Talk:Global Teen Challenge

verifiable? no.

No programs count their drop out rates in thier success rate. Teen Challenge like many other programs does release its drop out rate. It stand at approximately 50%. However, the success rate of any program is only based upon those who have completed the program. It is illogical to count a failure as someone who fails to actually complete the treatment.

Also, John Castellani was saying that Teen Challenge often has people in its program who have already been through 30-60-90 days programs even multiple times before they come to Teen Challenge. This is not about picking clients. It is showing that Teen Challenge takes the tough cases and succeeds where others failed. Every Teen Challenge, just like all rehabilitation programs has an application process. This is not to weed out those who might fail. It is to make sure they have proper medical tests (VD's, TB, etc.)

The New York Times article is opinion. The social scientist has no evidence to support the assertion he makes about Teen Challenge. In fact, it is patently false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.237.218 (talk) 05:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

re " No programs count their drop out rates in thier success rate"

Do you have anything to support this assertion? I believe the drop out rate is an important part of assessing any program. It features in discussions of Alcoholics Anonymous in scholarly studies and non scholarly assessments.

It features in discussions of methadone in scholarlyand non scholarly assessments. It is part of the landscape of assessing drug rehabilitation in general.

I would ask you the same question. The links you provide show no evidence that any program counts drop outs in their success rate. Some of the links do show that drop out rates are published. Teen Challenge does show their drop out rate as evidenced by the John Castellani quote. The person making the assertion that programs do count their drop outs in their success rate is the one who needs to prove it.

Of course, drop out rates are highly important, but not as a determination of a success rate. They are useful to show who really does make it through. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.237.218 (talk) 08:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Not all of these google links relate to services counting their drop out rates in their success rates, but it is clearly a factor that many take into account when they are measuring their effectiveness. Social scientists have a duty to draw our attention to this when it is a relevant part of the equation.
1. Do you now agree that some services count their drop out rates?
2. Do you think that it is relevant to do so?

No, I cannot agree. After reviewing the provided links, I found nothing that indicated they considered their drop out rate in the success rate. The links did talk about reducing drop out rates. Of course, that is important. However, it still does not say that these programs consider drop out rate in their success rate calculation.

It seems completely relevant to consider drop out rate as an evaluation tool for a program. Teen Challenge does not seek to hide this information. Success rate and drop out rate are both important calculation, but they are separate and should remain that way.

re "picking clients" likewise, it is relevant to take this into account. Services which can pick their clients (excluding mental illnesses, those who are currently using, those who seem less motivated) should have a higher success rate than those who don't. This is not necessarily about weeding out those who might fail. If we are to, as an editor above suggests, "compare apples with apples" it is relevant to take these factors into account. TC is not (just) a rehabilitation program, it is a evangelical treatment program. It would be silly of them to accept those who are not motivated in any way. I'm not sure about your experience of TC, in my part of the world, they are not ashamed to say so (nor are most residential services).

Students in the program must be self-motivated to change, physically healthy, mentally competent, emotionally stable and able to function peaceably in a community setting In processing and application we consider: 1. willingness, 2. mental health, 3. medical condition, 4. legal status, past and present, 5. outstanding warrants, 6. funding eligibility, 7. level of care, 8. location

3. Do you think it would be appropriate to compare TC with other services that take all applicants?
4. If not, do you think it is relevant to mention this factor? WotherspoonSmith (talk) 12:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You are assuming the other services take all applicants. Where do you come up with this idea? You are also suggesting that an application determines exclusivity. Teen Challenge has been known to take the tough cases as noted by Catellani and others. Requiring a short-term (3-7 day) detox first is not helping the success. It is only admitting the TC centers are not equipped for detox.

Issues of willingness, mental health, legal status, etc vary widely by TC center. I know of centers that takes juveniles against their will. You cannot take an adult against their will without a court order. All programs must obey the law. There are plenty of people who came to TC center only because of a court order who succeed. Their success rate is likely higher because they only drop out if they would rather be in prison. As for funds, most TC centers take people regardless of ability to pay. Of course, this also varies by center. You cannot lump all TC center together because policies regarding cost, mental health and others are determined by boards of directions and center executive leadership.

Please add your comments to the bottom of the page, so it is clear which comments are yours and which are mine.

Please remember that my comments were in response to an edit which stated that "Teen Challenge does not select clients and no program counts drop outs in its success rate", and later comments that "The social scientist has no evidence to support the assertion he makes about Teen Challenge. In fact, it is patently false."

I think I have clearly shown that TC "like many NGO's" selects its clients (as you point out, this varies from one centre to another, for a range of reasons). I do not suggest this is to deliberately increase their success rate, or that they hide this fact, and apologise if my comments inferred this. It does make a difference to their success rates, though, and some social scientists think it is misleading not to note this. As such, the quoted comments are relevant for a Wikipedia article.

I think I have clearly proved that some programs count their drop out rate. I note that, though you think it "seems completely relevant to consider drop out rate as an evaluation tool for a program," you specify that services don't count drop out rates in their success rates. You state that "Success rate and drop out rate are both important calculation, but they are separate and should remain that way." This is, I think, where your opinion and that of the social scientists vary. If your aim is to create some model Christian citizens, you will count the number of such citizens and this would be your measure of success. If your aim, your definition of "success", is to reduce the overall rate of drug- induced misery in a town, you will consider drop out rates as central to any measure of success. This is a rough examples, but public policy is more inclined to the latter definition of "success", evangelical organisations are more inclined towards the first.

WotherspoonSmith (talk) 13:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Please show some sort of proof that your claims are supported. Wikipedia requires proof as you note and you have not been able to show any to date. You have not proven that programs include their drop out rate in their success rates. I would love to see a link that show what you state.

First, Teen Challenge takes the tough cases as I said. To claim they are exclusive because they have an application is ridiculous. Show me one program that does not require an application process. Show me one program with the success of TC with people who have been through multiple other programs previously.

You also claim Social Scientists vary with my belief. Please show me one social scientist who actually has proof to back up their claim. The New York times article contains one social scientist who is presenting an untruth about TC. It is not only not relevant, it is misleading. Just because a newspaper got one person to state something does not make it true. Does this article belong mentioned in a Wikipedia article. Probably not, except possibly in a controversy section where the questionable nature of the article is noted. Ironically, the vast amount of scientific studies that show the success of TC are being excluded. As it is, it is very biased and contains little information of value beyond some historical facts about TC. When it come to success the truth is being hidden by those who are opposed to the truth.

I know what your comments were in response to. The truth stands. TC centers are not selective nor do any rehab facilities count drop out in their success rate. Please show proof of your assertions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.237.218 (talk) 05:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I have shown that TC selects its clients. The article acknowledges that most NGO's do this. I can't see how you can call this 'patently false.'

I have shown many facilities which count their drop out rate, which you agree is 'important' and relevant 'as an evaluation tool for a program'. I have noted the difference is in your definition of 'in their success rate.' A simple google search for 'drug rehabilitation success rate' will show researchers who count drop out rates when deciding a service's success rate, and advice that drop out rates should be considered. Whether NGO's do or not, social scientists clearly do.

I am keen to see the article present the truth, and believe it presents varying views, as it should. There seems to be only one small paragraph countering your views. If 'the vast amount of scientific studies that show the success of TC are being excluded' please, please add them. I searched, found none, but would gladly have included them (assuming reliability, validity etc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by WotherspoonSmith (talk • contribs) 12:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I feel like we are going around in circles. You keep on saying you have proven your points, but I have seen no proof you have provided. You search link show nothing. Please show the proof. This article used to have the scientific studies included, but they were eliminated. The studies are easily available on multiple websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.237.218 (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed this is challenging for readers of this article to come to any objective conclusions. I have not seen any "selection" - recent communications indicate that there is an active effort to increase participation. The research I was able to conduct did not find any evidence of "selectionism" outside of removing clientele that pose a risk to the recovery efforts of other clients (bringing in contraband, enabling relapse, etc.) - this is anecdotal based on having no choice but to contact centres and former clients. ~2026-30487-26 (talk) 13:36, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Third opinion

EhJJ (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by WotherspoonSmith (talk · contribs)

.... I believe the line "According to a 2001 New York Times item [6], it is the opinion of some social scientists that the 86 percent success rate of Teen Challenge is misleading, as it does not count the people who dropped out during the program, and that, like many voluntary NGO's, Teen Challenge picks its clients." is an appropriate line to include in the article. Teen Challenge practices vary from one area to another, but they invariably screen clients in various ways, and their 86% statistic does not take into account their high drop out rate, which social scientists/ researchers would find relevant.

Viewpoint by 69.76.237.218 (talk · contribs)

.... I believe the 2001 New York Times article is inaccurate because it leads people to believe most social scientist do not agree with the 86% success rate. This is simply false. The one person interview for the article disagree and claimed consent from others, but gave not proof. As no program counts drop-out rates, including it in the TC article mislead people to believe that other tradition drug rehab programs do count their drop-out rate as part of their success rate.

Third opinion by EhJJ

....

Secular hit piece

Wikipedia is not supposed to be a place where secularist keyboard warriors get to slander Christians getting their hands dirty & doing good work. Needs NPOV.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.11.228.106 (talk) 07:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Comment

I found myself on this page looking for unbiased information on teen challenge as an addiction support service for a family friend. What an embarrassing state for wikipedia to be in today. Incredible that there are those whether pretending or deluded, arguing that this is an unbiased page and reads like a press release, or scientific survey. It reads like a politically motivated bias against American Evangelistic groups by American Leftists. Very sad to see this attempt at dominating the conversation, especially considering how small challenge USA seems to be compared to other regional offices. I had to look that up by going on the IRS/CRA websites - thanks for nothing, TIL that the government website archives are better sources of quick accurate information than wiki is. ~2026-30487-26 (talk) 13:13, 21 May 2026 (UTC)