"Why is AARC so effective?
Independent research has validated that over 80% of AARC graduates are clean and sober, in school or working and have re-established positive relationships with their families. There are a number of key factors that together contribute to the success of AARC. See AARC is distinctly unique in Canada."
http://www.aarc.ab.ca/media/index.htmlWhile one can never know just what went on between Natalie and the AARC grads she spoke to in order to amass the data for AARC's study, it is simply inarguable that the research was independent. The study was written by Dean Vause, AARC's Executive Director, Dr. Gerry Goresky, and AARC board member, Natalie Imbach, a former client and current Clinical, and Peter Choate, AARC's consulting social worker, now that Marty Heeg has had to retire to his collection of Hannah Montana videos. One is of course, left to ask oneself why AARC insists on repeating the claim that the research for this study was independent when it was clearly conducted by AARC.
Lest any controversy arise as to just who did what during the study, let's see what these folks had to say about the study:
"AAARC’s research has faced criticisms before. In 1994, the Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission raised questions about an earlier AARC evaluation of its success rate.
At the time, the commission wanted AARC to have an independent study of its program done by an experienced, credible research group of its program as a condition of a $100,000 grant.
AARC did submit a study. It is even mentioned on AARC’s website, where it is described as “an external review.”
The commission wasn’t so sure. One of its researchers reviewed the study and noted that, in her opinion, it “was not conducted by an independent researcher, but by people associated with AARC,” according to a commission memo obtained through the freedom of information legislation.
That researcher’s conclusion: AARC’s study was not “technically adequate based on widely accepted standards of research and evaluation.”
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2008-2009/power ... study.html
The fifth estate also asked the man who AARC says completed the study—Dr. Patton. He told the fifth estate his involvement was largely limited to supervising a graduate student who crunched the data—data gathered by people associated with AARC.
“I did not conduct the study. They conducted the study. I oversaw the analysis,” he said
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2008-2009/power ... study.html
We obtained a version of the 2003 study and showed it to three psychology professors who specialize in addiction—the University of Calgary’s David Hodgins, the University of Lethbridge’s Robert Williams and Bruce Alexander, professor emeritus at Simon Fraser University.
All three raised questions about the way the study was carried out. While Hodgins described the study as “not a bad program evaluation,” he, Williams and Alexander all listed flaws. Among them:
The success rate doesn’t include people who didn’t finish the program.
The grads were interviewed by people linked to AARC. This could bias what was reported, Alexander said. “Imagine calling up somebody who’s graduated from a program and saying: ‘Hey, are you taking drugs any more?’ And this person has already been put in the program against their will perhaps precisely because they took drugs. And what are they going to say? ‘Oh yes, I’m taking lots of drugs now,’” Alexander said.
As for whether the study is “independent,” Williams characterized it as “semi-independent.” He said in an email, “It is always better to have a totally independent evaluation. However, it is not unusual for ‘in-house’ evaluations to occur.”
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2008-2009/power ... study.html
Again, far be it from me to question the integrity of former Kids employee Dean Vause, or anyone else working for AARC, but one is left to ask: Why does AARC persist in claiming that their program has been validated by independent research, when this is clearly not the case?Guest
