Aspen/CRC Marketing
    Successor to "Bridge to Understanding^tm"
Shows best in Internet Explorer.  May be distorted in Mozilla Firefox and other browsers.

We are very concerned about the aggressive marketing conducted by the Aspen Education Group.  In fairness, we must quickly acknowledge that we see some improvements.  Maybe we claim too much credit but we think maybe what we have exposed has something to do with it. 

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 falling victim to this aggressive marketing.   Many Aspen programs are good programs, but people who speak as if they are the only good programs are at best misinformed and are probably not reliable sources of referral.  Aspen is very generous with perks for their loyal referral sources.  We are not suggesting anything as black and white unethical as cash payments. In a future revision of this page, we expect to include more detail on how this process actually works.

An example of where we see improvement at Aspen/CRC involves their web advertising. In March of 2008 we published on this page, "An example of aggressive marketing that applies to individuals searching on the Internet (as opposed to potential referral sources) is http://www.teenboardingschools.com/ ."  The website http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/results.jsp?domain=teenboardingschools.com checked on March 6, 2008, indicated that http://www.teenboardingschools.com/ was a domain owned by "Aspen Education Group, 17777 Center Court Drive, Suite 300,Cerritos, CA 90703, US."  (Aspen Education Group is a subsidiary of CRC Health and is sometimes referred to as "CRC Youth Division.")  At that time this website gave the appearance of being a neutral search website for parents seeking resources on the web.  There was no acknowledgement that we could find after a diligent search that indicated an affiliation with Aspen or CRC Health or parent company Bain Capital.  This was a clear cut case of a company promoting itself by setting up what appeared to be a neutral guide and channeled everything to their own programs, a practice that is clearly contrary to our guidelines and that we think undermines the credibility of any organization engaging in such a practice.

At that time, we called attention of other IECA member consultants using the IECA member listerv.  On March 15, 2008, we looked at this website again, and noted that the CRC Health logo had suddenly appeared on the web site, but only on the home page, so far as we could find.  We then added the following notation on this page: 

"We have edited this page on March 15, 2008, as we note that the CRC logo was then added to this website, acknowledging who is behind it and no longer totally concealing the conflict of interest).  We also believe that if CRC/Aspen really wanted people to know that this website is a marketing arm of the Aspen programs, it would put the Aspen and CRC logos at the top and bottom of every page and turn it into a link to the the web sites of those companies.

Until that correction was made,  that website appeared to direct users only to Aspen facilities while concealing that Aspen, CRC Health, or Bain Capital had anything to do with it.  Articles, such as the one at http://www.teenboardingschools.com/bootcamps.htm entitled "Boot Camps Don't Work" did not disclose that it was posted on the web site of a company that does not operate boot camps but does operate many programs considered by people to be competitors to boot camps.  We at FamilyLight^sm agree with what the article says, but we are concerned about the value system of a business that would run this kind of self serving web site without disclosing their financial interest in the guidance offered."

As of December 27, 2008, that website has been entirely revised.  Every page we checked has the CRC Health Logo prominently displayed. While we don't have a record of the previous wording of the website (if there is a change) we note that where this website assesses boot camps (Aspen/CRC does not operate boot camps but competes with them) it seems to do so in a fair minded and research based manner -- something we don't recall from the same article as it originally appeared.  We would prefer that the name "Aspen" or at least "CRC Youth Division"  also appeared but at that point we may be quibbling.  The one other thing we would still like to see would be guiding people to quality facilities other than their own, at least where they have no facility that competes with the outside facility to which they guide people.  On the basis of the current presentation, we do not feel we have the basis to challenge the integrity of promotion.  This is a huge improvement. 

We repeat for emphasis that these correction occurred only after FamilyLight^sm  discovered the existence of this website and circulated the information  first throughout IECA and then through this website.  Perhaps we claim too much credit, but we see progress being made as the issues surface.  We suspect and hope that these improvements are connected to Jim Dredge's rise to the leadership position at Aspen/CRC Youth Division.

When you get a recommendation suggesting that only Aspen programs should be considered, you need to challenge at once the competence and/or the ethics of the person making that recommendation.  If the recommendation is for a specific program, the recommendation might be solid, based on solid reasons why that particular Aspen program is right for your situation.  However we see no reason why a competent and ethical referring professional would claim that Aspen programs in general are so superior to all others in general,  that only Aspen programs are appropriate for consideration, but we do hear of people making that claim. If you hear that from  a person recommending programs, you need to ask that person two questions immediately, then be skeptical regarding any advice and direction from that person. The two questions are: (1) What comparable non-Aspen programs have you actually investigated? and (2) What favors, travel, perks, educational benefits and other items of value has the Aspen/CRC organization provided you?  Then find a second opinion, if not a replacement for the person who gave you that advice.

FamilyLight^sm sometimes recommends some Aspen programs to some families. There are also some Aspen programs to which we will not refer. We applaud the progress on the promotional web site as described above.  We are not stating that there is no quality here.  We are not alleging actual bribery or cash payoffs.  But we are concerned that people are choosing Aspen facilities due to manipulation of referral sources.  We believe that there are serious problems remaining with the person-to-person marketing. We think it is a shame that this company, that does offer a great deal of quality, damages its credibility with the behavior of its marketing divisions. (We believe web marketing and personal marketing to referral sources are handled by different divisions). 

Remember, an Aspen/CRC  program might still be right for you or your child. Do not exclude consideration of Aspen/CRC  program just because of what we say here.  But make sure you base your decision on information from sources that can evaluate the benefits and shortcomings of both Aspen/CRC and non-Aspen/CRC programs and will do so objectively. 

Also, remember that the problem is with marketing efforts at the corporate level. At most Aspen facilities, the admission people in the schools divisions tell a straight story.  We are uncertain regarding the new centralized admission offices in the wilderness division -- that is a "wait and see." 

We are encouraged by the cleanup on the "Teen Boarding Schools" website.  We hope that means that Aspen/CRC has re-visited its ethical standards. If so we hope for more attention to the Wilderness and Marketing divisions under direction of Senior Vice Presidents Sue Crowell and Patty Evans, on which we expect to report soon in greater detail.   Aspen / CRC Youth Division is the largest provider of self-pay services in this industry or profession (depending upon the terminology one might prefer). 

What surprises us most is that an organization like Aspen, 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 into funding improvements in their programs.  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 significant improvement into their facilities, especially some of their more remote Utah facilities where we are not comfortable with the level of staff training.  Perhaps if they did that, they might actually reach their marketing claim of being the best of the industry, a claim we believe is simply unsupported at the moment (December, 2008). After seeing the changes on  their web site, we are cautiously optimistic 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 inspire its competitors. They aren't there yet.  Under Jim Dredge's leadership, we're hoping.  Let's see what happens in 2009. 

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.

Last revised December 28, 2008; minor revision January 1, 2009