Episode 116: A History of Controversies- Part 2
Hello and welcome to Episode 116 Part two of a Stories from the Field segment which are focused on controversies related to the field. If you haven’t listened to Episode 115 or read the blog post on the website then I would suggest you do so before listening to this segment. Then again what path you take is up to you. Need to give a nod to our show transcription sponsor: White Mountain Adventure Institute. Check them out at WMAI.org
I am reviewing three more controversies in this segment which are Staff Training and Pay, Costs and Safety. All of these are big issues and could be whole segments so that is why I am posting links to resources on the transcripts found on the Stories from the Field website. You can research all this to your heart’s content. This episode also includes a special bonus at the end in which I have a follow-up conversation with Kenneth Rosen the author of Troubled: The Failed Promise of Behavioral Treatment Programs.
Before I start into the segment I need to update you on one thing I mentioned during the research segment on the last episode I talked about wilderness therapy research that is being conducted at the University of New Hampshire at the Outdoor Behavioral Health Research Center and that is mostly funded by the trade group of 20 plus wilderness programs that are part of the Outdoor Behavioral Healthcare Council. I talked about how hard it is to get funding for research, etc. (go listen to the episode to hear the whole thing)
Well, just this week it was announced the University of New Hampshire OBH Research Center was given 2.97 million dollars research and it was funded by different family foundations. A link to the press release is in the show notes. This is fantastic as it will help fund a control study of wilderness therapy programs. Congratulations to Dr. Mike Gass and Dr. Anita Tucker and all the researchers at the OBH Research Center and to UNH.
It is fantastic for the field and once again proves to me (and you if you listen to this podcast) that the field is ever-changing and evolving. When you think you have a lock on what is going on it changes. I really appreciate that.
So onto other controversies-
Staff Training and Pay
Some say that there is not enough training for people in the field. Well I would agree that in the 1980’s and 1990’s there was limited training of new staff in the field. It is important to remember during the early years the field evolved out of education as a reaction to traditional talk therapy for young people. Even earlier, Kurt Hanh, the founder of Outward Bound was an educator who some say coined the term “Experiential Therapy”. In my dissertation, you can find citations from Kurt Hanh and Larry Dean Olsen and Larry Wells (both were pioneers in the primitive skills model of wilderness therapy) in which they say that they started doing what they were doing as the believe talk therapy in an office with young people was not of benefit. And that experiential education through wilderness expeditions was the best way for young people to mature.
There was an old term called “Let the Mountain Speak for Themselves” that came originally from Outward Bound as it was letting the wilderness experience speak for itself and yet that type of thinking is dated. For a great article about it check out Dr. Stephen Bacons’ website. There is a great article titled “The Evolution of the Outward Bound Process” This helps us to see the evolution of the field. There is a great deal more about that but this is a quick summary from the paper “A typology of curriculum models is developed consisting of: 1) a first-generation model--focusing on experience alone--which dominated Outward Bound programming in the 1960's and early 1 970's, 2) a second-generation model-- emphasizing discussion, group process, and imported techniques--which is the current ruling paradigm at Outward Bound, and 3) a third-generation model--stressing experiential metaphors--which may provide a direction for future curriculum evolution.” This paper came out in 1987 and it reflects the evolution of thinking up to that point. OB has evolved since then and included more mental health professionals being part of the process. Read the paper to learn more and you can see how experiential metaphors came into wilderness therapy in the later 1980’s.
By the mid-1990 the majority of wilderness therapy programs started employing licensed mental health professionals on staff. It didn’t take long before the mental health professionals started their own programs after learning what they could at other wilderness therapy programs run by educators and/or entrepreneurs. You can listen to a number of Stories from the Field podcast episodes when wilderness therapy clinicians and some who became program owners on Season 5 of the podcast which are all clinician’s stories. The season of clinicians are episodes are (67-84).
Because licensed mental health professionals need continuing education hours each year to keep their licenses you would see more training developed for not only clinicians but also field guides. By the late 1990 and early 2000’s you find (and you can hear on my podcast episodes that featured former Field guides episodes 50-65) that most trainings are 40 hours or more before a field guide starts working on a shift. For the most part they have to do well over 40 hours of training and part of that may be to go out on expedition in order to even be considered for a job as field guide or any position in a wilderness program
Most wilderness therapy programs that I am familiar with do weekly trainings and, depending on the state in which they operated must teach a specific curriculum that the state mandates that includes everything that would be in a traditional residential treatment program for youth. You ave to add on top of that all of the training about wilderness expeditions in different climates in different times of the year.
When I talk about staff training and field guides becoming wilderness therapists, field directors, program directors, or even program founders I am also talking about a career in wilderness therapy. That was not even an idea when I started in the field and now it is pretty common. There are degrees in wilderness therapy and master’s level programs. There are several conferences each year about wilderness therapy.
There are more training and education now than ever before. There are books, classes and even podcast about wilderness therapy.
I understand that some do not feel that field guides and staff are trained enough I agree as I don’t believe you can ever do enough training no matter what age, your place in your career.
Training takes time as everything does. Like any career path. You start at an entry level position, you learn and train and get better at what you do. One day at a time
Field Guide Pay. Depending on the State in which a program is located a field guide can start a position making up to $40,000 a year. Why do I say depending on the State? Well, the formula of what a field guide is based on minimum wage and over-time. Most field guides work seven days on and then seven days off and so there is a formula that starts at minimum wage. Think about it this way each State has a different minimum wage in the State of Maine is $12 while the State of Utah is $7.25 or the State of North Carolina is $7.25. If the national minimum wage goes up to a living wage like $15 or $17 dollars an hour it will certainly impact the bottom line of many wilderness therapy programs. The lower the state’s minimum wage the entry-level pay if of a field guide. If the federal minimum wage was a living wage it would be much higher than it is. As of this week, first week of March 2021 it appears that the federal minimum wage (7.25) is going to stay as it is. The best way to see the differences in starting of field guide pay is to check out the website backdoorjobs.com. The main driver of the differences in the state in which the program operates.
Which is a transition into the controversy about why is wilderness therapy so expensive?
Many people ask “Why is wilderness therapy so expensive as the average cost of a wilderness therapy program that is a member of the Outdoor Behavioral Healthcare Council is around $575 per day for about 60 days which translates to about $35,000 which is a great deal of money.
Where does that money go? The main expense of running a wilderness therapy program is personnel. Even the most bare-bones program has to have field guides, therapist, medical professionals, administrative staff, logistical staff, in order to provide services. Depending on what state a program operates in the payroll cost of that staff can be pretty high which I just reviewed. Those employees deserve good healthcare and benefits and so most programs provide a good employee benefits package.
Another cost is operating in different locations as some programs operate in remote locations and are primitive in their model where they use Bureau of Land Management land. Some use State lands other use private land all have associated costs. Most programs have some sort of contract or permit to use that land and all of those permits have costs associated with it. All of this cost money.
Some programs operate a hybrid model (like Summit Achievement and others) which also means you need teachers, a cook, maintenance people and of course a facility that can house, provide bathrooms, showers, kitchen which costs money. The owners of those programs are not so business savvy as if they just operated in a primitive skills model you are likely to be much more profitable. At least that is what business consultants have told me over the years.
I did some research and it took some time as when you google it you get lots of programs trying to get you place yourself or your child in treatment but I could not find anything definitive (or legitimate) as to what the average cost of adolescent mental health residential treatment in the United States is. You know what I found was there is not a place where you can find the costs of treatment. It is a sad state of affairs while reflecting health care in general in the United States. Two years ago I had a procedure done that one gets when they are in their late 50’s and so I wanted to see what the costs were as the health care plan that I has a high deductible. I called three hospitals and none of them would tell me the costs and gave me a huge runaround.
My hope is that most wilderness therapy programs are transparent with their costs and place them on their websites for parents to review.
So how can parents can help to pay for wilderness therapy programs? First and foremost is using insurance which may or may not cover wilderness therapy. The current trends are the insurance is paying more for wilderness therapy treatment but and it is big but it is all based on the health insurance you have. Some people have really inclusive insurance while others do not. Health care in the United States is so varied it is hard to know.
Other areas where you can get assistance in paying for wilderness therapy treatment are the following non-profits who will help fund treatment; Skys the Limit Fund, Jason Hunt Fund, LOA Fund, Savings Teens, as well as Parker Bounds Johnson Fund. Each of these groups has different application process’s where that you have to go through to get funding.
Safety- Is wilderness therapy safe? There are numerous ways to answer this question but no absolutes because life is full of risks and nothing is safe. We can just look at the current pandemic to see how risky life is. What is truly unsafe in not providing treatment to young people with mental health disorders.
Wilderness therapy programs and their directors assess risk every day. It is what they live and breathe every day as
1. Teenagers are a high-risk groups.
2. Teenagers with mental health issues are a higher risk group.
3. Teenagers with mental health issues in the wilderness is a high-risk group.
Teenagers with mental health issues in the wilderness receiving mental health treatment is a lower risk than those staying at home according to The most comprehensive research study done of risk in wilderness therapy is titled,
10 Year Incident Monitoring in Outdoor Behavioral Healthcare: Lessons Learned and Future Direction by Dr. Steve Javorski and Dr. Mike Gass. This research study looked at injury rates to adolescents in wilderness therapy programs and compared them injury rates for adolescents in other activities such as football, snowboarding, skiing etc. What the study showed is that there is less actual risk for youth participating in OBH member wilderness therapy programs than there is for youth (at risk or not) participating in everyday activities that a teen is involved in. This research data is remarkable in that most young people participating in OBH wilderness therapy programs are more involved in high risk behavior. There are some limitations to the study (aren’t there always) as it involved a limited number of OBH Council Member programs and the OBH Council Member programs have grown over the same decade. Check out the research and see for yourself.
Wilderness therapy programs focus on risk assessment every day as no one wants an accident or an injury for so many reason. It is not good for anyone one or any organization.
Safety is not something wilderness therapy programs can guarantee as everything is a risk. Without the challenge of going out into the wilderness one might mitigate the risk but at the same time where is the potential for growth. Adventure cannot be taken without risk.
Perhaps it is best summarized by Kurt Hanh
There exists within everyone a grand passion, an outlandish thirst for adventure, a desire to live boldly and vividly through the journey of life.”
I don’t think that adventure can be undertaken without risk and without risk we are unlikely to grow.
In conclusion to this section of the podcast I would like say that any organization that works with vulnerable populations will inevitably deal with controversies. My hope is that these episodes sparked dialogue and also deeper listening to those who critique the field.
We can learn from everything no matter whether it is good, bad, or ugly. But we learn nothing if we do not have open ears and minds. So open your ears to a bit more in this segment as
I did a shorter follow up interview with Kenneth Rosen that I am releasing here (as time constraints made it short). It is shorter but as I find with anything it is useful to listen to others especially from former students.
Without further ado.
This next section was transcribed by Rev.com using a.i.. Please listen to episode for exact statementsl
Will White Hey, Ken Rosen. Welcome to Stories from the Field. Thank you for joining me again for another conversation.
Ken Rosen: Well, it's good to be back, man.
Will White: Yeah, it's been a month, a month of a lot of roller coasters on, in terms of I've been getting different emails and different responses. Your episode that I've talked with you on is, is actually the highest downloaded of all 115 episodes. So congratulations. How are you doing?
Ken: Yeah. Yeah. Well, just more great over here, you know, um, despite the situation globally, I think, uh, we're pretty blessed and fairing quite well. I think you noted that it's been, it's been a long month, I think. I've always wanted to publish a book, but I didn't realize how much work came after publishing a book too. So, um, that's been a whole learning curve for me as well.
Will: Yeah. And we were talking before we got on the podcast, they said he had a lot of people reach out to you, uh, some supportive, some really critical.
Ken: I wanted to preface this, I'm sure you'll, your readers will know, or your listeners will know that, you know, you invited me back, um, without me broaching you, I didn't ask to come back.
Ken: Yeah, so, there's been, you know, I've received a lot of emails and a lot of calls and a lot of messages on Twitter and Facebook. Um, you know, mostly from people who have been to these programs and who have felt like troubled, um, really encapsulated what they've for so long had trouble saying themselves. And I, and I really appreciated that feedback. Um, or those comments really. I mean, I felt like I was doing right by them when I was writing it. And I hope that was the case. And then they, they gave me some affirmation, but I've also received constructive criticism from intensive outpatient programs, um, and, uh, healthcare providers across the country who, believe that some of these programs are effective. I've also received feedback very little, unfortunately from the industry that itself, both the wilderness component and the more residential component.
Ken: Um, a lot of it has been not hard to digest. It's been, um, what I would say disappointing in that not a lot of it has reached me directly. Like I've been shown what parents have been saying, and I've been shown by other people what, uh, some of the people in the industry, some of your colleagues have been saying, and I had hoped after the first week of publishing and doing this sort of media blitz that I was on that I would hear more from program directors and from counselors and from educators to more fully understand what I might've missed. Um, I really took the feedback from parents and programs that, um, I needed to include perhaps more options. There was a resource book, uh, resource pages, and there are resources in the back of the book for both teens and parents, but I missed an a possible opportunity to really underscore other alternatives if there are for these types of programs that we're discussing wilderness and residential.
Ken: the industry has remained largely silent. And what I've heard, um, from these third parties is, they, they feel as though, and correct me if I'm wrong, they feel as though that it was a, uh, an unwarranted attack and that I mis-characterized a lot of the industry. And of course I heard the argument, which I've heard for the, you know, nearly half decade that I reported the book, um, that the industry has changed that, uh, this is only indicative and reflective. My book is only indicative and reflective of a certain time period that it's all in the past now things have changed. And unfortunately based on, um, further reporting I've done in the last month and also from the messages I have received from program directors and counselors, it just doesn't seem like that's true.
Will We were talking before that, I had went back and read most of the critiques of the field over the last 25 years. And there's something that resonated with me with John Krakauer's piece called Loving Them to Death, which was an Outside magazine. I believe it's, uh, October of 1995 and reading that piece and then re reading your book. And it's like, wow, there are a lot of things that Krakauer points out that haven't changed in the field. And that really reinforces what you're saying. He does say. And at the end of that, uh, article and outside that programs need to be accredited by some external agency, like the association for experiential education and the joint commission. And that's where a parent should be looking at that person foremost before if they don't have that, they shouldn't be sending their kids to a program like that.
Ken: The Joint Commission itself has at accrediting body has been called into question too. But I think on a fundamental level, the arguments here are that the programs haven't changed. And then I always want to ask what, what has, and maybe you can shed light on that because I don't know anything that's changed. It all is very similar to, um, the early days of Anasazi and SUWS of Idaho and the folks who ran that seemed to still have their finger in the research and the industry writ large. Um, well, that's a good point
Will: There wasn't much research when that article came out and now many more research articles that have come out and you and I have been talking about the research. So let's talk about that some more. Where does the research come from in terms of who does the research, is that what you're saying? It's done at the university of New Hampshire out the outdoor behavioral research center, and it is funded primarily by the members of the outdoor behavioral healthcare council.
Ken: And what is, and this is something I've struggled with for years. What is the goal to your mind of the O B H C?
Will: I can't speak the whole history of the OBH council, but I can say that part of the reason the council even started was in response to John Krakauer's article. So it initially was, I believe it was six programs who started it primarily. I think they were all in Utah at the time, Utah and Arizona. And it was a classic response and, uh, like a trade group getting together to say, we've got to protect and we've got to make ourselves better because of not, we're all going to be shut down.
Ken: And I think there's, there's two parts of that that you noted, right? And the first part is we have to protect ourselves. And that has seemed to me since the nineties to be the modus operandi of the research arm of this, of the wilderness, um, that it's aimed at preserving the industry and to push it forward into some unknown realm. I don't know whether it's because they are seeking to have healthcare funding or insurance coverage. I'm sorry, excuse me. Or if they're really looking to improve the programs themselves, then there's the second part which you noted is, is this idea of, well, if we don't improve, we're going to get shut down. Now we've seen that they haven't gotten shut down, right? The programs are still operating everywhere, but it's unclear what, what the, what this body is seeking to do at least to me, um, when I've been made aware of academics who have challenged the research done by this group who have brought their own, um, papers and have been told that they've misrepresented the council's work that they have somehow, um, taken, um, taken a hard look at the industry and that hard look was, um, misconstrued that it was inaccurate.
Ken: So that raises the question fine. If the academics who are working to bring, bring to light a secondary opinion of the industry, um, are being told that they're wrong, then how come no one else in the industry seems to be critical of it. And the only people critical are journalists or past clients.
Ken: So is it, I mean, I guess the question is what makes wilderness therapy, instructors, counselors, academics. So in love with the idea of this outdoor treatment, that they are remiss to take an honest look and say, you know what, this isn't the right thing for a lot of people, you know, what some of the things that we're doing, whether it be transporting the kids, whether it be, uh, punitive punishments within the programs, whether it be the lengths of stay, whether it be the holding of the kids against their will for, um, several days beyond any sort of normal treatment scope, I mean, is, is not calling that not is not calling that into question such a damaging thing to the industry that they're not willing to take a hard look at it.
Will: Well, I think members of the council do consider that research. So there's just to clarify, the council is one organization. The research center is another, the council funds that research like because most research needs some funding because people don't do research without money that, and the center operates separately. I am not aware of all the research articles that are critical of the field and I'd love that it would be great to have that within the centers umbrella to have access to that information.
Ken: Well, I, you know, I don't want to get into semantics about who is, who is doing what research and who is funding. What, because if you're funding something, then you're a part [00:10:30] of it, right. They're interconnected in a very fundamental way, but there's, you know, if we don't even want it. So I can, you know, there are plenty of papers being published by young academics that are underscoring a need for a harder look at the industry. But I want, I won't point you to those. I mean, I could send them to you afterward. Um, I don't want to go into that cause I don't think that's going to be interesting for your listeners, for me to read from the abstract of an academic paper. But, um, [00:11:00] like it's like, let's look at, let's look at some more fundamental issues with what is said to be changing, right?
Ken: That they said that some of the critiques that I got is that you don't understand the programs because they're different than 10 years ago. Right? Um, the National Association of Social Workers says that evidence-based practices is a process in which the practitioner combines well-researched interventions with clinical experience, ethics, client preferences, and culture to guide informed delivery of treatment service. Similar. Similarly, the APA says evidence-based practices the integration of the best available research with clinical expertise, right? We're seeing a reiteration there in the context of patient characteristics, culture, and again, preferences, right? So if, if, if one of the arguments that the industry is trying to make is that this is evidence-based treatment that it's effective. Um, how come so many people have been into these programs? So many teenagers, young people are brought to these programs against their will against their preferences, right? Recalling both these guidelines to evidence-based practices.
Ken: And then again, not being given the clinical experience necessary to deal with their issues. I'm talking about the therapist who visit once a week, I'm talking about sort of the employment of unexperienced counselors, and I don't know what you would call it, your programs, the, the fellows who hike and sort of work the day to day with the children. Um, and then also, how would you square that with [00:12:30] the again, uh, punitive actions taken against children for not achieving a goal or not writing a letter or, um, you know, misreading an impact statement. I mean, these seem to be fundamental despair, uh, um, discrepancies between what the program say they're offering and what they're saying has changed, but what hasn't.
Will: So let's drill down that and a little bit more because if we go to the essence of what you're talking about at the APA, the American Psychological Association and the national association of social workers, which I'm a member of it is you're talking about unwilling participants. And that goes to the transport, which in many of the stories in your book is traumatized people. And it certainly impacted the way people experienced wilderness programs. Right?
Ken: Well, so, so two points, it's not, well, it's not directly related to the transport aspect, that's a component, but it's also related to the necessary, the sufficiency that the child doesn't want to be there in the first place. Even if their parents say, look, I want to take you there. Um, you're going to go, it's going to be a short term, 28 day stay. And then he can come home. They're still there against their will a B they believe that they'll get out after 28 days and see they don't have the opportunity to leave, um, at any point during the program. So they're there, they're against the world, whether they're transported there or not. Second point is the transportation aspect. The transportation aspect has been for decades, a problem. And we saw in, uh, the Outside piece that you quote, we saw in, um, several other articles about the industry that this leaves children and clients majorly traumatized with, um, complex post-traumatic stress disorder, um, you know, furthering their depression and anxiety.
Ken: And yet the industry's response was twofold. One. They came out with this study that said, we looked into it more or less, excuse me, I'm trying to like dumb it down a little bit for the more layman here, we looked into it and we sit and we saw that it doesn't really impact children and that they aren't left worse off than when they were, uh, before being transported. And the evidence to that was that they had, um, checked in with the students three and six months later and had found no significant change, unfortunately, as we know, and as you know, as we discussed before the call that most children, maybe not your program, maybe not some more independent programs, but most children then go to another therapy program following, um, wilderness. So, you know, that seems to skew the results entirely of the study and it wasn't even, and the problem was that it was their response. Was that no, it's okay. It's all good. Um, and then they, I'm sorry, when I say they, I mean, the, the researchers who are conducting these studies, I'm not saying the industry writ large, but it seems to be something that is being read by the industry writ large. Um,
Will: Let's just clarify for the, for the listener you're so, because not, everybody's going to know what you're talking about. So a lot of people who go to wilderness who are transported wellness programs after they, they leave, they go on to a Therapeutic Boarding School, or a Residential Treatment Center. There's been two research studies on transportation. And what you're pointing out Ken is when that follow-ups were done when done was 60 or days later, yet those young people were still in treatment when those and w they're still in treatment when those follow-up studies were going on versus looking at a year or five years out. That's I just wanted to clarify for people to understand what we're talking about.
Ken: Thank you. I appreciate it. And, um, yeah, I, I could have been more clear there. So then the second part that I, I wanted to raise was that was how the industry, and again, I'm using that term loosely, uh, to, to, uh, qualify the, the researchers who were doing this work. Um, so they, they responded with that. And then they responded with forming a transportation task force that whose members did not include, um, survivors who were given a voice at the table, um, who are not, um, broached for their own experiences and ask whether or not they felt like it was effective treatment. And if so, what would have been better? And if not, then what, what would be, uh, a reasonable ask of the programs? Uh, would they not accept transportation? Would they, um, seek to convince the children to come instead, rather than have the parents do it?
Ken: Um, there was no, there was no inclusion of the other side here. And to further that point, there is no aim within this task force that I have been able to discern that the, the hope of the task force, looking into the transportation aspect of these programs, this kidnapping, that, which was once called, as you noted before in home enrollment. Um, there's no, there's no, there's no goal. There's no deciding there doesn't seem to be an objective. There doesn't seem to be an intention. There doesn't seem to be a way out. It's just another thing that critics of the industry are pointing to as evidence that look they're, they're saying there are changing, but again, it's all lip service
Will: And you weren't invited to be on it to be part of it.
Ken: No, but that's not what I'm asking. I'm not asking you to be no, I mean, I'm just talking about students, former students, right? I wasn't, I, I wasn't invited to be on it.
Ken: I'm advocating for, if, if change is being sought, then all sides should be engaged. Right?
Will: Sure. I agree. All the voices and, and there's this federally, it should be more regulation on a federal level because it's one state can, a program can operate in one state with completely different rules and regulations. Then another state,
Ken: I think my, my goal with coming back well was to address wilderness therapy. And the mechanism was that it's a part of, because if we went into federal and state legislative efforts that I'm aware of that aren't made public yet, I find, I would find that most of your listeners would be terrified. Um, what I was hoping to achieve this time around, they would be terrified about, I was hoping this time around of the, of the change that is coming. But what I, what I hope to underscore was the, the need of these programs that are looking to do better. The programs who genuinely want to change, have to ask themselves if their therapy is so effective, if they are touting this as a really important way to treat the elements of young people, why is it that those young people are then sent to other programs for six months, a year, two years, the best sort of treatment doesn't require follow up treatment.
Will: I agree. And I will add, even if young people go on, go back home, which I have plenty of experience that there tends to be a stepping down to like outpatient or self-help groups recommendations for that therapy. Doesn't just sort of end after one experience or another, whether someone goes to a rehab, then you go to AA, et cetera. You're pointing out that going from one very restricted environment to another, a restricted environment, right? Is that what I'm hearing from you?
Ken: Right. Therapy is not something that you give up after 30 days. I understand that believe me, but it doesn't get worse. You don't go to a more strict program. You don't get into, um, more intensive treatments after the initial treatment. That's supposed to take care of the, the, the underlying issues. And I always take issue with this return to home, uh, um, component, because a lot of times the identified patient is the child, but it's actually the home environment. That's the issue as we noted in the last episode. So it negates the truth that what's happening at home, led them away in the first place. Um, and that is never really, um, you know, even in the intensive outpatient programs, rarely are the parents involved in any of that. And thank God, some of these children are being taken out of these toxic toxic environments. It's just a shame that they're being put into even more toxic environments.
Will: Well, and, and family systems have to change that. I mean, any decent program, whether it's intensive outpatient or regular it, the identified patient model that that's, it's the system that needs changing. And we are completely on the same place with that point a bit. And, and that's, it's the hard work of doing that at home. And hopefully that can all be done. So someone doesn't, or a set of parents don't need to make that decision to send their child against their, the child's wishes to a treatment program. When is it all right for somebody to be sent away to a, even if it's so drug and alcohol treatment program,
Ken: I'm focusing on the troubled teens here, because that's what these programs are, are aimed at, right? So it's, you can't force someone into treatment, which is what I said at the last, during our last chat. And if someone isn't willing to go, and if they're so far gone, that they can't find the help they need at home, what, what makes the industry think that the solution is to double down on that harm and that pain and that remove from the family, which they're already clearly feeling and send them away. I mean, even when you have children who are, you know, who are led to these programs and said, look, it'll be a short term. Or they go willingly, you know, they're, they discuss with their parents and say, fine, you know, I need help and I'll go. And then you get to the program. And this happened to me to happen to most people are viewed, you're strip searched and taken, and all of your items, your, your personal items, your hair bands, your, your underwear are taken and replaced. Then you're no longer in that treatment voluntarily you become an involuntary patient is a fair view, or is that too critical?
Will: I don't think all programs do that, but what you're pointing out is being forced to be in a program that you don't want to be in, whether they take your identifying clothes or whatever, you're just saying, like forced to be somewhere, you don't want to be to get treatment.
Ken: Right. I mean, and again, the, the goal of coming back on was to say it was to criticize and to call them to question, sorry, criticize is probably the wrong word, but to call into question the research that's coming out about the programs that's that, that somehow, somehow I'm missing, um, as far as proving, the efficacy of these programs of will when this therapy, um, somehow I'm missing it because I'm being told that I'm wrong and, uh, hundreds and thousands of people are being told that they're wrong. And I guess I just, I wonder if you could point me into the direction of some of the, um, the evidence to suggest that this is really helpful for so many more people and that the small group of survivors as they're calling themselves, are the outliers here?
Will: Well, I think they, the, the point that a lot of people in the field would bring up is that evidence-based therapies like cognitive behavioral therapy, multisystemic therapy, et cetera. Other evidence pegs practices are being provided in wilderness settings, but they're outdoors instead of being in a facility based we're talking about here is you're saying like anywhere that's not at home, that's not okay,
Ken: But how does CBT treatment in the woods differ from CBT treatment at home other than taking the kid into the woods against their will and having them hike around for
Ken: 40 days That there's a big difference, right? Wow.
No, I mean, I mean, therapeutically, I mean, obviously there's,
Will: I mean, there is where we can go. It is being outdoors is therapeutic. And certainly now this is where we're, I mean, I think being outdoors, I mean, I'm, I live [00:26:00] most of my life outside. I mean, there's so much research coming out about the outdoors. It was in the Wall Street Journal yesterday, the day before a whole article about it. Um, I also want to respect your time. We only have a few minutes left Kenneth
Will: The Wall Street Journal article was about
the outdoors as being therapeutic for people spending, how important spending time in the outdoors to create mental health.
Ken: Right. And I think that there's a fundamental difference. And I agree with that. I mean, I live in the woods as you know, I'm on the top of a mountain. I go for hikes every day, but I think there's a fundamental difference between taking a walk in the park and bow drilling your way out of the wilderness.
Ken: Well, to get warm food right here at some programs, that's, that's how, it's how it's done.
Ken: I mean, it's also a matter of, I mean, the rhetoric is also this, this sort of, I love the wilderness. You'll love the wilderness. I don't push my hobby. I don't think that the counselors who have written to me, the counselors who were written newbies say, you don't understand how much I love the wilderness. Understand what that sounds like, because I mean, I liked computers, but I don't make sure everyone knows it. Yeah.
Will: Yeah. That's the biases, right? It's we were talking about biases and totally like, Oh, it's so funny. You're pointing out some really important things. And I know we all have much more time. Can I, can we follow up in six months or a year?
Ken Uh, just like all the, all the quantitative qualitative quantitative research that's being done in the industry.
Will: Oh yeah, laughing, You were the one who said, I need to go at a, at the hard stop. And I want to honor that, that
Ken: I appreciate that. I want to, I just want to make one last note. I, I wasn't planning on doing this, but I feel like you're having, I feel like we're having a good time and I just want to do a little, um, a little jab at someone who's sent me a message to the counselor who said that I didn't understand wilderness therapy and asked me to send him a dozen free copies so that he could understand what I wrote in the book after telling me I didn't understand it. I just want to say that, uh, if you reach out to me again, I'd be happy to send you a free copy of your book.
Will: Wow. Huh. Hey, thanks a lot for talking to me again. Where are we going to follow up!
Ken: Yeah. I mean, it should be around, um, you know, I'm not going anywhere. I don't think we're going to get vaccines out here in Italy anytime soon. So I'm a hunkered down. All right. Will, thank you. I appreciate it.