New addition to protest board...

[hurrikayne]

:rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:

[Anonymous]

Does anybody in this forum have any training in treating addiction or has done any research in to proper and accepted methods of treatment? Is anybody here qualified to criticize a treatment program that utilizes the 12 steps as a method of recovery?

[hurrikayne]

Hmmm...many of us weren't in a program that DID utilize "The 12 steps" OR we were sent to a screwed up 'program' or 'facility' and weren't drug users until AFTER our incarceration.  (OR alcoholics)

Chew on that.

[Che Gookin]

Does anybody in this forum have any training in treating addiction or has done any research in to proper and accepted methods of treatment? Is anybody here qualified to criticize a treatment program that utilizes the 12 steps as a method of recovery?

5 percent success rate.

yay.

[ajax13]

Is anybody in this forum qualified to criticize a program that transplanted lock, stock and bullshit barrell, Kids, which was, as anyone who has done even a cursory examination of this phenomenon knows, a cult?
I've done some research, and none of it so far supports the concept of having amateurs label any kid who comes through the doors as an addict.  There is also little research to support turning over highly vulnerable adolescents to other adolescents who have been subjected to intense psychological assault by frauds and degenerates.  Additionally, there is a real dirth of scientific data supporting the use of unlicensed prisons run by scam-artist cult-leaders to treat adolescent addicition.

[Anonymous]

Does anybody in this forum have any training in treating addiction or has done any research in to proper and accepted methods of treatment? Is anybody here qualified to criticize a treatment program that utilizes the 12 steps as a method of recovery?

Yes, when a program lies and destroys people, they are qualified to criticize it.

Is anyone at AARC formally trained in treating addiction? (Previous participation in the program does not count as training)

Does AARC have a proper client/staff ratio for treating adolescents in a residential health care facility? (Staff being those who are qualified with formal training and experience, not former graduates of the program)

Is anyone at AARC qualified to make formal diagnoses to rule in or out other conditions?  

Is one week of training enough to give an oldcomer the skills they need to provide overnight care for "severely chemically" individuals who may be detoxing from any given drug? I think not, considering people detoxing from certain drugs require proper medical supervision.

[Anonymous]

I am qualified to criticize the 12-steps as *the only* way to recover as that is absolutely unsupported by the addiction research.

As the author of "Recovery Options: The Complete Guide," I can tell you that the research finds that cognitive behavioral therapy and motivational interviewing are equally effective to 12-step treatment, according to the biggest study ever done on alcohol recovery:  Project Match, conducted by the National Institute on Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse

http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/NewsEvents/New ... /match.htm

[Note:  the 12 step facilitation arm did have slightly more "complete" abstinence for a year, but there was no difference on "sustained" abstinence between the treatments.  This basically means that since in AA, if you have "one" you are considered a newcomer again, there was less of that, but not less return to alcoholic drinking, in the AA group compared to the others].

Btw, Cognitive behavioral therapy and motivational interviewing are specific, manualized approaches that are not what AARC does, regardless of whether it claims to incorporate them.  Motivational interviewing is absolutely incompatible with AARC since it works with the patients on *their own* goals and avoids confrontation.

Also, randomly assigning and coercing people in twelve step programs -- as opposed to letting them choose them or another approach, is linked with worse outcomes:

http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh291/41-48.htm

The same findings carry over into drugs:  people who *voluntarily* affiliate with 12-step programs do better than than who do not, but forcing people into 12-step programs does not improve outcomes and may do harm in some instances.

Finally, confrontational and humiliating counseling as done at AARC is linked universally with bad outcomes:

http://www.counselormagazine.com/content/view/608/1/

--Maia Szalavitz

[Anonymous]

I am qualified to criticize the 12-steps as *the only* way to recover as that is absolutely unsupported by the addiction research.

As the author of "Recovery Options: The Complete Guide," I can tell you that the research finds that cognitive behavioral therapy and motivational interviewing are equally effective to 12-step treatment, according to the biggest study ever done on alcohol recovery:  Project Match, conducted by the National Institute on Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse

http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/NewsEvents/New ... /match.htm

[Note:  the 12 step facilitation arm did have slightly more "complete" abstinence for a year, but there was no difference on "sustained" abstinence between the treatments.  This basically means that since in AA, if you have "one" you are considered a newcomer again, there was less of that, but not less return to alcoholic drinking, in the AA group compared to the others].

Btw, Cognitive behavioral therapy and motivational interviewing are specific, manualized approaches that are not what AARC does, regardless of whether it claims to incorporate them.  Motivational interviewing is absolutely incompatible with AARC since it works with the patients on *their own* goals and avoids confrontation.

Also, randomly assigning and coercing people in twelve step programs -- as opposed to letting them choose them or another approach, is linked with worse outcomes:

http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh291/41-48.htm

The same findings carry over into drugs:  people who *voluntarily* affiliate with 12-step programs do better than than who do not, but forcing people into 12-step programs does not improve outcomes and may do harm in some instances.

Finally, confrontational and humiliating counseling as done at AARC is linked universally with bad outcomes:

http://www.counselormagazine.com/content/view/608/1/

--Maia Szalavitz

Calgary Youth Court Judges need to read this  and all the attchachments.

[Anonymous]

I also have done some research, including attending the Western Canadian Conference on Addictions and Mental Health this past fall. This conference presented current research in Addictions and Mental Health. Dr. David Burns, author of "Feeling Good" spoke about CBT in addiction and gave a rather mediocre and unconvincing talk. CBT seems to be quite effective with Anxiety disorders though.
Dr. Tonigan is a statistician and he revealed some of the most current substantial long term research on Alcoholics Anonymous. He found that beyond a doubt, AA is very successful in the treatment of addiction, and its also free. The fact that it is free (after an initial optional treatment component) is substantial and should always be taken in to account. Many drug treatment centers in North America utilize the 12 steps and encourage their clients to attend AA after graduation.

This ajax13 person doesn't seem credible at all. Using terms like "scam-artist cult-leaders" is extremist, and I wouldn't take any of his/her statements seriously.  

Maia Szalavitz seems to subscribe to the Motivational Interviewing model which is used at AADAC to treat moderately addicted individuals. This model tends not to work with severely addicted individuals.
Also, Dr. Flores, who wrote "Group Psychotherapy With Addicted Populations: An Integration of Twelve-Step and Psychodynamic Theory" found that forcing 12 step treatment to addicts is often needed to kickstart the recovery process. This process is shown on shows like "Intervention" on A & E.
Maia probably also subscribes to the "Stages of Change" model, in which treatment is tailored to the level of readiness for change that the addict is in. This has not been proven to be essential in treating addiction, especially severely addicted clients like those at AARC. Dr Tonigan argues that the Stages of Change model has been sold to clinitians as a good sounding idea, but there is no quantitative evidence to support its success with severe addicts.

[ajax13]

Calm Down, how come all you AARColytes claim to find me less than credible, yet you never present any evidence contrary to what I post?  Vause is a psychologist?  Vause didn't use cronies from the Union Institue to sell AARC in the legislature?  The staff aren't all former clients or relatives of Vause?  Girls are not being sexually assaulted while in AARC?  AARC didn't begin life as a branch of Kids?  AARC is a licensed medical facility?  The host homes are all licensed and monitored by an official body?  Don't take my statements seriously, demonstrate that they are untrue.
AA is free, AARC is a bargain at $150 a day plus the cost of feeding and housing your newcomers once you open a host home.

[ajax13]

Hmmm. Still no evidence. Its sad that nobody has any. Just stories and exagerations and assumptions. And personal attacks. good job.

Sorry.  Me again, making up posts.  Can't help it, it's a compulsion.

[Anonymous]

Hmmm. Still no evidence. Its sad that nobody has any. Just stories and exagerations and assumptions. And personal attacks. good job.

Seriously, how brain damaged ARE you?

Programs using the same treatment methods were found to be abusive, closed down and sued.

How much more evidence do you want?

Why are you asking people on Fornits to prove what has already been proven in a court of law?

Call up Phil Elberg, I'm sure he'd be happy to explain to you what exactly happened to Kids of Bergen County since you don't want to believe anyone here.

Now you prove something that has NOT been proven. Provide some evidence that AARC is totally different from Kids, Straight, Seed etc., and should be allowed to operate.

[Anonymous]

Proof not needed. The program clearly works. You are in the dark.

[ajax13]

The program clearly works, so there is no proof needed that it works?  You should have told Goresky, Vause and Imbach before they wrote up their independent evaluation of AARC.  You could have saved these people a lot of time.

[Anonymous]

Proof not needed. The program clearly works. You are in the dark.

I guess if you stick a group of kids in an environment of total control and expose them to brainwashing techniques - teaching them that the program clearly works. Then you are the evidence this brainwashing is effective and the program clearly works.

For now

Until the effect wears off and you realize the whole process was only a carefully constructed con of your parents and basically a scam.

Apparently according to (how many members here?) it wears off, unless you plan on still being a peer counsellor when you're 50. I guess you may put your own kids in the program by then because if they're somewhat normal they will be displaying typical teenage behaviour that gets most of the clients into the program in the first place.