Hartley publishes content that families act on at the worst moments of their lives. We treat that responsibility seriously. This page documents how we work — so you can decide whether to trust us, and so you can hold us accountable when we get something wrong.
Our editorial principles
Reader first, always
Every editorial decision — what to cover, how to cover it, what to leave out — starts with the reader. Not the search algorithm, not advertisers, not programs hoping for coverage. If something would help a parent or teen but hurts our traffic, we publish it. If something would help our traffic but mislead a reader, we don't.
Accuracy over speed
We do not race news cycles. We do not publish hot takes on developing stories. When something significant happens in teen mental health — a major study, a treatment breakthrough, a program scandal — we report it after we've talked to people who know what they're talking about. The internet has enough fast wrong answers; we'd rather contribute slow right ones.
Evidence over opinion
Clinical claims must be supported by peer-reviewed research, established clinical guidelines, or named expert sources. We do not publish "alternative" treatments without the evidence base. We do not publish wellness theories that haven't been studied. When evidence is mixed or evolving, we say so plainly.
Honesty about uncertainty
Mental health is a field full of unknowns. Treatment outcomes vary. What works for one teen does not work for another. We will not pretend more certainty than the evidence supports. "We don't know yet" is an acceptable answer in our pages.
Independence is non-negotiable
No treatment program, facility, or referral company has paid Hartley for editorial coverage, and none ever will. We do not accept gifts, trips, or compensation from programs we cover. Programs that try to influence our coverage through other means are noted in the article that results.
Corrections without ego
When we make a mistake, we correct it openly and transparently. The original article is updated, the correction is dated, and significant corrections are flagged at the top of the affected article for at least 90 days.
How an article is made
Every article on Hartley moves through the same five stages.
1. Topic selection
Topics come from three sources: questions parents and teens are actually searching for, gaps we see in existing coverage, and stories pitched to us by clinicians, alumni, and families. We prioritize topics where (a) families are making real decisions and (b) existing internet content is misleading, missing, or marketing.
2. Reporting and drafting
A writer with relevant background drafts the article. Writers must disclose any potential conflicts before they begin — past employment with treatment programs, personal financial relationships, or family members in the industry. Writers may have lived experience with the topic; if they do, that experience is disclosed in the byline.
For clinical articles, the writer must consult at least one named clinical source — usually a licensed practitioner with direct experience treating the condition or population in question. Quotes are confirmed in writing. We do not publish anonymous clinical sources except in narrow cases involving program criticism, where the source's professional safety is at stake; in those cases, the editor verifies credentials independently.
3. Editing
The senior editor reviews the draft for accuracy, voice, structure, and reader-first orientation. Specific things the editor checks for:
- Are clinical claims supported by sources we can verify?
- Is the writing accessible to a parent reading at 2am — or to a teen reading on their phone — without being condescending?
- Are there places where we are overstating certainty?
- Are there places where we are understating risk?
- Is the article useful, or just informative?
4. Clinical review
Articles that contain clinical claims — anything related to symptoms, diagnoses, treatments, medications, or therapeutic approaches — are reviewed by a licensed clinical reviewer before publication. The reviewer's role is to flag inaccuracies, oversimplifications, and statements that could mislead a parent or teen acting on the information. Reviewers do not write or rewrite content; they verify it.
The reviewer is named in the article byline and on our medical review page. The date of review is published with the article.
5. Publication and updates
Articles are published with a "first published" date, a "last reviewed" date, and the names of writer, editor, and clinical reviewer. Significant updates are logged in a changelog at the bottom of each article.
Pillar guides — the twelve definitive references on Hartley — are reviewed every six months. Library articles are reviewed at least annually, or whenever new research warrants. Investigative articles are updated whenever new information emerges (lawsuits, regulatory action, program closures). State resource pages are reviewed quarterly.
Sourcing
We rely on the following sources, in roughly this order of priority:
- Peer-reviewed research from major clinical journals (JAMA Psychiatry, Pediatrics, Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, etc.).
- Clinical guidelines from professional bodies (American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, NIMH, SAMHSA, etc.).
- Named clinical experts with relevant credentials and clinical experience.
- Government data and reports from federal and state behavioral health agencies.
- First-person accounts from families and alumni — used for color and lived experience, never as the sole basis for clinical claims.
- Investigative reporting from established journalism outlets, especially in the troubled-teen-industry coverage.
We do not rely on: program marketing materials, anonymous online forums, wellness blogs without clinical credentials, or AI-generated content scraped from elsewhere.
Use of AI
Hartley's writers may use AI tools for early-stage research — finding studies, summarizing long documents, organizing notes. We do not publish AI-generated prose. Every article on Hartley is written, edited, and reviewed by named humans. If we ever change this policy, we will say so on this page.
Conflicts of interest
Hartley's editor and contributors disclose any potential conflicts of interest at the article level. The categories we consider conflicts:
- Current or recent employment with a treatment program (within 5 years)
- Financial relationships with programs we cover (consulting, board service, ownership)
- Immediate family members employed by programs we cover
- Personal experience with a specific program when writing about that program
Disclosure does not always disqualify a writer from a topic. Sometimes the most informed voice on a subject is someone with insider experience. When that's the case, the article carries a clear "the author has previously worked with…" disclosure, and the editorial review is more rigorous to compensate.
Read more on our disclosures page.
Coverage of specific programs
When Hartley writes about a specific treatment program — favorably or critically — three things are always true:
- The program did not pay for, sponsor, or otherwise compensate Hartley for the coverage.
- The program was offered the opportunity to respond to specific factual claims before publication.
- The article links to publicly verifiable sources for any factual claims (lawsuits, regulatory actions, news coverage, public records).
We do not publish "best of" lists ranking programs. We do not publish program directories that imply endorsement. We do publish detailed honest descriptions of specific programs when those descriptions help readers understand their options or avoid harm.
Corrections and complaints
If you believe we've published something inaccurate, misleading, or unfair, we want to know. Email corrections@thehartley.org with the article URL and the specific concern. We respond within five business days.
Corrections that affect the meaning of an article are flagged at the top of that article. Minor corrections (typos, broken links) are made without notice. Substantive corrections are logged in the article's changelog.
We do not remove published articles in response to complaints from programs we have covered, except where we determine the original reporting was inaccurate. We do remove or redact personal information about private individuals (especially minors and alumni) on request.
Holding us accountable
The standards on this page are not aspirational. They are the rules we work by, and we welcome you holding us to them. If you ever read something on Hartley that contradicts what's written here, please tell us.
If you'd like to better understand the people behind Hartley, see about Hartley, the medical review process, and our disclosures page.