MIA

[ajax13]

Well, certainly the vital issue is providing information to you, Who.  Did you have any factual information to give that would help anyone here make a determination about the methods used in AARC?

[TheWho]

Well, certainly the vital issue is providing information to you, Who.  Did you have any factual information to give that would help anyone here make a determination about the methods used in AARC?

If they provided some statistics about their suicide rates during and after graduation it could be compared to national averages, but I dont think they included any of that info in the study.



...

[ajax13]

If they included that info in the study it could have been compared to the price of tea in China.  What's your point?  Had you read the study, you would know that they did not include statistics about the number of graduates dead from suicide nor the number who were incarcerated subsequent to their captivity in All About Receiving Cash. 

[TheWho]

If they included that info in the study it could have been compared to the price of tea in China.  What's your point?  Had you read the study, you would know that they did not include statistics about the number of graduates dead from suicide nor the number who were incarcerated subsequent to their captivity in All About Receiving Cash. 

I did and "No" they didnt include it, the study focused on sobriety and the graduates successes in school and family life etc. which is what many people came to AARC for.  If the model was designed to save lives or prevent suicides then they would probably be measuring those effects also.
All the same it would be interesting to have that information to kick around.



...

[ajax13]

You still didn't explain why you used the word "if", as you claim to have read the study.  After reading the study and not seeing any data regarding suicides or incarceration rates, why did you use the word "if".  This would imply that there was uncertainty as to whether or not this information was in fact included in the study.  Why did you imply this uncertainty if you had in fact read the study and were aware that this information was not included?  As to what the model was designed to do, I don't know.  I only know that AARC claims to provide treatment for chemical dependence, and 52% of the graduates cited in their study had resumed drug and alcohol use within five years of their graduation.

[TheWho]

You still didn't explain why you used the word "if", as you claim to have read the study.  After reading the study and not seeing any data regarding suicides or incarceration rates, why did you use the word "if".  This would imply that there was uncertainty as to whether or not this information was in fact included in the study.  Why did you imply this uncertainty if you had in fact read the study and were aware that this information was not included?  As to what the model was designed to do, I don't know.  I only know that AARC claims to provide treatment for chemical dependence, and 52% of the graduates cited in their study had resumed drug and alcohol use within five years of their graduation.

Not understanding something is okay.  The study yielded results stating that 85% of the AARC grads were still clean and sober after 4 years.  This may be considered a success to some, maybe not to others.

As far as the the use of the word"if" I often us this... it is a habit of mine, if you get my meaning, no pun intended.


...

[ajax13]

No, 85% were not still sober after four years.  But a 52% of the clients in the study had relapsed.  Most of the clients in the study had been out for less than five years, and 15% of the clients used in the study did not in fact participate.  I thought that you were trying to imply that there might have been information included in the study that would pertain to the number of former AARC prisoners from the study who had committed suicide or been incarcerated after leaving AARC. 
Then you said that you didn't think that they had included such information, even though you had already ready the study and knew whether or not they had included that information. So even though you knew the answer, you again tried to imply uncertainty by using the word think rather than the word know.
So all we know is that most of the clients in the study relapsed.  We have no idea how many committed suicide, or how many were incarcerated after leaving AARC. 

[TheWho]

No, 85% were not still sober after four years.  But a 52% of the clients in the study had relapsed.  Most of the clients in the study had been out for less than five years, and 15% of the clients used in the study did not in fact participate.  I thought that you were trying to imply that there might have been information included in the study that would pertain to the number of former AARC prisoners from the study who had committed suicide or been incarcerated after leaving AARC. 
Then you said that you didn't think that they had included such information, even though you had already ready the study and knew whether or not they had included that information. So even though you knew the answer, you again tried to imply uncertainty by using the word think rather than the word know.
So all we know is that most of the clients in the study relapsed.  We have no idea how many committed suicide, or how many were incarcerated after leaving AARC. 

I have provided you with the tables in the report where the results show the 85% continuous sobriety rate.  The part I believe is confusing to you is that you seem to feel since all 100 in the study did not reach 5 years after graduation, at the time of the study, then how can the study show a success rate this far out?


Out of the 100 chosen,  85 participated.

out of the 85 a portion were graduated for a year, some 2 years etc. up to 5 years.  The study was able to show success rates at all these milestones (not just greater than 4 years)

For example:

93% were still clean and sober after 12 months
85% were still clean and soberafter 4 years etc.


as far as suicide, or how many were incarcerated after leaving AARC, I dont beleive the study covered any of those issues.  I am not sure why they would?  If AARC was designed as a place which prevente suicides or comitting crimes then I would say that they should measure these 2 successes, but they are measuring primarily sobriety and how well they handle it back in their enviornment.

[ajax13]

No, 85% were not sober after 4 years.  52% of all former prisoners in the study had relapsed, although this data is highly suspect as 15% of the data does not even come from the prisoners.  I would think that including suicide and incarceration is an important measure of how well the former prisoners are handling life after AARC.  It's tough to be sober when you're dead.  Being incarcerated indicates a particularly poor level of social and personal functioning, one of the principal categories under which the former inmates were quizzed.

[TheWho]

No, 85% were not sober after 4 years.  52% of all former prisoners in the study had relapsed, although this data is highly suspect as 15% of the data does not even come from the prisoners.  I would think that including suicide and incarceration is an important measure of how well the former prisoners are handling life after AARC.  It's tough to be sober when you're dead.  Being incarcerated indicates a particularly poor level of social and personal functioning, one of the principal categories under which the former inmates were quizzed.

If you are so sure of all your facts why not present them.  I havent seen you present anything except what you made up.  Produce the study that backs up your findings or a link to it.  But until that time we need to rely on the study at hand which shows that present grads are enjoying an 85% sobriety rate for over 4 years after graduation.
Not sure what to tell you, but we cant alter the facts because you wanted the study to show something else.

[Anonymous]

But a 52% of the clients in the study had relapsed.

How can you make this claim when you're not even sure how many of the inmates were ever on any illicit substances before coming to AARC?

I think you need to divide this number into the number of people who relapsed, and the number who got addicted to drugs after AARC when they hadn't even used them before.

[ajax13]

Not sure what the former prisoners are or aren't enjoying.  52% of those in the 2005 study began using alcohol or other drugs after leaving AARC, according to the information presented in the study.  As always, any AARColyte is always encouraged to present information that is contrary to that I've pointed out, even you Joshy.  

[ajax13]

As the intake procedure at AARC involves a quiz, rather than a physical drug-screening, we can only rely on what the AARColytes tell us about how many of their prisoners were taking drugs prior to incarceration in AARC. 

[TheWho]

Not sure what the former prisoners are or aren't enjoying.  52% of those in the 2005 study began using alcohol or other drugs after leaving AARC, according to the information presented in the study.  As always, any AARColyte is always encouraged to present information that is contrary to that I've pointed out, even you Joshy.  

All I am asking is that you show us the table where that was determined.  Here what we have so far:

Take another look:
Table 2 Longest period of continuous sobriety of interviewed graduates, maintained by time since graduation
Time since graduation   One month   Six months   Twelve months or more
One year or less (n=29)   0%   6.9%   93.1%
Two to three years (n=42)   2.49%   4.8%   92.9%
Four or more years (n=14)   0%   14.3%   85.7%

85% of the grads are sober after 4 years and
93% are sober after their first 12 months after graduating.

Lets add your table and take a look.


...

[ajax13]

So.  15% of total sample population did not take part in the study.  52% relapsed after an average time out of AARC of two years, three months.