Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => Straight, Inc. and Derivatives => Topic started by: ajax13 on August 04, 2008, 11:26:15 AM
-
Anybody have any idea why AARC produced only 100 grads in 5.5 years? The study stated that in this period only 15 clients did not complete the program. With 30 to 36 clients at any given time, each spending, according to AARC, an average of one year in treatment, then 165 to 198 clients should have gone through AARC in this period. What gives?
-
Anybody have any idea why AARC produced only 100 grads in 5.5 years? The study stated that in this period only 15 clients did not complete the program. With 30 to 36 clients at any given time, each spending, according to AARC, an average of one year in treatment, then 165 to 198 clients should have gone through AARC in this period. What gives?
These school populations tend to fluctuate over time. I would be willing to bet the number of kids they had in 1992 is not the same as they have today or the same they had in 2003 which may account for the difference.
I didnt see the 30 - 36 client number in the report, where did you pick that number up ajax13?
...
-
The same place you could if you put some time into learning some facts about this phenomenon before puking up your sentiment-based, misinformed and deceptive comments.
-
The same place you could if you put some time into learning some facts about this phenomenon before puking up your sentiment-based, misinformed and deceptive comments.
Sorry this discussion angers you so much. I am trying to understand your point of view.
...
-
The same place you could if you put some time into learning some facts about this phenomenon before puking up your sentiment-based, misinformed and deceptive comments.
Sorry this discussion angers you so much. I am trying to understand your point of view.
...
He is trying to fondle your junk.
-
The same place you could if you put some time into learning some facts about this phenomenon before puking up your sentiment-based, misinformed and deceptive comments.
Sorry this discussion angers you so much. I am trying to understand your point of view.
...
Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism"
Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation
by H. Michael Sweeney
-
The same place you could if you put some time into learning some facts about this phenomenon before puking up your sentiment-based, misinformed and deceptive comments.
Sorry this discussion angers you so much. I am trying to understand your point of view.
...
Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism"
Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation
by H. Michael Sweeney
I don’t think this is totally true, TOEJAM. In defense of Ajax13, I believe he was attacking AARC people for being overweight or trying to discredit Vause by attacking his education due to frustration and anger over his wifes treatment there. I don’t think these taunts and chides were designed to solicit a response from them because they are not posting here (at least not to my knowledge). As far as avoiding the discussion, I think this may be partially true. Based on previous discussion I believe it is easier for Ajax13 to attack the research people then to try to understand the study results because the outcome is not what he would like to see. I think he was hoping for a more negative outcome to help support his personal views. As far as ajax13 being sensitive to criticism I really wouldn’t know the answer to that, I dont know him/her that well, maybe others do.
...
-
I am truly desperate to have my point of view understood by you, Who. You are so very important to me, and I hope to all readers of this forum. I lie awake at night now praying that you will understand my point of view.
-
ajax: until YOU can substantiate your credentials in critiquing evaluation and addiction research, NO One should bother to discuss the research with you. Your questions and implications indicate you do not have a clue about how evaluation research can be conducted for on adolescent treatment population of this type and that you have no training in understanding the literature in this area. Try as you might to appear that you know what you are talking about, anyone with any education would not bother to engage . . . arguing with an idiot only leads to one being taken DOWN to their level to be beaten by experience - ie. idiot discussion with an idiot!
-
ajax: until YOU can substantiate your credentials in critiquing evaluation and addiction research, NO One should bother to discuss the research with you. Your questions and implications indicate you do not have a clue about how evaluation research can be conducted for on adolescent treatment population of this type and that you have no training in understanding the literature in this area. Try as you might to appear that you know what you are talking about, anyone with any education would not bother to engage . . . arguing with an idiot only leads to one being taken DOWN to their level to be beaten by experience - ie. idiot discussion with an idiot!
The parasite is following the troll bible. Trolls will:
Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the
"play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in
public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the
opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something
which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to
completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical
of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that
statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance
Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present
your argument with enough "jargon" and "minutia" to illustrate you are "one who
knows", and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely
why or citing sources
They never actually discuss issues head on or provide constructive input, generally
avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the
other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert
knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.
They tend to pick and choose their opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run
approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier
attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a
commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the
commentator as well.
Axis, a successful commentator with a strong argument draws these assholes like young boys draw priests.
-
addendum: and the idiots travel in herds :ftard:
Vincent has a friend, thanks belial for your help in pointing out 'axis"'s(ajax/vincent) methods
-
AXIS=Who/Gookin/CCM trolls
Ajax is the commentator.
You are one of the cited assholes.
-
oh dear, my hurt little feelins :'(
-
Anybody have any idea why AARC produced only 100 grads in 5.5 years? The study stated that in this period only 15 clients did not complete the program. With 30 to 36 clients at any given time, each spending, according to AARC, an average of one year in treatment, then 165 to 198 clients should have gone through AARC in this period. What gives?
These school populations tend to fluctuate over time. I would be willing to bet the number of kids they had in 1992 is not the same as they have today or the same they had in 2003 which may account for the difference.
I didnt see the 30 - 36 client number in the report, where did you pick that number up ajax13?
...
The schools graduation classes and enrollments do fluctuate!! The 30-36 number is present day attendance. Late 90's was more like 18 - 24 at any given time. As the word got out on their successes the school has increased enrollment by over 90% in the past decade. So 100 students within that time period would be accurate.
-
correct, BiCentennial!
vincent is trying to find any little nuance that does not compute and hence makes the AARC review and Vause a "big biased lie/liar"in his un-educated mind. So because he lacks any research training he will flip from making a point about whether Vause played on the Swift Current Broncos in the 1970s to how many clients were in AARC at any given time. He thinks he is aware of the day-to-day operations of AARC (i.e."With 30 to 36 clients at any given time, each spending, according to AARC, an average of one year in treatment, then 165 to 198 clients should have gone through AARC in this period") and how evaluation could be conducted on this sort of population.
Vince buddy, you crack me up!! RoFLMAO
-
I don't think it's that funny. I would be curious to know how many clients from the cohort used in the study are dead, and how many incarcerated since graduation. As for AARC prisoner totals, as of 2001 they were at 36 clients. If the numbers decreased substantially after that, why the millions stolen from taxpayers for the expansion?
-
I don't think it's that funny. I would be curious to know how many clients from the cohort used in the study are dead, and how many incarcerated since graduation. As for AARC prisoner totals, as of 2001 they were at 36 clients. If the numbers decreased substantially after that, why the millions stolen from taxpayers for the expansion?
It would be an interesting study. They have conducted studies which showed a strong correlation between substance abuse and crime. It would be interesting to be able to show a comparison of the crime rates of those who entered treatment vs those who did not.
Client numbers fluctuate from year to year. We would need to look at the numbers for each year to validate your concern.
-
I don't think it's that funny. I would be curious to know how many clients from the cohort used in the study are dead, and how many incarcerated since graduation. As for AARC prisoner totals, as of 2001 they were at 36 clients. If the numbers decreased substantially after that, why the millions stolen from taxpayers for the expansion?
It would be an interesting study. They have conducted studies which showed a strong correlation between substance abuse and crime. It would be interesting to be able to show a comparison of the crime rates of those who entered treatment vs those who did not.
Client numbers fluctuate from year to year. We would need to look at the numbers for each year to validate your concern.
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration reports that substance-abuse treatment cuts drug abuse in half and reduces criminal activity by as much as 80 percent.
-
That explains why there is such a discrepency in the number of AARC prisoners, and the number of grads.
-
realy vince: and you did that research. you have all the information on AARC clients before and after treatment and are telling us that the crime rate increased AFTER treatment. be careful . . . . .
-
Careful? By the way, how come the study did not look into how many of these grads are dead or incarcerated? I don't quite understand what you're asking about the crime rate. Do you mean the overall crime rate in Canada? The rate of violent crime among young offenders? If you're tired, take a break. Then you can collect your thoughts, and perhaps get a grown-up to help you with your post.
-
Careful? By the way, how come the study did not look into how many of these grads are dead or incarcerated? I don't quite understand what you're asking about the crime rate. Do you mean the overall crime rate in Canada? The rate of violent crime among young offenders? If you're tired, take a break. Then you can collect your thoughts, and perhaps get a grown-up to help you with your post.
These are questions that need to be addressed to the people who designed the study. The questionnaire was designed to target specific questions which would show the outcome of people attending AARC. If AARC's model was designed to reduce a persons tendency to commit a crime then the study would probably focus more on the number of people incarcerated. The study was geared towards looking at sobriety which is what AARC works to address, not criminal activity or teaching survival skills.
But it would be an interesting add-on, I agree.
...
-
Careful? By the way, how come the study did not look into how many of these grads are dead or incarcerated? I don't quite understand what you're asking about the crime rate. Do you mean the overall crime rate in Canada? The rate of violent crime among young offenders? If you're tired, take a break. Then you can collect your thoughts, and perhaps get a grown-up to help you with your post.
duh . . . . lets hear some more of your brilliance, it is just soooo amusing - "By the way, how come the study did not look into how many of these grads are dead or incarcerated?" yes and why didn't they ask them what color socks they wear on fridays and how long they let their hair grow etc. Like I keep saying if you knew anything about evaluation research you would understand the study and the questions, what is feasible and appropriate etc. But Vince, you are the sick little puppy and we all know you are the one that needs his mommy for help . . .maybe to deal with your wife as well hehe
-
A substantial portion of the data contained in the study pertains to "personal and social functioning", which would certainly entail suicide, and criminal behavior. It is surely at least as relevant to the success rate of AARC to see how many of the grads are dead or in jail, as it is to tell us how many feel that they're doing better in school or work.
"3.3 Personal & Social Functioning
Participation in school and academic performance improved since the time of AARC graduation. Of those currently enrolled in school, 82% reported their attendance was “much improved.” Similarly, much improved school attitudes (87%), school behavior (84%) and school performance (82%) were reported.
Changes in completion of academic goals increased following graduation. High school completion increased from 5.9% prior to AARC to 23.53% since graduation, (Cochran’s Q = 9.00, p < .01). College/university completion increased from 1.2% prior to attending AARC to 9.41% since AARC graduation, (Cochran’s Q = 7.00, p< .01).
Involvement with, and attendance at work was significantly improved following AARC graduation. Prior to AARC, 10.6% of interviewed graduates worked full-time. This increased to 40.0% during AARC program participation, (Cochran’s Q = 20.16, p< .001). There was a significant change in the percentage of respondents that reported being employed at some time prior to AARC (61.2%) and since graduation (100%), (Cochran’s Q = 33.00, p< .001). At the time of the interview, 57.6% were working full-time, 17.6% part-time, 2.4% intermittently part-time, and 22.4% were unemployed. The majority of working participants rated their work behavior (89%), work performance (86%), and work attendance (82%) as “much improved”.
Family relationships improved. Graduates were asked to describe their relationships with their family on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“Very positive”) to 5 (“Very Negative”). Relationships with family were rated more positively for the period since AARC graduation (M = 2.02, SD = .83) compared to the period prior to AARC participation (M = 4.54, SD = .61), (t (84) = 23.32, p < .001).
Place Figure 2 here.
Figure 2 displays the percentages of the sample rating their relationships as “very positive, mostly positive, equally positive/negative, mostly negative, and very negative” for the period prior to the AARC and at the time of the interview. At the time of interview, 84.7% reported either “very” or “mostly positive” family relationships at the time of interview, in comparison with 94.1% who reported “very” or “mostly negative” family relationships prior to AARC.
A significant number of graduates reported a reduction in family conflict since graduation from AARC. Participants were asked to rate the degree of conflict within the family on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“A lot”) to 4 (“none”). The degree of family conflict improved from a mean rating of 1.14 (SD = .41) for the period prior to the AARC to 2.93 (SD = .72) for the period since graduation (t (84) = -20.92, p < .001).
Place Figure 3 here.
This is graphically demonstrated in Figure 3, comparing the period prior to AARC and the time of the interview. At the time of interview 90.6% reported “a little” or “none” conflict, compared with 88.2% that reported a “a lot” of family conflict prior to AARC.
A reduction in involvement with the criminal justice system, as reflected in civil or criminal charges was reported. Prior to attending AARC, 56.5% of respondents reported having been charged with a crime. Since graduation, this figure dropped to 17.6% (Cochran’s Q = 27.92, p < .001), and, at time of interview, 4.7%.
A change in peer relationships was demonstrated as one of the most consistent changes since graduation. Only 3.5% of the sample reported having “mostly” or “very positive” peer relationships in the time prior to AARC. That proportion increased to 92.9% at the time of interview (Cochran’s Q = 64.06, p < .001).
With graduation from AARC, those responding report a significant change in their involvement with recreation activities. The percentage of the sample who reported being “somewhat” or “very” active recreationally increased from the period prior to the AARC (35.3%) to the period since AARC graduation (89.4%) (Cochran’s Q = 39.19, p < .001).
3.4 Self Esteem
The proportion of interviewed graduates rating their self-esteem as “mostly” or “very positive” increased significantly between the period prior to the AARC (1.2%) to the period since AARC graduation (74.1%), Cochran’s Q = 62.00, p < .001.
3.5 Attention Deficit disorder
Symptoms of, and treatment for ADD/ADHD were reported as substantially different following graduation from AARC. Participants were asked to indicate whether they had been diagnosed with ADD or ADHD at different time periods. Among participants, 37.6% reported having been diagnosed with ADD/ADHD prior to AARC, with 27% still meeting the criteria at the time of admission. At the time of interview, 3.5% of clients reported this diagnosis, since completing AARC. Among those diagnosed, 90.6% reported having been prescribed medication for ADD/ADHD prior to AARC attendance. No participants reported being prescribed medication either since AARC graduation or at the time of the interview. Additionally, 73% of those who had been previously diagnosed indicated their symptoms had decreased since graduation.
Youth who entered AARC with an ADD/ADHD diagnosis experienced improvements with family relationships. Specifically, this group rated their family relationships significantly more positively (M = 2.03, SD = .82) for the time period since AARC participation compared to the time period prior (M = 4.59, SD = .50), t (28) = 15.80, p< .001. Ratings of peer relationships also improved for the time period prior to AARC (M = 4.03, SD = .78) to the period since completing the AARC program. (M = 1.93, SD = .75), t (28) = 10.82, p < .001.
For those diagnosed with ADD/ADHD prior to AARC admission, employment increased from 65.52% prior to AARC entry to 100% since AARC graduation (Cochran’s Q = 10.00, p < .01). Prior to attending the AARC, 65.52% of this group reported having been charged with a crime. Since graduation, this figure dropped to 24.14% (Cochran’s Q = 10.29, p < .01). Although the proportion that completed high school increased following completion of the AARC program (6.90% vs 27.59%), the difference was not statistically significant (Cochran’s Q = 3.60, p = .058).
3.6 Mental health.
Participants were asked to indicate whether they had been diagnosed with a mental illness. Among respondents, 32.9% reported having been diagnosed with a mental illness prior to AARC, 4.7% since AARC, and 3.5% at the time of the interview. Of those graduates reporting a mental health diagnosis at the time of treatment entry, 88.5% had been prescribed medication prior to entering the AARC, 3.8% since the AARC, and 0% were prescribed medication at the time of the interview. Of those diagnosed with mental illness, 92.6% indicated their symptoms had decreased since completing treatment at AARC.
Family relationships improved amongst youth who entered AARC with a diagnosis of mental illness. Specifically, this group rated their family relationships significantly more positively (M = 2.21, SD = .93) for the time period since AARC participation compared to the time period prior ((M = 4.79, SD = .42), t (23) = 13.63, p < .001). Ratings of peer relationships also improved for the time period prior to AARC (M = 4.29, SD = .62) to the period since AARC participation (M = 2.00, SD = .89), t (23) = 9.68, p< .001.
3.7 Twelve Step Program Involvement
At AARC, the program is based on Twelve Step participation, and this is reflected in active involvement during, and participation after, graduation from AARC. None of the participants indicated they were “very involved” in Twelve Step programs prior to entering AARC. That proportion increased to 96.5% who rated being “very involved” in a Twelve Step program during the AARC program, Cochran’s Q = 82.00, p < .001. For the time period since AARC, the percentage of graduates who reported being “very involved” in a Twelve Step Program dropped to 52.9% (Cochran’s Q = 33.39, p < .001).
Regardless of the decrease in participation with time after graduation, the majority of graduates acknowledged the usefulness of a Twelve Step program. During AARC treatment, 90.0% of this group rated Twelve Step programs as being “very useful,” (Cochran’s Q = 62.00, p < .001). Among the entire sample, including those with no Twelve Step experience prior to AARC treatment entry, 91.8% rated a Twelve Step program as “very useful” during their treatment at AARC.
3.8 Feedback on the AARC Recovery Process
Graduates were asked to rate the impact of AARC treatment on their lives. The impact was rated as being “very” or “mostly positive” by 95.3%. The majority of graduates (70.6%) stated they were very satisfied with the services they received while attending AARC.
3.9 Interviews of parents
Of the 30 interviewed parents, 90% confirmed the reported sobriety of their child. Amongst the parents of non-respondent clients, 18.2% (2 of 11) reported their son/daughter had been sober at the time of interviews.
The impact participation in AARC had on their son’s/daughter’s alcohol and drug use was rated as “mostly” or “very positive by 96.6% of respondent parents and 81.8% of non-respondent parents.
Similar to the report compiled from the AARC client graduate responses, parental reports confirmed decreases in substance use and improvements in education, employment, family relationships, social relationships, and mental health functioning from the time prior to attending AARC to the time following graduation.
Of interest are the responses of parents to the following two questions. The first question was, “In your own words, please describe how your son’s/daughter’s involvement at AARC has impacted their life.” The second question was, “On a personal note, what has your son’s/daughter’s involvement at AARC meant for you?”
Hopefully you will agree that in trying to play devil's advocate for an institution that has received millions of dollars in taxpayer's money and charitible funds, and has been the subject of at least thirty television and print news reports, you have no problem with outright lying.
-
:blabla: roflmao
when all else fails, vinny tesorts to cut and paste
-
Why don't you explain what is wrong with cutting and pasting? Does it fall under the category of druggie behaviour?
-
hmmmm . . . i don't think so, unless of course you DECLARE it to be so. Nothing seems to be fact unless little Vinny declares it here!!
Roflmao sorry vinny i'm not laughing at ya, i'm just laughing . . ok , , , at ya ::)
-
Hopefully you will agree that in trying to play devil's advocate for an institution that has received millions of dollars in taxpayer's money and charitible funds, and has been the subject of at least thirty television and print news reports, you have no problem with outright lying.
Participation in school and academic performance improved since the time of AARC graduation. Of those currently enrolled in school, 82% reported their attendance was “much improved.” Similarly, much improved school attitudes (87%), school behavior (84%) and school performance (82%) were reported.
...
-
I'm still curious as to how many of these people killed themselves, or others, or ended up in jail. I am also curious to know why 15 former clients who did not particpate were included in the total of subjects.
-
I'm still curious as to how many of these people killed themselves, or others, or ended up in jail. I am also curious to know why 15 former clients who did not particpate were included in the total of subjects.
Yes, that is curious. The more information the better for me. I had put together some suicide stats comparing programs to the public school system (early to mid 2000's). It would be interesting to see where AARC fit into all of that mix.
...
-
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?
-
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.
...
-
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.
-
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.
...
-
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.
-
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.
...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
...
-
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.
-
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.
Yes, 85% participated. But you have not produced evidence of your relapse figure. Can you give us a link to the table which supports that? Why wouldnt you want to do that?
...
-
The study incorporated data from 96 former clients, in spite of the fact that only 85 of the sample group took part. 52% of the former clients in the study had relapsed. To see this, and any other data relevant to the study, I would suggest reading the study, which can be found in this forum.
-
The study incorporated data from 96 former clients, in spite of the fact that only 85 of the sample group took part. 52% of the former clients in the study had relapsed. To see this, and any other data relevant to the study, I would suggest reading the study, which can be found in this forum.
All I am asking is that you show us the table where that was determined.
I am providing the source of my conclusions. for some reason you are afraid to produce your table.
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.
-
Again, I strongly suggest that anyone interested in the 2005 AARC study read this study. The fact that data was included from 96 former prisoners when only 85 former prisoners took part in the study is remarkable. That and the fact that 52% of former clients in the study had relapsed after an average time out of AARC of 2 years 3 months.
-
Again, I strongly suggest that anyone interested in the 2005 AARC study read this study. The fact that data was included from 96 former prisoners when only 85 former prisoners took part in the study is remarkable. That and the fact that 52% of former clients in the study had relapsed after an average time out of AARC of 2 years 3 months.
Ajax, Why wont you provide the table for us?
-
BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHA...
Oh god I just realized something.
I think Ajax is getting that 52% from advanced statistical theory of norms and averages, which you cannot possibly hope to comprehend. He might be making it up. Who's to say? He is, however, far more trustworthy than any programmie so his numbers are to be taken more seriously.
What I'm laughing at is "longest period of continuous sobriety". Do you have any idea what that means?
This means if someone was absolutely smashed for six straight months after being released from AARC, managed to stay sober for a year, then fell off the fucking wagon and is blown out of his mind on vodka and PCP, he was sober a year, so THAT COUNTS as far as this "study" is concerned.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA....
-
Again, I strongly suggest that anyone interested in the 2005 AARC study read this study. The fact that data was included from 96 former prisoners when only 85 former prisoners took part in the study is remarkable. That and the fact that 52% of former clients in the study had relapsed after an average time out of AARC of 2 years 3 months.
Ajax, Why wont you provide the table for us?
Who, wake up!! ajax is pulling your chain. If he had the info he would post it.
-
I am as astounded by the 52% ackowledged rate of relapse for a group that had been graduated for an average of 2 years 3 months as you are. I was equally astounded to see that the study included data from former prisoners who did not even take part in the study. Even moreso, I was astounded to see the sample group broken down even further with no mention as to the correlated reduction in statistical reliability for small groups. It's all just too much!
-
Again, I strongly suggest that anyone interested in the 2005 AARC study read this study. The fact that data was included from 96 former prisoners when only 85 former prisoners took part in the study is remarkable. That and the fact that 52% of former clients in the study had relapsed after an average time out of AARC of 2 years 3 months.
Ajax, Why wont you provide the table for us?
Who, wake up!! ajax is pulling your chain. If he had the info he would post it.
Yeah, I guess you are right. Then how does he expect everyone to believe he is telling the truth about his girlfriend? Kind of tosses it all up for question. I am a little gullible in believing alot of this stuff I guess.
...
-
Who, if you don't believe her, we may all cease to exist. Ever since I met her, my wife has said to me every now and again, "I hope that some stranger from another country who feels compelled to post in an internet forum regarding a program with which he has no personal connection whatsoever, and without providing any factual evidence that contradicts the claims of those who want the place closed, believes my accountof my time in All About Receiving Cash." Brings a tear to my eye every time I hear it.
If the Who doesn't believe her, it won't matter that the program she was in began as a branch of the disgraced Kids program. It won't matter that the Executive Director of said program has been the head of the program since it was created, and that he worked for eighteen months in Kids. People are likely to doubt anything she says now that the Who feels that he has been had by...sorry Who, who did you say had made you feel gullible? It's vital to all of us reading and posting here that you don't feel that way!
-
Who, if you don't believe her, we may all cease to exist. Ever since I met her, my wife has said to me every now and again, "I hope that some stranger from another country who feels compelled to post in an internet forum regarding a program with which he has no personal connection whatsoever, and without providing any factual evidence that contradicts the claims of those who want the place closed, believes my accountof my time in All About Receiving Cash." Brings a tear to my eye every time I hear it.
If the Who doesn't believe her, it won't matter that the program she was in began as a branch of the disgraced Kids program. It won't matter that the Executive Director of said program has been the head of the program since it was created, and that he worked for eighteen months in Kids. People are likely to doubt anything she says now that the Who feels that he has been had by...sorry Who, who did you say had made you feel gullible? It's vital to all of us reading and posting here that you don't feel that way!
sorry ajax, you are a liar and it is all in your mind your wife can be a beautiful woman or a crack whore. What is it today? Crack whore? You just make it up as you go along.
Sorry for you buddy!!
...
-
Did you at some point Who get the impression that in any way I was interested in how you felt about me? Have you obsessed about me to the point that you are projecting some type of role-playing between me and my wife to which you aspire? Have your fantasies begun to spill over into your perception of reality? There are treatments available for these kinds of mental disturbances, Who.