony clearly knows her stuff and has Goodk pegged perfectly. And there was no "axe grinding" in her comments--more like "sour grapes" on your part that she was besting you in an argument and in typically Harmony fashion, would not back down.

My posts in this thread have essentially been about the private teen residential industry with West Ridge being a part of it and I've said very little about Eric and his particular case, the reason being I don't have the facts.

Harmony has not demonstrated any appreciation of private behavior modification programs in general, how effective or non effective they are, has not evaluated pros or cons on what they offer or the pros or cons on how they might affect youth.

She has approached the topic from one angle that Eric in particular who ended up in West Ridge must have deserved to be sent, that his parents were not naïve about the program, that the facility only offers a valuable effective service. She did not in discussion take into account the difference in operational motives of a private industry versus a government involved one. Did not discuss or evaluate effectiveness of punitive behavior modification. Her approach has been very simple...every time she piped up in the thread it was to take a swipe at Eric.

Her accurate assessment of Goodk is probably one reason why he's left(though who knows if it's permanent)--and I think too many posters were getting a little too close to the truth for his comfort.

How on earth would you know whether her assessment of Eric was accurate? So you are another one who likes to speculate and throw pot shots with lack of information.

The MST information you posted is interesting, but there will still be some cases where a child MAY do better in a private facility or it may be a last resort. From the interactions I've seen of Goodk on this board, I think his parents had their hands full with him, and were desperate for some kind--any kind of help. There are always two sides to a story, and as for Goodk's, we've ALWAYS only gotten only one side--his side. I don't know how anyone here can make a fair assessment with only one side offered.

Well it sounds like you've made a "fair assessment" despite your lack of knowledge, your not having talked with his parents, despite demonstrating no knowledge of the private residential teen facility industry.

Your whole post has been one big attack post against Eric, without anything productive in it, without any discussion on the actual industry, your evaluation of it, any research into it.

So how long did it take you to put together your ad hominem gem of a post? Lots of thought and effort must have gone into it I'm sure.

[_Yoda]

MST is licensed by MST Services, Inc., through the Medical University of South Carolina and operates with the fundamental assumption that parents (defined as guardians), or those who have primary caregiving responsibilities to children, have the most important influence in changing problem behaviors in children and adolescents.

Wow...it's licensed through South Carolina. I'm located in North Carolina. That's odd that I hadn't heard about this.

The computer course I teach for Forsyth Tech is located on the Goodwill Industries satellite campus. A lot of the students that take courses at this facility have troubled teens, or are young adults coping with situations where they, themselves, were abused.

I'm going to talk with the director there about this program and see if we can match folks with this service, and look into more details about what is available locally.

There are "last resort" situations where the teen would have to be removed from the home, but I think that this type of program could really help with a lot of situations.