Seemed Like a Good Idea

[ajax13]

In 1992, when AARC was created, why would anyone in their right mind have given the Wiz a job?  He had just come from a year and a half at Kids, which had been by this time discredited.  Kids of the Canadian West was refused any further assistance and sponsorship from the Provincial Government, and died in childbirth, metaphorically speaking.
So here's the Wiz, with no PhD from Union or anywhere else to his name, and a very recent stint in an instituion judged by those in authority in Alberta to be too rife with problems to bring here, and the AARC board gives him a job.  What possible reasoning could be behind this?  He wasn't a licensed psychologist, nor an MD, nor a registered social worker.  He had been a phys ed teacher and a guidance counsellor, and an employee of the disgraced Kids.  What in that background recommended him to work at AARC?

[Anonymous]

Ajax13 disclaimer:

Warning!! He is a confirmed liar.  He has no experience with AARC and is stuck taking care of his wife who has major substance abuse issues.  So he comes on fornits to vent his anger towards places which rehabilitate because he wishes his wife had taken her chance more seriously but seems more inclined to blame others for his situation.
If you review the study AARC has one of the highest success rates of the top 5 programs:

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

Study – http://fornits.com/smf/index.php?PHPSESSID=6qtomta92gkab729sc9sv6htk0&topic=25625.0

[ajax13]

"The evaluation of AARC demonstrated significant, sustainable changes in the graduate population.  Of the sample 100 graduates, 85 reported being sober and 48 of the 100 were continuously sober since graduation."

"100 sequential graduates who graduated from 1998 to 2003 were selected for interview in 2003, and 85 agreed to participate.  In addition, 30 randomly selected parents, and 11 parents of the 15 clients not interviewed agreed to be interviewed.  Using information from these interviews, data regarding the recovery status of 96 clients was obtained."

http://www.aarc.ab.ca/endorsement.html

If only 85 agreed to participate, and 85 reported being sober, then isn't their success rate 100%?
Which seems to clash with the total of only 48 staying sober since graduation.  I don't know, those numbers are all just too much.

[TheWho]

The way I read it is 48% of the graduates were continuously clean and sober since graduation.  52% had at least one relapse since graduation.  86% were able to stay clean and sober for at least 12 months since graduation.  All 85 were living a clean and sober life at the time of the study (non were in relapse).

[ajax13]

That is exactly how I read the study as well.  Could you, or anyone else explain what the signifigance of the last figure.  As has been stated, repeatedly, the time since graduation varied widely amonst the individuals in the sample population, from a matter of months to five years.  
Could anyone explain how 93%.1 of those graduated one year or less had maintained 12 months or more of sobriety since graduation?
How did the total number of former prisoners who had been graduated for one year or less change from 10 in Table 1 to 29 in table 2?

"Because the primary symptom of chemical dependence is continued drug and alcohol use despite bio-psycho-socio-spiritual deterioration, it is essential that AARC clients achieve abstinence during and post treatment in order to fully recover from the devastating consequences of addiction."
With only 48% sober continuouly since graduation, and that number declining over time from graduation, from whence does AARC derive their claimed success rate of 85%?  What is "confirmed sobriety"?  As most have relapsed, what period of abstinence constitutes sobriety?

[TheWho]

That is exactly how I read the study as well. Could you, or anyone else explain what the signifigance of the last figure. As has been stated, repeatedly, the time since graduation varied widely amonst the individuals in the sample population, from a matter of months to five years.   Could anyone explain how 93%.1 of those graduated one year or less had maintained 12 months or more of sobriety since graduation?

The population of 2 people who only made it six months would have been the ones who had graduated less than a year.  The others were at or close to the year mark.  This would account for it.

How did the total number of former prisoners who had been graduated for one year or less change from 10 in Table 1 to 29 in table 2?

Table 1 is broken down by months, Table 2 by years:
So 1 year or less would be (0 – 1.49 years)
2-3 years would be (1.5 – 3.49 years)
4 or more would be (3.5 to 5.5)
Anything under 0.5 is rounded down, and 0.5 and greater is rounded up.
So the populations would be different in each category but they both would add to be the same which is 85.

"Because the primary symptom of chemical dependence is continued drug and alcohol use despite bio-psycho-socio-spiritual deterioration, it is essential that AARC clients achieve abstinence during and post treatment in order to fully recover from the devastating consequences of addiction."
With only 48% sober continuouly since graduation, and that number declining over time from graduation, from whence does AARC derive their claimed success rate of 85%? What is "confirmed sobriety"? As most have relapsed, what period of abstinence constitutes sobriety?

From Reading the study it would seem they consider success as being abstinent for 1 year.  Although success is individual if each person had the goal of being abstinent for 12 month periods then they may consider their program a success.

[ajax13]

Thanks awfully for pointing out that the population totals for both tables equals 85. As to what constitutes sobriety, you have again offered your opinion and some conjecture but no factual explanation.  As sobriety is a hypothetical construct and AARC and the who are attributing concrete properties to this abstract, the term sobriety is open to any interpretation.  So AARC claims an 85% rate for an undefined concept.
As to the tables, you will fail first year stats if you submit a table with class sizes that vary the way the Who has speculated that AARC's have.  According to the Who, one year graduated from AARC really means eighteen months.  If the length of a year can vary by six months, does that mean that six months of sobriety could be zero months, and one year could be only six months?

[TheWho]

Thanks awfully for pointing out that the population totals for both tables equals 85. As to what constitutes sobriety, you have again offered your opinion and some conjecture but no factual explanation.  .

It’s a discussion, ajax.  We are all offering our opinions and interpretations (yourself included).  If you want to know why the tables were formed the way they were you would be directing your questions to those who designed the tables, not here on fornits.  

As sobriety is a hypothetical construct and AARC and the who are attributing concrete properties to this abstract, the term sobriety is open to any interpretation.  So AARC claims an 85% rate for an undefined concept.

The study shows that 85% of the graduates enjoyed a clean and sober period of a year or more since graduating from AARC.  So I would conclude that staying clean for 1 continuous year would constitute success for AARC.  But success for the individuals would vary from person to person.  Some may be happy with a few months; others would have expectations of 5 years.  Just depends on the person’s viewpoint.

As to the tables, you will fail first year stats if you submit a table with class sizes that vary the way the Who has speculated that AARC's have.

You ask for factual information and then draw conclusions based on your own opinion.  Can you site the source of this conclusion?  Again you are questioning people who do this as their profession without any cause.  What is it in the tables that bother you so much?

[ajax13]

If I think that it's an error of methodology, is that an absence of cause?  So, according to the Who's opinion, success is competely subjective, so when AARC is begging for money from the Government by stating that they have an 85% success rate, this figure is based on a multitude of opinions?

[TheWho]

If I think that it's an error of methodology, is that an absence of cause?

No error.  Look under “Table structure” or speak to the people who designed the tables.

So, according to the Who's opinion, success is competely subjective, so when AARC is begging for money from the Government by stating that they have an 85% success rate, this figure is based on a multitude of opinions?

Yes, personally I believe success is subjective.  If AARC built a model around graduates staying clean for 3 months then 3 months would become the benchmark for success.  If they can get the government to cut them a check based on this then more power to them.

[ajax13]

So Who, you've managed to provide no information whatsoever with regard to anything, haven't posed any kind of question for people to reflect on, but still managed to make yet another post in a forum devoted to a subject of which you claim to have little knowledge.  This forum, by the way, quite clearly concerned with the Straight program and it's derivatives.  You offer spin in an obvious attempt to keep AARC in a favorable light when the odds of AARC not being abusive are far less than the odds that it is abusive.  All the Straight Inc. facilities either closed or changed names.  Many of the off-shoots also closed or changed names yet again.  The Straight-derived Kids, from which AARC is directly descended, had a record of myriad abuses ranging from violations of client's rights to insurance fraud.  So what could possibly compel a person, who knows little of AARC, to defend it in this medium?

[TheWho]

So Who, you've managed to provide no information whatsoever with regard to anything, haven't posed any kind of question for people to reflect on, but still managed to make yet another post in a forum devoted to a subject of which you claim to have little knowledge.  This forum, by the way, quite clearly concerned with the Straight program and it's derivatives.  You offer spin in an obvious attempt to keep AARC in a favorable light when the odds of AARC not being abusive are far less than the odds that it is abusive.  All the Straight Inc. facilities either closed or changed names.  Many of the off-shoots also closed or changed names yet again.  The Straight-derived Kids, from which AARC is directly descended, had a record of myriad abuses ranging from violations of client's rights to insurance fraud.  So what could possibly compel a person, who knows little of AARC, to defend it in this medium?

I am not looking at the odds of a place being abusive or not.  You cant judge people fully on association.  Because one kid is bad and goes to jail that doesn’t mean his/her brothers and sisters are going to do the same.  Sometimes it is just the opposite.  Maybe that is why they hired Vause because he has seen and experienced what has not worked and knows what path not to go down.  This is sometimes more valuable.

You have many questions, Ajax, but you seem unwilling to accept any answers or discuss possibilities from others.  I am not an AARC supporter.  But I did help you realize that Union is an accredited University.  Before I researched that for you you were under the assumption it was not accredited.  I helped you thru some of your questions with the study and learned a few things myself about AARC.  We all know a little more about AARC theu this dialog.

I am not going as far as saying you were lying but you were not being truthful with the information you were spreading here on fornits or maybe you were naive.  I am just helping to put things in perspective for you.  Neither one of us attended AARC but we can all work together to put it all in perspective.



...

[ajax13]

You never did quite get around to pointing out anything that I said that wasn't truthful.  And you're right.  We have no idea, after sixteen years, what path the Wiz went down.  No one knows if he'll use the dangerous host home practise from Straight.  No one knows if he'll use untrained peer counsellors and unqualified clinical staff.  Nobody knows if he'll use the confrontational rap sessions Miller Newton took from Straight, which had in turn been passed down from Synanon.  Nobody has any idea about any of that, right?  What gave you the sense that I wanted you to put anything in perspective for me, or that you could.  Other than reminding me that AARC has had all manner of deviants and degenerates sing it's praises, you included.

[TheWho]

You never did quite get around to pointing out anything that I said that wasn't truthful.  And you're right.  We have no idea, after sixteen years, what path the Wiz went down.  No one knows if he'll use the dangerous host home practise from Straight.  No one knows if he'll use untrained peer counsellors and unqualified clinical staff.  Nobody knows if he'll use the confrontational rap sessions Miller Newton took from Straight, which had in turn been passed down from Synanon.  Nobody has any idea about any of that, right?  What gave you the sense that I wanted you to put anything in perspective for me, or that you could.  Other than reminding me that AARC has had all manner of deviants and degenerates sing it's praises, you included.

I never stated AARC was that great.  The study shows an 85 % success rate on the outside.  Doesnt mean they dont abuse kids inside or if it is unethical, I havent read any studies or enough reviews from students to make that determination.  I offered help where I could.



...

[ajax13]

I didn't know that there were reviews of unlicensed private jails available.  Is there a section in the newspaper where one would find these reviews, like movie reviews?  After dozens of posts, no one has explained what the stated 85% success rate means.  A program that claims that abstinence is the only means to recovery yet has shown a minimum relapse rate of 52% amongst graduates in their study is not 85% successful at producing abstinence in their grads.  But keep throwing up that unqualified figure of 85%.  Then tell us again that success is determined by the individual, although AARC is determining it for their study population.  Thanks again, Who.