Talk:Global Teen Challenge

BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Expansion and Formatting of Teen Challenge Article

• Somebody commented in the edit history a while ago that the page read like a press release. Actually, it read more like a scientific survey, which would be fine in a section devoted to studies conducted on Teen Challenge, but not as the body of the main article. I addressed this problem by formatting the research data into a section entitled 'Studies of Teen Challenge Effectiveness'. However, this section alone is not sufficient for a full encyclopedia article, and I would like to propose that the article be expanded with the following sections after the introduction (which is fine the way it currently is):

• History
• Methods
• Studies of Teen Challenge Effectiveness
• External Links
• Notes

It is almost inevitable that editors will introduce criticism and controversy in the article, in which case the standard proceedure will be to add a Controversy section for these items, probably before or after the Studies of Teen Challenge Effectiveness section.

Whoever would like to help by collecting data for the suggested sections, please feel free to create the sections and add your work. The existing section on studies could also use a little stylistic polishing, if anybody would like to brush it up. Projection70 13:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Citation Please?

Nothing in this article is cit ed. This entryreads as a very biased arguement for why a treatment approach is effective. Teen challenge is definately a program that has a lot of controversy surrounding it, and this needs to be addressed. It rejects many of the mainstream treatment approaches embraced by other facilities and programs like AA. The 1 to 15% "cure rate" has no cite and I suspect that it was fabricated until that statistic is cited by a reliable source. Actually nothing in this article is properly cited, and as you are relying on academic documentation you need to have those documents named in this entry. CelticLabyrinth 07:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, we do need to find some citations for this material. I'll try to do so as I have time. However, in regards to the controversy surrounding the program; I checked out the links at the bottom of the article to sites critical of Teen Challenge. One is a blog, and the other is a site that does not show any of its sources, and makes some rather outlandish claims. Just because something is printed on the Internet doesn't make it true, and both of these sites seem like poor sources of information, especially for an encyclopedia article.DC 17:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

MMensen gaan pissen mensen gaan poepen bij elkaar moet je het hema braadworst noemen goedenmorgen iedereen ga terug naar bed om te poepen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.166.174.66 (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Copyvio

The article reads like a press release because it is a press release. The "information" on the studies was originally added as a 1,240 word text dump from here and here.

Nonsense. Total nonsense.

.s

X ile 07:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC) - Talk

Feel free to slap a copyvio tag on it then. Shot info 23:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

VERY BIASED & IMPOSSIBLE TO ADD ANY MORE INFO TO THE ARTICLE

Obviously, somebody wants to keep this Teen Challenge article VERY one-sided because I have tried countless times to include this information but they keep un-doing the changes I make! Despite that fact, I am going to put information that is relevant to the article here so others can see that I am only trying to show the proof that this information needs to be included in the article.

First of all- Teen Challenge is a Mission of the Assemblies of God http://usmissions.ag.org/

As quoted from the website- "Assemblies of God U.S. Missions exists to equip, empower and encourage the Assemblies of God to evangelize America." http://usmissions.ag.org/top/aboutus.cfm

The Assemblies of God U.S. Missions is comprised of six departments, which includes TEEN CHALLENGE!

http://usmissions.ag.org/top/faqs.cfm

ALSO: 'Excerpts' of the particular studies that are posted regarding the Effectiveness of Teen Challenge appear only on the Teen Challenge websites. They do not include any actual links to the actual reports that prove those reports really exist from the National Institute on Drug Abuse Report or the University of Tennessee Report.

ALSO: Regarding the treatment effectiveness- Nationally known drug treatment program, Teen Challenge, has encouraged this notion by claiming success rates ranging from seventy to eighty-six percent. But these figures dramatically distort the truth, as they represent the successful treatment rate of only those participants who do not drop out of the program before completion, which includes less than one-fifth (18%) of the total number of students who actually participated. - Statement of Samantha Smoot, Executive Director, Texas Freedom Network Education Fund, Austin, Texas http://waysandmeans.house.gov/legacy/humres/107cong/6-14-01/6-14smoo.htm

Two websites that are trying to prove that the Teen Challenge program needs to be investigated include:

Teen Challenge Exposed http://www.teenchallengeexposed.com/

Investigating Teen Challenge http://teenchallengecult.blogspot.com/

These two websites need to addressed so as to show that there are "two-sides" to the Teen Challenge facilities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JustTellingThe Truth (talk • contribs)

No comment on the first few links, but Teen Challenge Exposed and Investing Teen Challenge do not appear to be what would be considered reliable sources. --Onorem♠Dil 14:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

A PROBLEM OF BIAS - Issues Address and Being Addressed

Treatment Effectiveness

1. The U.S. Government determines what is success in a drug treatment program. Five years clean is the standard and Teen Challenge meets that standard with 86% of graduates claiming to be completely drug free, and 67% actually being drug free based on urine tests, in their study. The studies done are cited in the article from a non Teen Challenge website.

2. The dropout rate is meaningless. Drop out rates are never taken into account when measuring the success of a drug treatment program. Secular programs also have high drop out rates which is really surprising considering they only last normally 30-90 days. Some are even shorter that 30 days. The drop out rate in Teen Challenge is 65.6%, based on their study of 186 participants, not the over 80% provided here.

3. The Texas Freedom Network is a biased organization that does not believe in the use of faith in treatment even when government money is not involved. Teen Challenge has gotten very little money from the Faith Based programs and grants.

4. The article states the relationship between Teen Challenge and the Assemblies of God. Teen Challenge is NOT controlled by the Assemblies, but the relationship is detailed in the article. The provided web links support this.

5. The two websites/blogs posted above are not supported by proof. One is a first hand story of a person who spent time in Teen Challenge. Their story has been largely refuted, but they are able to give their opinion, but it is nothing but opinion.

6. The 1-15% cure rate for secular programs is a government figure. It has been documented time after time. There should be a place to cite this one.

7. The "Patron Feint" article cited is also untrue. Teen Challenge does not rely on self reporting. All of the studies done on Teen Challenge were done groups outside Teen Challenge. Most of them started out attempting to discredit the organization, but fact don't lie and they were not able to do it. Also they bring up the drop out rate which has already been addressed in point 2.

I apologize for editing others comments on this page. I did not realize until now how to add my own section.Ahumanbean 14:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The drop out rate is at the core of the argument against the studies which comprise most of the article. The Ways and Means Committee statement quotes only 18% of participants complete the course. Do you have something to specifically discredit [1] to support your assertion of "closer to 50%"? If not, this should be included.

The section entitled "National Institute on Drug Abuse Report" is a direct copy from [2] and I will delete it if nobody can show reason why it is not a copyviolation.

Similarly, the section entitled "University of Tennessee Report", while changing a bullet point or two, is primarily a copyvio of teen challenge's publicity at [3], and also needs to justify it's existence here.

independent studies [4] i could find via a brief google scholar search suggest that the program is effective, and worthy of a Wikipedia article because of its influence on US policy, if nothing else, but not in the form of a one sided advertisement.

While not a perfect source, there does appear to be a number of usable newspaper articles available also.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 11:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

NOT AN ADVERTISEMENT

Inaccurate information is continuously being put in this article. Independent studies are independent studies. These were not paid for nor produced by Teen Challenge USA or any of the local centers. It is wrong to suggest scientific studies are advertisements. The drop out rate cited by the Ways and Means Committee was part of testimony given by the Texas Freedom Foundation. This foundation has not evidence to back up this drop out rate. The drop out rate has never been officially cited anywhere including the US Congress. The 50% figure comes from Teen Challenge Executive Directors all over the country who maintain their own records. However, there is no official tally. This means the tally cited by the Texas Freedom Foundation also has no supporting evidence.

Finally, the drop out rate is meaningless. The official government means of determining success is based on five years clean from THOSE WHO COMPLETE a drug and alcohol rehabilitation program. This measure is used by secular and religious organizations alike. No rehabilitation organization counts the success of those who drop out including the much shorter 7/30/60/90 day programs that have proven to be horribly unsuccessful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.247.228 (talk) 12:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify- the tag states that the section "reads like an advertisement". I don't think this can be denied- as stated above, it reads like an advertisement because it is a word-for-word copy of an advertisement on their own web page. Any report about research which specifically gives details only of one portion of the research is biased reporting of research, regardless of whether the study itself was independent.

I'm not from the US, so please help me- where does it state "the official government means of determining success"? I'm more used to social researchers, field workers and clients deciding what is "success", so I see little relevance, or superiority of an "official" government means. Please let me know. To me, and other social researchers, the success of any program is setting out to do what it aimed to do- if the aim was to reduce one of the effects of drug addiction, this could be met in a variety of ways. For example, I see success in needle exchange programs, which reduce the effect (spread of HIV/AIDS) without necessarily preventing drug use for five years. Ditto programs that aim to provide immediate detoxification - they work with people who could never handle the religious browbeating of such a faith based program.

The drop out rate is especially meaningful, as it is so easy to "game the system" by forcing those unlikely to "succeed" to resign, or be expelled, before completion of the program. It is cited- including in the current article. My big fat guess is that the "Texas Freedom Network Education Fund" (is this the same as the "Texas freedom Foundation" you refer to?) looked at the stats, see only ~35% finish the course, and see 50% of this as 18%. (I notice that the report from the "Texas Freedom Network Education Fund" at [5] raises issues which need to be addressed in a balanced article about Teen Challenge.)

As a side note: The second research report, in my humble opinion, lacks credibility- it says "(of 213 individuals)... A random sample of 50 alumni was selected for this research project with a 50% response" - this means their results were based on 25 responses, out of 213 people who finished, with a high probability of self selection bias (those in gaol, who move house a lot, who chose not to respond would not be represented)- not a sufficiently representative sample to on which to generalise results. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 08:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The whole issue of the Texas Freedom Network needs to be address. The above linked report addressed no aspect of success. Instead this group is against faith-based drug and alcohol recovery programs because they don't use the failed methodologies of secular programs. The article gives the example of Teen Challenge not having "trained" drug and alcohol counselors. If you consider training the be the failed educational efforts institutions are using the create counselors/counseling that is useless, then Teen Challenge does not have trained individuals. However, if you considered the experience, training and history of Teen Challenge counselor and the success they play a part in, then you cannot deny their "training." Governor Bush realized that Texas State standards were perpetuating a failed methodology of drug treatment. Why would Teen Challenge require its employees to take this methodologically incompetent training only to retrain them under a more successful methodology?ahumanbean (talk) 08:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not an advertisement just because it is information taken from a website. These are taken from official studies. Success is determined by being "clean." Needle exchange programs are a prime example of a band aid that has no real long lasting effect. It is questionable if needle exchange programs even help stop the spread of AIDS, which was the intent. Needle exchange programs were never meant to be considered as part of someone stopping the use of drugs.

The drop out rate is meaningless because it is NEVER considered as a factor in success of any rehabilitation program. It is possible to "game" the system, but there is no real way to stop that. I know a number of Teen Challenge directors and they do everything they can to lower the drop out rate. They do not try to make it higher to "game" they system.

As for the veracity of the two studies, you can argue all you want, but they were done by qualified indepedent researchers. There are actually more studies, but people are already flipping out about the two mentioned that I have not added the information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.52.233.200 (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: This is not an advertisement just because it is information taken from a website. Let me reiterate. The biased reporting of the research is what makes this read like an advertisement, whether it is from "official studies" or not. Don't get me wrong here- I am not opposed to including the information, just because it's source is a Teen Challenge website. I am, however, opposed to biased and one sided reporting of the facts.

Re: The drop out rate is meaningless because it is NEVER considered as a factor in success of any rehabilitation program. Eliminating selection bias is a common, if not standard, practice of evaluation of a program. If it cannot be avoided, ethical reporting of research demands that it is noted as being present. If there is a high drop out rate, research ethics would demand that this is mentioned. Similarly, if only a tiny group of potential respondents is available, ethical (honest) reporting would note this, and would not claim that this small group is a representative sample.

I apologise if my comment about "gaming the system" appeared to be an accusation of TC directors. It was a comment about why researchers are expected to honestly highlight the faults in a piece of research when reporting results, to avoid dishonest fabrication of results.

Re: The whole issue of the Texas Freedom Network needs to be address I agree. It needs to be addressed in the article, not just on the talk page. The network/s have made significant comments, widely reported, about the organisation.

Re: 67.52.233.200 comments- You may find the references at Needle-exchange programme of interest if you believe that it is questionable if needle exchange programs help stop the spread of HIV/AIDS. I hasten to add- if your criteria for success is 5-10 years clean of all drugs, they are a miserable failure. But that is not, and never has been, their aim. The aim of the program is important. This is why I am fascinated by the notion that there is one "standard" US government measure of the success of a rehabilitation program. Here in Australia, for example, some use criminal recidivism, reduction of self harm, prolonging of life, quality of life etc. Again I ask- does anyone have a source for your assertion that the official measure is based on five years clean from those who complete a program?

Re: There are actually more studies, but people are already flipping out about the two mentioned that I have not added the information. If you have additional, verifiable, reliable studies, please, please supply them. Something more recent would certainly strengthen this article.

As it stands, it still reads like an advertisement, and needs to be improved. I will remove the plagiarism within a week with a more balanced report if it cannot be shown that this is a copy violation. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 11:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

As it stands, it still does not read like an advertisement. Unbiased official studies are not advertisements. Copies of official studies are not plagiarisms. Removal of these studies is not acceptable.ahumanbean (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Unbiased "official" studies are not advertisements- true. Biased reporting of these reports is.

There is no definition of plagiarism which does not include word for word copies of studies.

Removal of the paragraphs is wikipedia policy. Leaving them in is not acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WotherspoonSmith (talk • contribs) 22:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no biased reporting of these studies. These are actual studies in the article.

The definition of plagiarism requires that one take credit for what is in the article. Proper citation is used, thus no plagiarism.

Wikipedia policy requires that you show justification for the removal of this content and you have not. It is not plagiarism or an advertisement. They are based upon verified independent studies by major universities.

There is actually a newer study, but under your definition it would not be acceptable. However, the age of the studies does not negate the results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.247.228 (talk) 01:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is taking credit for the text, by not saying that it is a direct quote. We are presenting the information as if it is our own. It is not- it is a word for word copy of someone else's work. Under any definition (including yours), this is plagiarism. Proper citation would be to put it into our own words, and cite our sources for the information. Where necessary, particularly relevant sections may be quoted directly, but in such cases it should be very clear to the reader that it is a direct quote of someone else's work that we are quoting, using inverted commas, for example.

Wikipedia is not taking credit for the text. Each study tells its source.

By "your definition", do you mean Wikipedia's verifiability and reliability standards? I, personally, would welcome reliable, verifiable studies.

I think I have been very clear in explaining that I believe that the reports relate to actual studies, but that only the parts of the studies that show Teen Challenge in a positive light have been reported here.

This is completely untrue. The study results are included showing outcomes.

I think it would it be easier to request a neutral third party to mediate if we cannot agree on these definitions and help resolve this issue. Do you agree, or would you like to keep trying to resolve?

before we do, perhaps I should clarify: I am not suggesting that the article should lose any reference to the studies in question. They are relevant parts of the Teen Challenge phenomenon, and the article would be incomplete without them. However, we need to:

1. put it into our own words

2. include counterpoints, and additional information, such as the impact that TC has had on US policy re faith based services

3. Write according to the Wikipedia tenets of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR,WP:verifiability and WP:reliability

Do you object to any of these points? Are you unsure about any of them? I'm happy to work through them slowly, with a consensus approach to rewriting the relevant parts of the article. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 04:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have already suggested that a "Controversy" section be added, which has been suggested a few times. That would be the proper place to try and "refute" the studies. Of course, this would not be a section for opinion, but fact. I would love to flesh out this article more. While I don't see the need to rewrite the studies because they are cited, I am willing to do so to help come to a consensus.24.145.247.228 (talk) 11:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do not edit other people's entries. Add your comments below others' comments. That way, we can see who wrote what, in what order. This has happened a lot on this page.

And please do not remove tags because you disagree with them. That is not the wikipedia way. Work on finding a consensus, rather than encourage an edit war.

There are two issues being mixed up here. One is the validity and style of the section- whether it "reads like an advertisement". This is a distinct issue from whether it is a copyviolation. We can argue whether it reads like an advertisement. It is undeniably a copyviolation, unless the author of the original site is also the author of the wikipedia article _{(or if they have copied it from us, which often happens, but not in this case)}. Otherwise, we're copying that person's work as if it is our own, which is unfair to them, and dishonest of us. This is not the same thing as "citing" another article. Do you now understand why these sections need a rewrite? As a temporary measure, I will edit to show how a quote should be made clear to the reader.

RE: Wikipedia is not taking credit for the text. Each study tells its source. Respectfully, no. True, each section does say where the info came from, but it still is not clear whose words we are reading. The reader would assume that we (wikipedians) have written the article from scratch, that the words are ours. Take a look at this section . We can clearly see where Josephus is being quoted, with an in-line citation showing the source of our information.

re:This ("only the parts of the studies that show Teen Challenge in a positive light have been reported here") is completely untrue. The study results are included showing outcomes. Some of the outcomes are listed, but not the shortcomings of the studies. I have not been able to find the published source of this research, but any reliable research will mention the limitations of the study. The article does not do this. That is what I was trying to say.We do not know what, if any, other findings were.

We agree that counterpoints need to be shown (and from a neutral point of view- no blogs!). Do you also agree that a section showing the influence on US social policy is also appropriate, again with both sides of the story? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WotherspoonSmith (talk • contribs) 12:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

We are simply going to have to agree to disagree on parts. The studies say exactly where they came from. It would seem that shortcomings of the studies belong in a "Controversy" section. As for the influence on US Social policy, this seems like a completely different article. Teen Challenge receives almost no government money. There are rare exceptions. However, I am intrigued by what you mean by this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahumanbean (talk • contribs) 20:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I read the Wikipedia copyright information and these studies are completely allowed as they are in the public domain. Therefore no change is needed. I have no problem with your changes as long as they don't attribute the studies to Teen Challenge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahumanbean (talk • contribs) 00:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Where does it say they are in the public domain? Unless it is explicitly released into public domain, it is copyrighted. The www.teenchallenge.com site the page links to clearly says it is copyrighted.

2. The opinions stated need to be attributed to someone (public domain or otherwise) if we use their words. The only source for them is TC. We do not have anything original quoting the university as saying, for example, what is "noteworthy" or "adequate". If we know the university used these words, we can quote them. We don't, so we shouldn't. The linked page clearly says it is "A Review of a Study by Dr. Aaron T. Bicknese", not the study itself.

3. I am not attributing the studies to TC. I am attributing the review to TC. The review clearly states that the results are from the university's study.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 02:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Where does it say they are copyrighted. Teenchallenge.com is not the official Teen Challenge USA website. Teenchallengeusa.com is the official site. Any copyright claim on Teenchallenge.com is meaningless and void.

2. There is no opinion. These are independent studies.

3. You are attributing the studies to TC. These are independent study results. It would be nice to get copies of the original studies, but I don't live anywhere near any of the places. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahumanbean (talk • contribs) 03:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I finally figured out why your concern about copyright. These are not summaries of the studies that were written by Teen Challenge. These are actually summary results that came directly from the studies. They do not fall under the copyright of the websites because they are not created, owned or under the authority of the website owners.24.145.247.228 (talk) 03:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice of you to say that. However, the websites do have a copyright tag, and I cannot find anything to back up your belief that these are quotes directly from the studies. In fact, i can find a line which clearly states that it is a report on the study, not the study itself. So, if Teen Challenge writes it, copyrights it, no-one else claims it, we must treat it as Teen Challenge copyright. If it is entirely public domain, then it still reads like an advertisementWotherspoonSmith (talk) 04:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

When you read the actual studies they say exactly where they came from. No one else claims it because the claim of authorship is in the study. "University of Tennessee" is pretty clear. Teen Challenge cannot copyright what it does not own, nor can a independent study be considered an advertisement. Just because you disagree with the results of the study does not mean you can claim either violation.24.145.247.228 (talk) 04:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

::: RE:When you read the actual studies they say exactly where they came from. The results, yes. Not the words. The wording either comes from TC (who claim it as their own via their copyright notice) or from the University (which we have no evidence fo whatsoever, other than your repeated assertion.)

If Teen Challenge has copyrighted it, we need TC's permission, and even then we'd be best using our own words.

If TC claims to own copyright, we need something certain to prove those words aren't theirs. (not the results- the words we use)

If University of Tennessee has written it (the words, not the original research), we need their permission to use their words, and even then we'd be best off using our own words. The results should be published somewhere, peer reviewed. No-one has yet seen this. We rely on a (copyrighted) review of the results. This is second best, but we may get away with it. It is certainly immoral to claim the words as our own, especially if we don't know who wrote them.

I have repeatedly stated that an independent study cannot be considered an advertisement, but a report on that study can. Do you agree?

I agree with the results, don't make assumptions otherwise. As a welfare oficer for the last 21 years, I have lots of contact and made the occasional referral to TC. It is brilliant when it works.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 06:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

All of these have already been answered. When someone does not agree with a study they will try to find a way to deny its veracity. These are not reports on the studies. Period.ahumanbean (talk) 20:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Public Policy Effects

I really think this is a great section. It does cross boundaries far beyond Teen Challenge, but it also applied to Teen Challenge. It may not need to be so much as expanded here as it should link to a bigger article based on the public policy effects of the faith based initiative. In fact, such an article already exists. It might be better to place this under a "Controversy" section that links to this larger article. I did clean up the article a bit to clarify John Castellani's former position. The current president of Teen Challenge USA is Michael Hodges [6]. I also cleared up the "Completed Jew" language. The original language made the term seem as if it was a prejorative to all those who use it. However, Messianic Jews and Christians use it as a compliment even if it is not taken as one by Jewish groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahumanbean (talk • contribs) 01:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI I'm avoiding a division of everything into "for" or "against" (or "controversy"). Some things are just facts, just "interesting". The section should, i agree, be limited only to that which is directly related to TC. More general stuff, you are right, should go to that article.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 02:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Bicknese Report

Can someone please provide some more information about Bicknese's report ("Teen Challenge's Proven Answer to the Drug Problem")? I know there is a copy at http://www.acadc.org/page/page/2495014.htm but I'd like to know more about it. Where was it originally published? Was this article ever peer reviewed? Who is Dr. Bicknese and what are his qualifications? Why is it cited in this article as having been published by Northwestern University? --ElKevbo (talk) 21:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. Found what I was looking for here: http://teenchallengeusa.com/studies3.php. :) --ElKevbo (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Chattanooga report

This "report", previously labeled the "University of Tennessee report, is clearly a study commissioned by Teen Challenge of Chattanooga, Inc. ("We express our thanks and appreciation to Dr. Roger Thompson for conducting this independent survey for Teen Challenge of Chattanooga, Inc."). Not that being a commissioned study necessarily damages or detracts from its credibility but it's misleading to describe it as a "University of Tennessee report". Moreover, simply having been conducted by a faculty member at a university does not mean it was "done by" that university. With all of that in mind, I retitled the section.

I also greatly shortened the section as it was way too long, not at all informative, and full of copyright violations. The copyvios alone were reason enough to change the section but the undue weight and lack of clarity also greatly contributed. --ElKevbo (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

(I also note with interest that, unless I'm reading it wrong, the entire "report" is based on a single survey of 25 persons. Not a very thorough study unless there was significant qualitative work. --ElKevbo (talk) 22:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC))

How could this possibly be considered a legitimate source? The only indication that I'm able to find that this study even exists comes from various Teen Challenge websites, and in fact the link in the article directs to one of these sites. There is no indication anywhere that this study was ever published in a journal of any kind. There is no link whatsoever to the original text of the study. The Teen Challenge website says that the study was conducted by a Dr Roger Thompson who is head of the criminal justice department. His bio on the university's website however indicates that he is not the head of the department and his doctorate is in education, not in medicine. [[7]]. There is no discussion at all of the methodology used in the study. There is no discussion at all of Dr Thompson's qualifications for conducting such a study.

So in addition to there only being the organization in question's word that this study exists somewhere, there is serious doubt as to whether the study would be reliable even if the original text were found. I'm going to go ahead and remove the section as there doesn't appear to be a lot of activity here on the talk page. I'd welcome a discussion on the topic, but I can't see how it would be legitimate to include this information unless at the very least the original text of the study was found. Bcbrown3 (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"National Institute on Drug Abuse Report"

I also removed this entire section. It was also full of copyvios and very misleading. I would be happy to expand on my thoughts if so desired. --ElKevbo (talk) 22:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

More specifically (since at least two editors seem to be restoring this copyrighted information without discussion or investigation): much of the material in this deleted section was copied verbatim from the cited source.

As an aside, it's not even a very good source and it appears to be a possible copyright violation itself. As far as I can tell, the original material is here. --ElKevbo (talk) 02:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

We had used that citation at one stage, but it was changed to the other. Perhaps people wanted to be able to deny that it was a TC quote. Who knows. Thank you for taking an interest in this article. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 05:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Compare Apples to Apples

Here's the bottom line. These are the facts that cannot be disputed.

Teen Challenge is an effective rehabilitation program for drug addicts, alcoholics, prostitues, people with eating disorders...the list goes on and on. Teen Challenge is not for everyone but anyone is free to enter the program. Teen Challenge does not discriminate against anyone of any faith or denomination. Atheists can enter the program just as easily as Christians.

Every rehab program, secular and faith-based, has it's own set of rules which the clients must abide by in order to successfully complete the program. If the client is not willing to submit to those guidelines, then said client will either be dismissed from the program or will personally choose to drop out.

If the client does not complete the program, then they can't possibly be listed in with the statistics being discussed in this article. Success rates of any program should only include the clients who have completed the program. These rates should not include those who do not complete. They are two separate issues.

As mentioned by another commentator, all rehab programs have a seemingly revolving door. Many clients will enter into the program. Relatively few will complete. In the case of Teen Challenge, fewer clients drop out than in secular programs though the drop out rate is still fairly significant. Of the people that do complete the Teen Challenge program, there is a significantly higher success rate than the rates of a secular program.

74.168.6.234 (talk) 16:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)BenThinking 74.168.6.234 (talk) 16:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

(this section moved to bottom of page from top, in keeping with standard Wikipedia protocols)

(Please remember that this is a page for discussing improvements to the article, rather than a space to debate the article's subject). If you have a reliable source for your assertions that "fewer clients drop out than in secular programs" and that "there is a significantly higher success rate than the rates of a secular program", please include them. I, and other editors, have added any we could find, and they do not support these comments, but would be happy to include them if they meet the Wikipedia standards. Similarly, the article refers to TC as an evangelical organisation rather than a rehab program, as that is what TC calls itself on it's website.

verifiable? yes.

I have just reverted edit | Revision as of 06:30, 16 November 2008, which the edit "According to an unverifiable 2001 New York Times item...". The news article itself is verifiable- there is no dispute that the article exists.

It has the edit comment "The NYT article contains opinion - Teen Challenge does not select clients and no program counts drop outs in its success rate". This assertion has been made above, but I will address it again here;

The full quote is that social scientists state that Teen Challenge ("like many voluntary NGO's") selects its clients. This is a direct quote from a social scientist, and is supported by a direct quote from the Rev. John D. Castellani, (then) president of Teen Challenge International U.S.A. that many participants have already been through detox. Unless we can show that Teen Challenge accepts all applicants, then, yes, the social scientists are correct, it selects its clients (and this affects their success rate).

Many programs count their drop out rates. I teach welfare/social workers. The texts that I use suggest that this is best practice, especially if the rates are particularly high. The assertion that no program does so seems common to me amongst Teen Challenge fans, but your experience may vary.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 11:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

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

....

texas freedom network

i have provided a citation for testimony from Texas Freedom network. The citation is provided as an opinion of an established organisation, nothing more. I do not assert that it is correct, any more than the opinions we have provided from Teen Challenge or George Bush are correct. That they testified as such, to a government committee, is noteworthy in itself, and the article would be missing information if it was removed.

Honestly- you've asked for citations from other social scientists, I have provided it. I can see no reason why any established organisation's opinion should not be recorded. If the KKK or the pope had also testified to government about TC, I'd want it recorded too, regardless of whether I agreed with them.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 11:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The answer is simple. The Texas Freedom Network (TFN) is NOT a social scientist. It is a politically oriented organization that has no credibility when it comes to unbiased information. They claim Teen Challenge was cited for health code violation, but provide no proof. I can claim anything I want, but it does not make it true. The Texas Freedom Network simply has no credibility. I don't care about TFN opinions, but I do have a problem with their unsupported claims. For example, they can talk all they want about separation of Church and State and how they don't believe TC should have government funding. That is an opinion. However, they cannot claim violations or information about success rates when they have no expertise in the area.

We still need verifiable information that counting drop out rates in success rates is standard practice. You have not found it because it is not done. You are still making the false claim that TC is selective and not supporting it also. John Castellani was not claiming selectivity in his quote, but that TC takes the hard cases who have already been through multiple drug rehabs before TC. Also, saying they have detoxed first means nothing. Detox is usually 3-5 days. TC does not have its own detox centers, but having or not having them does nothing to their success rate.

Essentially, you are trying to "prove" to unprovable points. TC is not exclusive or selective. In fact, it takes the hard cases. Also, success rates are just that - success rate, not drop out rates. The article already clearly details the high drop out rate the TC has. Nobody is denying it. If you really want to be unbiased put in comparable drop out rates which are also very high even from the short-term programs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.237.218 (talk) 02:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I've started this discussion heading to separate the TFN issues from the previous discussion. Can we try to keep the issues in separate spaces, please? (Any comments I make about the NYT article will be under the above heading, although I'm ignoring the relevance of the NYT article for now, having requested a third opinion to settle that dispute. I will accept the third opinion.)

If you have something to support your claim that TFN has no credibility, please provide it. I can find no evidence (i have searched). I agree they are opinionated, that is their job.

True, you can claim anything you want. If you do it before a government committee, it may become appropriate to mention it here. We would not, under any circumstances, accept it as truth without citations, only as a quote that such a statement was made, just like the quotes I have inserted.

I will drop the cause of the TCADA citations if you wish, although I can't see how the TCADA could object to TC if not through health code violations... I confused by what you are inferring, but can leave it if you wish. (It is quite widely reported, even in the Christian pro- TC link i provided. Has TC denied that the TCADA was trying to shut them down through health code violations?)WotherspoonSmith (talk) 12:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

TFN should not be quoted because they have no credibility on the issue. They are a separation of church and state organization. They are not a supplier of social scientific data. Thus they have no standing. You are suggesting just because they spoke before congress they can address the topic. This is simply false. Much has been said before congress that is unverifiable. Their opinion is no more important than mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.237.218 (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you're missing my point. If the article was to say "Teen Challenge dramatically distorts the truth (etc)" i would need a credible, reliable source. It does not, however. It says "TFN testified that TC dramatically distorts the truth (etc)". This cannot be denied. They definitely did say that.

Texas Freedom Network is a "nonpartisan, grassroots organization of more than 28,000 religious and community leaders... (which) advances a mainstream agenda of religious freedom and individual liberties to counter the religious right" which "has become a trusted source for producers and reporters from the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, National Journal, TIME, all major U.S. broadcast and cable news media, the BBC and the American Bar Association Journal. Texas Freedom Network spokespeople have appeared on ABC World News Tonight and Nightline, NBC Nightly News, NBC’s Today Show, Dateline NBC, FOX News and The O’Reilly Factor, 60 Minutes II, MSNBC’s Donahue, National Public Radio, and the BBC."

NOTE: I AM NOT saying this necessarily means they should be trusted sources by Wikipedia, but it is just a little foolish to say their opinion is no more important than yours, or that they have no credibility.

Does this make sense? would you prefer to invite a third party opinion?WotherspoonSmith (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion: It belongs in the article. The TFN was called on to give a testimony, so it seems fine to add it in here. Just because the anon IP doesn't think that they have credibility doesn't mean that they don't. In the interest of WP:POV, I believe it should be included in this article. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The TNF was called on to give testimony about the separation of church and state, which is their area of expertise. They were not called upon to discuss success rates. They have no standing on this issue and gave an unverifiable opinion. Also TFN can claim they are mainstream and a trusted source, but it does not make it so. They are not quoted on any regular basis because they are know to be unreliable and left leaning. Nonpartisan does not mean neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.237.218 (talk) 06:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

clarifying Structure and Identity sections

I'm a little confused by the following sentence: "A sustained Great Commission life-style, including soul winning is a key component of discipleship and should be taught and practiced by all Teen Challenge students." Is it fair to simplify it by saying that "all Teen Challenge students should be taught, and should practice, an evangelistic lifestyle", or is there something I am missing? Is there a better way of saying this? i don't think the average wikipedia reader will understand what is meant by "a sustained Great Commission lifestyle, including soul winning"- especially the last few words. Is it saying that students are expected to win souls amongst their co- students? WotherspoonSmith (talk) 08:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm also not sure what "the non-residential expression of Teen Challenge: Living Free (formerly Turning Point)" means- maybe some clarification would help. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 08:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

POV

I see the word "our" is in this article. editors from the organization should at least change such words. This article is way, way too detailed. the only details that should be reported are those commented on by OTHERS, and completely noncontroversial facts: foundation date, address, website, founder, basic structure. stats on how great they are dont belong here unless published by nonchristian, professional recovery agencies/studies.(mercurywoodrose)99.39.149.154 (talk) 02:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

original name

I used to attend an assembly of God Church in southwest Detroit.

My youth pastor, at the time, used to refer to a "Challenge House".

They would refer to that and say it's now called Teen Challenge. Anyone know anything about that?

Thinkingamericanist (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Reads like an advertisement

This article reads almost like an advertisement, and there is no mention of controversies including the widespread problem of child abuse in Teen Challenge facilities. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 05:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Teen Challenge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131029193718/http://www.mntc.org/sites/www.mntc.org/files/pdf-uploads/MnTC%20Wilder%20Study%20Summary%202010.pdf to http://www.mntc.org/sites/www.mntc.org/files/pdf-uploads/MnTC%20Wilder%20Study%20Summary%202010.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Teen Challenge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029193057/http://www.globaltc.org/html/about_us.html to http://www.globaltc.org/html/about_us.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714141235/http://globaltc.org/html/location.html to http://globaltc.org/html/location.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714171620/http://globaltc.org/html/mission_and_vision.html to http://globaltc.org/html/mission_and_vision.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.twc.state.tx.us/svcs/charchoice/faithful.pdf.
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.twc.state.tx.us/svcs/charchoice/faithful.pdf.

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:55, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Teen Challenge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090221065833/http://www.acadc.citymax.com/page/page/2495014.htm to http://www.acadc.citymax.com/page/page/2495014.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090112035516/http://waysandmeans.house.gov/legacy/humres/107cong/6-14-01/6-14smoo.htm to http://waysandmeans.house.gov/legacy/humres/107cong/6-14-01/6-14smoo.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.twc.state.tx.us/svcs/charchoice/faithful.pdf.
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.twc.state.tx.us/svcs/charchoice/faithful.pdf.

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Some more information about abuse

https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2021/10/12/the-troubling-truth-about-the-christian-organization-teen-challenge/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:C22:A971:C201:55AC:B02C:CBC5:FD1D (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

2019 National Outcomes Study - Poor quality and conflict of interest

Pardon me, I'm not an experienced editor so I'm not sure about the best way to go about including some of these details in the article. Some of the below is my interpretation and obviously should not be included, but I think at least the article would benefit from including some of the cited, objective facts I've drawn attention to. Perhaps a more experienced Wikipedian could guide me or make an appropriate edit themselves.

The Adult & Teen Challenge website has a section listing three studies about their program, including one titled 2019 National Outcomes Study . According to the PDF, the study was commissioned by the CEO of ATC and conducted at Evangel University. I believe the study is problematic and misleading for many reasons, most notably that:

1.) The Evangel website describes the university as "the national university of the Assemblies of God". According to the Assemblies of God website, Adult & Teen Challenge is a US Mission of that same organization, and that the current CEO of ATC previously served as Vice President of Evangel. Additionally, Evangel offers discounts to ATC employees on tuition and certificates. Neither the study nor the ATC website mention this clear conflict of interest, nor do they say whether ATC funded the study, which would be another conflict of interest.

2.) Among other methodological issues, the survey suffered from severe sampling bias. Notably, 56% of the included respondents were current ATC staff, and 31% currently utilized ATC housing. The authors admit that "the results are likely skewed towards success due to roles, responsibilities, and values of those individuals, as well as the rules associated with ATC housing", and "bias may have played a role in the high rates of positive outcomes". These limitations are not mentioned on the ATC website. Cerebral monkey (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

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.