Troubled by Kenneth Rosen is a nonfiction book about different programs for troubled teens. The author himself went to a "scared straight" type program when he was a teenager. He focuses on three types of programs: wilderness, boarding school, and more restrictive residential treatment.
He chooses to tell the stories of four individual teens who go through these various programs. Their stories were very compelling and illuminating to read. However, that's where my praise for this book stops. His writing is poor, his opinion incredibly biased, and he presents his opinions without facts that back him up. His thesis is, "This book hopes to show that in many, if not all, cases these programs do more harm than good." After reading this book, I do not believe that. I was convinced that these programs need to be overhauled, that the adults who run these programs need more training and more regulation.
One reason he says these programs should be ended is the death rate. He points out deaths that occurred during the programs. Some were due to drugs, some suicide, and others were caused by the adults restricting food allowances. However, after teens died from the lack of food, regulations were put into place requiring a minimum of 1800 calories to prevent that from occurring again. Additionally, these are teens who were doing drugs, self harming, prostituting themselves, and engaging in other risky behaviors. I think a factor to consider is how many would've died regardless.
Another of his arguments is that he thinks "he would've grown out of it." and thus his parents shouldn't have sent him away. It is possible of course, but many parents intervene because they fear the real damage their children could do without getting help. Again, drug use, prostitution, and committing other crimes are all things that would have long-term negative consequences and it is incredibly naïve to think they'll just outgrow it.
He says near the end of the book that parents of unruly teens ask him if he benefited from the programs he was sent to and he ponders whether it helped him. He writes, "Far as I can tell, I never really shed that troubled past. I still steal things or shoplift from time to time though I call it 'casual liberation.' I drive recklessly. I disrespect authority figures. I make risky financial decisions. I test the limits of my family's patience." At another part he includes information that he has spent time in jail for attempted armed robbery and attempted murder of his girlfriend. I'm baffled as to why he included that information because it definitely undermines the idea that he would just "grow out of it."
Lastly, the bias made this difficult to read. He only mentions at the end that one of the four teens whose story he tells was a friend he met during his time in a program. At the beginning, he said he chose these four because their experience best summed up the experience. Additionally and more importantly, he would state an opinion, only to follow it up with contradictory or confusing facts. Here's an example: "In many studies, clients have indicated that wilderness therapy was productive for them during and immediately after it and the rest of their treatment. Interviews have shown that the clients usually did not continue to develop in the years after wilderness treatment, aside from the usual maturation of the adolescent brain and personality. Because a patient is swiftly reintroduced to their old peer groups, they shed any skills learned while in therapy. The transition is abrupt, and the tools learned in the wilderness are lose outside of a controlled environment. Yet the experience does not derail them socially, which may be the best benefit to a swift return."
Another example of him providing contradictory information was about a survey parents filled out after consulting whether or not to try wilderness therapy. "The group, divided into those who had enrolled their children and those who had decided against the wilderness and residential track, showed a remarkable difference in outcomes among the children. Fifteen months after the initial call with the consultant, those who were admitted to a program showed few signs of the behavior that got them sent away. Those who instead stayed home and attended regular therapy or community sessions were still 'dysfunctional'." So here he provides at least anecdotal evidence from the parents that this program works better than not doing it. This book was full of examples like this.
The last example I'll share is one he included from a Facebook post written by a "survivor" of one of these programs. "Overall, I do believe that the Program has helped change my life and has been a major influence in the way I think and act today." This directly undermines the idea that these programs cause more psychological harm than good.
Overall, this book is biased, poorly and confusingly written, and doesn't succeed in convincing me that these programs should be shut down. While he highlights problems that I do think need to be addressed, he never convinces me that these programs should be entirely eliminated. I do not recommend this book to anyone. I give the book two stars for at least including the compulsively readable anecdotes and thank Netgalley for an early copy. This book is published on January 12, 2021.
