Emotional Growth Programs ‘Save’ Teens, Stir Fears

First of two parts.

Scores of private-pay behavior modification programs have sprung up across the United States over the past decade, promising parents an end to daily battles with their out-of-control teens.

Whether they characterize themselves as emotional growth schools, therapeutic camps, or wilderness impact experiences, these programs all claim success with problems ranging from apathy to alcohol and drug abuse to depression. The promise usually comes with a hefty price tag — up to $60,000 a year.

More than 20,000 youths attend these programs annually — 7,000 in “emotional growth” boarding schools, 12,000 in short-term therapeutic wilderness expeditions, and a few thousand in long-term therapeutic camps. Parents are estimated to be spending more than $500 million a year for what many regard as a last-ditch effort to save their children.

In some respects, these programs amount to a private alternative to the juvenile justice system, since many of the youths being sent to them are just one misstep away from criminal charges. “I don’t want my daughter to end up in the juvenile justice system. It’s a disaster,” Terri Mesple, of Concord, Calif., told the San Francisco Chronicle last year after hiring professional escorts to take her 16-year-old daughter to a girls’ camp in Utah. “You’ve got to let parents do what they have to do.”

Deborah Trounstine, an educational consultant in Sacramento, has helped place almost 100 teens in these programs. In three out of 10 families with which she’s worked, “the kids either just got involved with the juvenile court, or are about to,” she said. “A lot of parents call me about the time authorities have gotten involved and want me to offer an alternative to the court.”

Juvenile courts, however, have no oversight responsibilities for these programs because few of them accept youths in court custody. “We do know there are many, many of them out there, and plenty of kids being sent to them,” said Judge Tom Edwards, presiding judge of the Santa Clara County, Calif., Juvenile Court. “But if the kids aren’t wards of the court, we frankly don’t care about them. They’re somebody else’s kids.”

Some of the programs operate in a kind of regulatory netherworld. Some have purposefully chosen to operate in states with lax regulations. A few even operate abroad, in countries with vastly different attitudes towards children’s rights.

While many parents pay educational consultants to help them find the best programs for their teens, some private-pay programs recruit their clients directly through aggressive advertising on the Internet and in glossy magazines like “Sunset” and “Southern Living.” Consider some of the following come-ons in a recent “Sunset” magazine:

“Defiant Teenagers? New Hope Foundation, the parent resource center for troubled youth, will help you choose the right program for your child.”

“Turn-About Ranch, a proven, unique program for troubled, defiant teenagers on a self-destructive path.”

“A fresh start for adolescents experiencing adjustment disorders and who might be exhibiting rebellion...anger...frustration...low self-esteem...out-of-control behavior.”

In the last two years, court fights over several cases have brought these programs into the public spotlight. In California, a local prosecutor tried unsuccessfully to force the return of a youth from a program in Jamaica after a neighbor complained that the youth had done nothing to warrant confinement. In Ohio and Washington state, child abuse charges were filed against parents who used escort services to transport their children to overseas programs. And several civil suits have been filed against a group of programs that market themselves jointly as the Worldwide Association of Specialty Programs (WWASP) and TeenHelp.

‘They Saved My Kids’

There’s no question that the programs satisfy a need. Chronically underfunded and overburdened, most state and county-operated juvenile programs offer little help to families of troubled teens if they haven’t broken any laws. Parents say they sent their teens to private programs only after becoming convinced that no help was available locally. Many assert that without intervention, their teens would not have survived adolescence.

“They saved my kids, and some other really fantastic kids I’ve known,” says Trounstine, a marriage and family therapist who became an educational consultant after specialty programs helped turn around two of her children. “We sent our kids because we knew we would either be holding their funerals or visiting them in jail for the rest of their lives.”

While many programs are run by well-trained professionals with a deep concern for youth, some others use practices that worry youth advocates:

-Some programs urge parents to hire transport services to deliver recalcitrant children. The techniques include showing up in a sleeping teen’s room in the middle of the night and handcuffing him until the destination is reached. The California legislature is considering a bill that would regulate the transport industry.
-A few programs ask parents to authorize them to use extreme behavior modification techniques, including pepper spray, physical restraints, stun guns, mace, handcuffs and long periods of isolation.
-Many programs deny youths access to telephones, raising questions about their ability to report abuse.
-Some programs lack staff trained to recognize psychiatric illness, raising concerns about whether youths with mental disorders get the help they need.
-A few programs use highly aggressive marketing techniques, including the payment of fees to educational counselors and tuition credits to parents who refer other families’ teens to their programs.

“There’s enough documentation of questionable practices in these private facilities that we need to make sure that there is some way of monitoring what’s going on in them,” said Mark Soler, president of the San Francisco-based Youth Law Center, an advocacy organization.

Historical Origins

Nobody knows exactly how many private-pay programs exist for troubled teens, but the number is clearly in the hundreds and growing. One educational consultant, Thomas J. Croke of Latrobe, Pa., lists 266 in his online directory and says he knows of many more. Probably half were founded in the last decade.

Although each program has its own personality, most fall into one of four categories:
-Long-term therapeutic camps trace their philosophical foundations back more than half a century, to the work of Campbell Loughmiller, author of “Wilderness Road” and “Kids in Trouble.” Shortly after World War II, Loughmiller started a therapeutic wilderness camp for teens for the Salesmanship Club of Dallas, a men’s service group. The National Association of Therapeutic Wilderness Camps (NATWC) describes the program, which still operates, as “the seminal long-term therapeutic wilderness camp model.”

Most therapeutic wilderness camps are organized as nonprofits and are licensed by the states in which they operate. The majority operate in the Southeast and Northeast, although some operate in the West and generally call themselves youth ranches. Most use some variation of William Glasser’s reality therapy, a non-judgmental counseling approach that emphasizes building healthy relationships in the present rather than dwelling on past mistakes. Annual costs range from $25,000 to $40,000.

-Personal growth boarding schools generally combine academics with group counseling. Mel Wasserman, a devotee of philosopher Kahlil Gibran, is widely regarded as the philosophical grandfather of such schools. In the late ‘60s he founded a school in southern California that he called CEDU, which is not an acronym, but stands for “See and Do.”

“He took a few kids into his home to straighten out, and saw the potential for turning it into a business,” says Lon Woodbury, publisher of “The Woodbury Reports,” a newsletter for parents and program operators, and “Places for Struggling Teens,” an annual directory.
A recent survey identified about 120 personal growth boarding schools. Annual fees range from about $26,000 to about $60,000.

-Wilderness impact expeditions operate mostly in the West, where isolation, millions of acres of federal lands, and a relaxed regulatory environment combine to create a congenial atmosphere. A 1998 survey by the University of Idaho’s Wilderness Research Center identified 38 therapeutic wilderness programs. The Idaho researchers estimated that they served 12,005 youth and generated $143 million in revenue last year.

Larry D. Olsen, a Utah-born outdoorsman, is credited with pioneering the use of short-term wilderness expeditions to turn around the lives of disaffected youths. In the late ‘60s Olsen began taking small groups of dropouts from Brigham Young University into the wilderness to help them refocus their lives. In 1988, Olsen formalized his approach with the founding of the Arizona-based Anasazi Foundation, which now provides wilderness experiences to about 200 youths a year.

Almost all expeditionary programs are organized as forprofit businesses. (Anasazi is an exception.) In contrast to the therapeutic camps, which typically keep teens for a year or two, expeditionary programs last from three weeks to three months. A charge of $350 a day (more than $10,000 a month) is common.

-Fundamentalist Christian programs usually operate in states that automatically exempt them from licensing laws. Thus no one knows exactly how many of these programs are promising parents repentant teens.

Missouri officials didn’t even know that more than 300 teens from other states (mostly California) were attending the remote Mountain Park Baptist Academy until a youth was murdered there in 1996. (It’s common for these programs to draw most of their clientele from California, though few actually operate in California. That’s because California has just about the strongest juvenile rights laws of any state. It bans locked treatment centers and requires independent psychiatric reviews before a minor can be admitted to a mental facility.) It turned out that the Bible-based, private-pay behavior modification program had been operating in Missouri since 1987, when it relocated from Mississippi after state officials shut it down for unlawfully detaining 177 youths.

Why Now?

What is it about the ‘90s that is fueling the growth of these programs?

“With all the negative societal influences on kids, parents are increasingly less effective in managing and raising children,” said Mark Hobbins, senior vice president for customer services at Aspen Youth Services, which runs 34 expeditionary programs and personal growth boarding schools in several states.

“They begin to look outside their family for identity or purpose. They may abuse substances. You add these issues on top of all of those that come with being an adolescent, and you have a kid with much more difficult problems than kids had in the past.”

Catherine Jennings, founder and director of Stone Mountain School, a therapeutic wilderness camp in Black Mountain, N.C., agrees. “It’s the contamination of our society, the absolutely rampant glamorization of negative self-image,” Jennings says. “The public school systems have a lot of responsibility for the dysfunction of our youth, and so do the moms and dads who are out of the home trying to make more money. That’s created a vacuum at home that we have allowed to be filled with garbage.”

Demographics are another factor. The “Baby Boom Echo” has created huge numbers of adolescents. Entrepreneurs and investors are noticing these programs for the same reason they’re buying into programs for court-placed youths: the potential for profits. In the past few years, venture capitalists and representatives of large health-care companies have been criss-crossing the country looking for programs to invest in or acquire.

“Last year and this year, I can hardly turn around without having to consider a new proposal to buy us out,” said Jennings, of Stone Mountain. “First it was the chains. Now I have private investors coming to me saying they have a group of people who want me to shed my nonprofit status, take their capital and build my dream.”

John Reddan of Santa Barbara, California, acting director of the National Association of Therapeutic Schools and Programs (NATSAP), attributes the growth of programs in the ‘90s “to opportunity and willingness.”

“On the opportunity side, there isn’t a lot of red tape to cut through to open up one of these programs,” he said. “On the willingness side, you’ve got individuals who want to be their own bosses, who want to do something meaningful like saving the lives of children, and who want to make money at it.”

CEDU’s evolution illustrates the changes under way in the industry. From its start in 1967 as a small non-profit drug treatment program, CEDU grew to include two schools in California and three schools and a six-week impact program in Idaho. All were run for profit by founder Mel Wasserman and his family. Late last year Wasserman sold CEDU to the Texas-based Brown Group, which calls itself the nation’s “largest for-profit provider of a broad continuum of programs and services to at-risk and troubled youth.” The price was not announced, but with CEDU’s added revenues, the Brown Group will gross $200 million a year, analysts project.

Another consolidation took place last year with the acquisition of North Star Center, an independent living program for young adults in Bend, Oregon, by Aspen Youth Services, which operates a total of 34 programs. “We see programs for young adults as an emerging trend,” said Hobbins of Aspen.

Quality Concerns

Some observers worry that the for-profit status of many operators means that profits take precedence over program quality. Mark Sklarow of the Educational Consultants Association told “HealthCare Business” earlier this year, “The people who initially got into the field did it because they cared about kids. I’m no longer convinced that those people are driving the industry. There’s so much money in it.”

Croke, the educational consultant in Pennsylvania, worries that in an attempt to maximize profits, some programs are accepting youths they aren’t equipped to help. “I’m really concerned that there are a lot of people working with kids with some rather profound issues,” he said. “The people who run them may be highly schooled as educators, but they don’t have a lot of knowledge of psychiatric illness. Kids with very serious depression and thought disorders aren’t going to respond to a behavioral modification approach.”

“Most programs are truly working hard to do an excellent job,” said Trounstine, the Sacramento educational consultant. “But there are some people who have come along without the training or experience and haven’t put together a good program.”

As more private-pay programs have sprung up, some operators have started worrying about the need for standards. Five years ago the operators of several therapeutic wilderness camps formed the National Association of Therapeutic Wilderness Camps (NATWC.) The organization now includes about 50 camps, accounting for about one-third of those operating. To join, camps agree to a code of conduct that supports “a nonpunitive, emotionally and physically safe, and therapeutically safe...and sound approach to helping youth in a wilderness/outdoor environment.” They also agree not to use corporal punishment “and other adverse techniques, or deprivation of basic needs.”

The organization supports regulation and distributes model regulations to states. Recently it’s been working with the Council on Accreditation of Services for Families and Children (COA), a New York-based national mental health accrediting agency, to establish standards. Says Jennings, a founding board member: “I’m regulated by God, the IRS, the state education department, and several state agencies in North Carolina, and I don’t find that oppressive. I find it appropriate.”

Three years ago the expeditionary programs, some of which belong to NATWC, decided they needed a membership organization of their own. They created the Outdoor Behavioral HealthCare Industry Council (OBHIC), the intent of which is to promote short-term therapeutic wilderness experiences, lobby federal land-use agencies for unfettered access to the wilderness, and set standards. OBHIC is also working with the COA on independent standards.

One impetus for OBHIC’s formation was the death in March 1994 of Aaron Bacon, 16, who suffered a perforated ulcer while on a month-long hiking trip in southern Utah. Aaron was the third youth to die in a Utah-based expeditionary program, and the uproar following his death forced many operators to face the need for standards. Former North Star Expeditions co-owner Bill Henry pleaded guilty to negligent homicide in connection with Aaron’s death. Seven other employees pleaded guilty to lesser charges, and a counselor was convicted of felony child abuse.

“Aaron Bacon’s death had a tremendous impact on all of us,” said Aspen’s Hobbins, who is OBHIC’s secretary. “People look at a few bad incidents, which are sensationalized in the media, and generalize to all the programs. Aaron Bacon’s death caused us to organize to make sure that we were policing ourselves.”

To the relief of many program operators, the programs in which the deaths occurred are all out of business. “They were brutal programs, and the people who ran them were in it for the money,” says Olsen of Anasazi. “They thought that all you got to do is herd these kids around the desert and make a lot of money.”

OBHIC’s “philosophical and ethical standards” require members to promise to “serve children and families with understanding, patience and integrity,” “offer a journey of self-discovery that models sound values and principles,” and “have appropriate licensure and permits when required.”

Only recently have the personal growth boarding schools begun to see the need to band together to set standards. While many are accredited by reputable national accreditation commissions or licensed by states as residential treatment facilities, some are not.

Early this year representatives of 10 schools met in Albuquerque to form the National Association of Therapeutic Schools and Programs (NATSAP). “Ethics are going to be a large part of what we’re going to be tackling,” said Reddan, the acting director. “That was the most important service identified by attendees at the meeting. We may eventually get into standards of practice.... They want there to be high standards for member schools.

“Initially, what we’re most interested in is making sure that what people are saying in their promotional materials actually supports what’s going on in their real programs, that people aren’t making promises they can’t keep. They need to be sure they’re working with the right population, and not trying to stretch beyond their ability to work with a child who’s a little bit out of their realm simply because he represents $50,000 or $60,000.

“When families are in crisis, they’re very willing to believe just about anything,” Reddan said. “We want to protect families.”

Resources

Lon Woodbury
Woodbury Reports
P.O. Box 1107
Bonners Ferry, ID 83805
(208) 267-5550
E-mail: lon@woodbury.com
www.woodbury.com

Cindy White
Bridge to Understanding
816 Ligonier St., Ste. 205
Latrobe, PA 15650-1800
(724) 532-0490
E-mail: editor@bridgetounderstanding.com
www.bridgetounderstanding.com

Mark Hobbins
Outdoor Behavioral HealthCare Industry Council (OBHIC) —
c/o Aspen Youth Services
17100 Pioneer Blvd., Ste. 300
Cerritos, CA 90701-2709
(562) 467-5519

John Reddan
Executive Director
National Association of Therapeutic Schools and Programs (NATSAP)
119 W. Junipero
Santa Barbara, CA 93105
(805) 687-5825
E-mail: jreddan@west.net

Deborah Trounstine
Teen Recovery Strategies
(916) 456-9921
www.TeenSave.com

Catherine Jennings
Board Member
National Association of Therapeutic Wilderness Camps (NATWC)
Stone Mountain School
601 Camp Elliott Rd.
Black Mountain, N.C.
(828) 669-8639
www.NATWC.org

Sidebar:

Emotional Growth Programs ‘Save’ Teens, Stir Fears: Emotional Growth: Who Pays?

Shirk, Martha. "Emotional Growth Programs ‘Save’ Teens, Stir Fears." Youth Today, May 1999, p. 1.

©2000 Youth Today. Reprinted with permission from Youth Today. All rights reserved.