 |
Aspen Marketing |
|
|
FamilyLight sm now recommends against referring to or enrolling in any Aspen or CRC Health school or program due to what the closing of New Leaf of North Carolina says about the value system of that company. For detail, see Tom's blog for May 2010. We have
been very concerned about the marketing tactics used by the Aspen
Education Group. In fairness, we must quickly acknowledge during
the presidency of Jim Dredge we saw some improvement and were optimistic
about further improvement. We are waiting to see whether or not
the current "President" of Aspen, Dr. Philip Herschman, will take the
actions we want to see to resolve our concerns. We put
"President" in quotations marks, as the
CRC Health Group and Aspen websites (as of December
12, 2009) make it appear that Aspen is currently simply a brand name
applied to some schools and programs within the
CRC Health Group organization, and not an identifiable
administrative unit. According to the
CRC Health Group Website, Dr. Herschman is actually
president of the Healthy Living Division of
CRC Health Group. We think marketing is relevant to patient/ student/ resident care. If facilities are marketed on a basis that deviates from straightforward factual information about what is done well and what is not done well, then can the appropriateness care of the young people be trusted in a facility being so marketed? Can trusting relationships be built? If marketing creates unrealistic expectations, then will those unrealistic expectations undermine treatment? Best care depends upon trust. Trust depends upon confidence that what is said can be relied upon. When marketing practices of a treatment organization appear to be fuzzy or worse, is there a reason to be believe that a more positive standard of ethics is in operation in the facilities themselves?
Perhaps we should mention
that Aspen is not the only organization that engages in the kinds of
activities we describe below. However, when On
Thursday, May 14, 2009, our consultant, Tom Croke, spoke at length with
Jim Dredge, then President of Aspen Education Group about the issues
described in what follows. We received a strongly worded apology
for some past behavior from senior management people at He did
not have the opportunity in that conversation to verify Tom’s account of
events, but it was very clear in some cases that the behaviors described
were outside the bounds of what he would endorse or what he wanted to
see happening in connection with the Aspen name.
In fairness, we must acknowledge
that he defended Aspens practices in some other cases, but left room for
further dialog in those areas.
We
believe his was a very sincere approach. However, Jim resigned
before significant change could have been implemented.
Implementation of the standards he described would require a major
reversal of practice in the marketing division. We will watch and
see what actually happens, now that Jim is gone from Aspen. We are
open to acknowledging progress when we see it and we hope we do.
But we want to see the evidence. So we
still have grave concerns. Please
note, too, that
CRC Health Group has its own
Code of Conduct. Again,
we experience cognitive dissonance when we compare this
Code of Conduct with what we see happening. We invite you, the
reader, to decide for yourself.
(Navigation
note: To read the entire
article on Aspen Marketing, follow
a red link each time you
encounter one. This will
take you through the entire article and bring you back to this page to
complete the article. If you
do not want to read all of the detail you might just stay with this
page. If you want to select the topics where you go into further detail,
choose from the links immediately below).
We divide our concerns about Aspen Marketing into several different topics showing the kinds of problems we have noticed. As always, it is our hope to motivate improvement, not cause harm.
Too often we hear of clinicians advising parents that sending
their child to a therapeutic program away from home is only a good idea
if it is an Aspen program. Clinicians and other referring
professionals who give that advice are likely falling victim to
. .
. (more) 2. Web Advertising. A further example of where we would like to see improvement at Aspen/ CRC Health Group involves their web advertising. We saw temporary improvement about the time we previously called public attention to this, but it appears the problem is back, or maybe it never left and we just missed it. (more)
3. Quid
pro quo marketing.
Quid pro quo marketing is
providing some incentive, often an item of value in exchange for
business. It
is not like the “cents off” coupon from your neighborhood grocery store;
it is more like paying someone who appears to be a neutral source to
tell you that is the best grocery store in town.
We are
not accusing Aspen or
CRC Health Group of actual payoffs or
referral fees to educational consultants.
We will let you decide whether or not what we describe crosses
any troubling lines.
(more)
Aspen, to its great credit, commissioned
an extensive outcome study
blanketing its schools, excluding its wilderness programs. A problem
arises when the study is used to convince others of the effectiveness of
one school or treatment center, ignoring the fact that the results of
many schools have been lumped together.
(more)
5. Referral
from one Aspen program to another (Internal Referral).
When
a person is referred to an Aspen school or program, upon completion of
that stay (If you are following the links shown above, this is where you return to the main page. We note that NATSAP in its Ethical Principles states in item 2:
Therefore all NATSAP member
programs aspire to . . . Honestly and accurately represent ownership,
competence, experience, and scope of activities related to their
program, and to not exploit potential clients’ fears and
vulnerabilities. We ask the reader to decide what credibility is due Aspen Education, CRC Health Group, and Bain Capital in light of this. We also point to the limitations on NATSAP to enforce its own standards. We ask whether it is appropriate for NATSAP to retain as a member any Aspen or CRC Health Group program. We hope NATSAP will give attention to this issue. We at
FamilyLight sm remain concerned that
NATSAP is handicapped in enforcing its standards.
We have addressed that in an
article in our website under the heading Topics of Interest.
The article is entitled
“Ethics Enforcement at
NATSAP and
IECA.”
NATSAP has taken the lead in attempting to influence federal
legislation proposed by Congressman Miller (D-CA) which, in its original
form, would have made the entire range of programming discussed in this
website unsustainable. While
favoring stricter regulation,
NATSAP has advocated the removal of provisions that would have been
totally destructive.
We submit that
NATSAP might be more credible in this effort if it were not
associated with the Aspen/
CRC Health Group/
Bain Capital behavior
described above. In our
opinion, this sort if thing is what the Miller bill should be targeting.
We believe
NATSAP should give serious consideration to whether schools and
programs associated with Aspen/
CRC Health Group/
Bain Capital are really
appropriate for
NATSAP membership, given the provisions of
NATSAP’s ethical statements, especially Item 2 of its
Ethical Principles,
noted above.
Remember, an Aspen/ CRC Health Group program might still be right for you or your child. Do not exclude consideration of Aspen/CRC Health Group program just because of what we say here. We are addressing marketing. Some Aspen/CRC Health Group programs maintain reasonable quality standards and one of them might be best for you. We believe that some Executive Directors of specific programs have resisted participation in the kinds of behaviors we describe here and managed to retain their positions. But make sure you base your decision on information from sources that can evaluate the benefits and shortcomings of both Aspen/CRC Health Group and non-Aspen/CRC Health Group programs and will do so objectively. What surprises us most is that an organization like Aspen/CRC Health Group, which clearly has the capability of operating top-notch facilities, does not turn the majority of the immense budget now spent on perks for referral sources and other marketing tricks into addressing quality across the board. We don't have the figures we would need in order to be certain, but we believe that by spending that amount of money on the facilities themselves they could bring even their least quality facilities up to par. Most disturbing is the erosion in incumbency of those leaders who seem to represent the highest standards of competence and integrity. Some very good people remain. But in too many cases those with what we regard as having the highest standards of ethics and integrity are resigning, retiring, or being re-assigned to positions of lesser influence. We think these moves communicate with clarity the real values of Aspen/ CRC Health Group/ Bain Capital. We hope that Aspen might become the industry leader in the best sense of the word, setting a standard in ethical matters that would meet our guidelines (and those at NATSAP) and inspire its competitors. When we criticize, our purpose is to motivate improvement, not to do damage. But Aspen/CRC Health Group programs will never command the respect they pretend to have without hitting the “restart” button in their marketing efforts, in addition to setting quality standards for all of their programs at least consistent with what they have achieved in a few of their best programs. We would think investors at Bain Capital would demand nothing less. Return to main article on Aspen Education Blog entry on closure of Mt. Bachelor Academy Official web site of Aspen Education Official web site of CRC Health Group Official web site of Bain Capital Tom's Blog, May 2010, recommending against placing children in Aspen or CRC schools or programs Return to Major Providers Index Return to Individual Schools and Programs Index Woodbury Reports links to Aspen Education Feedback is invited. We will publish selected feedback. Email FamilyLightResponse@yahoo.com Disclaimer: No program review, no matter how positive, is a blanket endorsement. No criticism is a blanket condemnation. When we express our level of confidence in a school or program, that is our subjective opinion with which others might reasonably disagree. When we assert something as fact, we have done our best to be accurate, but we cannot guarantee that all of our information is accurate and up to date. When we address compliance with our guidelines, you need to remember that these are only OUR guidelines -- not guidelines from an official source. We have also set the bar very high, and do not expect any school or program to be in total compliance. It is not appropriate to draw a conclusion of impropriety (or even failure to live up to conventional wisdom) from our lack of confidence in a school or program or from less than perfect conformity to our guidelines. Some will say we expect too much. Readers are responsible for verifying accuracy of information supplied here prior to acting upon it. We are not responsible for inaccuracies.
We do not specifically endorse UK Shopping. They "sponsor" our counter. Last revised June 1, 2010 |
||
|
|
||
| "Solutions, Not Just Referrals" | ||
|
For information regarding use of content of this website, click here |