AARC Summary (i.e. Ajax)

[TheWho]

So back to my question.  Since the study used only 14 people graduated more than 4 years, from a sample of 100 grads with a mean time since graduation of 2 years 3 months, with a reported 48% rate of continuous sobriety, how does this show that 85% of all grads are living a clean and sober life 4 years after graduation?

Hey Meatwad, you truly seem interested in learning.  This is great. You seem to be getting a little closer to understanding.  With a mean of 2 years 3 months the entire population runs from less than a year to better than 4 years.  This particular part of the study focused on the 14 people who were graduated 4 years or more (of the upper end of the tail assuming a normal distribution) and used this sample of the population to predict how “all” graduates will fair after leaving AARC (These 14 hold the key to making predictions for how people will fair after the 4 year mark).  If they chose greater than 3 years then the poplulation would be larger.
What we don’t know is the confidence interval that was chosen.  This would tell us what tables they used to come up with the 85% number.  Now remember, the study isn’t just predicting the outcome of the 100 people sample but is predicting the success rate of all people who have and will graduate.  They were also able to predict that not only will 85% be living a clean and sober life after 4 years but 48% of them will experience a continuous sobriety level as well.
I believe the study also showed a better than 93% of the graduates were clean after their first year.  To me this was a key indicator of the success of AARC.  The first year is usually the most critical and toughest to get thru.



...

[Anonymous]

TheWho - ?. ?? ?? ?? ?. ? ? , ? ? ?? ? ? ? . ?? ? ?? ? ?? ? ? ??. ?? - ?? ? ? ?. ?? , ?? ?? ?? ?, ? ? ? , ? ?.

[Anonymous]

Thanks very much, but I'm still trying to find out how the poster came to the conclusion that 85% of all graduates are still living a clean and sober life after 4 years.  You haven't helped me with that at all.  Since the mean length of time since graduation for the study sample was 2 years 3 months, and only 48% reported continuous sobriety, by definition 52% are not still living a clean and sober life after a mean time of 2 years and 3 months since graduation.  I don't know if the first year  is the most critical and hardest to get through, but if that is the case, then why would the rate of continuous sobriety go down from 93% after one year, to a mean of 48% after 2 years and 3 months?  
By the way, that was tremendously helpful of you to explain that the population would be larger if more people were included in it.

[TheWho]

Meatwad wrote:

Thanks very much, but I'm still trying to find out how the poster came to the conclusion that 85% of all graduates are still living a clean and sober life after 4 years.

That number comes off the “Confidence interval tables”,..."Sample/ prediction tables"... (see previous post)

You haven't helped me with that at all.

Sorry, I have received good feedback from others.  It is a little bit more of a challenge not knowing a persons mathematical background.
 

Since the mean length of time since graduation for the study sample was 2 years 3 months, and only 48% reported continuous sobriety, by definition 52% are not still living a clean and sober life after a mean time of 2 years and 3 months since graduation.

Continuous indicates “Uninterrupted”.  So 48% have lived an uninterrupted clean and sober life.  52% of the people had a period or periods where they were not clean and sober since graduation.  The mean time is an indicator of the population “center point”.  It is not related to length of sobriety.  This can sometimes be confusing.

I don't know if the first year is the most critical and hardest to get through, but if that is the case, then why would the rate of continuous sobriety go down from 93% after one year, to a mean of 48% after 2 years and 3 months?

It doesn’t.  The 2 years 3 months is the “center point” of the distribution.  There is no mean of 48% in the study that I have seen.  The tables provided will indicate the sobriety at each interval. The continuous rate of sobriety will always either stay still or go down.  It cannot increase from the 93% point.  My point with the success rate of 93% for the first year was that many people struggling with addiction would be attracted to the possibility that if they attended this program they would have a 93% chance of staying sober for their first year.  If you have ever struggled with addiction this is huge.  Many cannot fathom getting thru a day without using let alone a year.  So this was my thinking there.

By the way, that was tremendously helpful of you to explain that the population would be larger if more people were included in it.

Ha,Ha, I note a hint of sarcasm.  Sorry if I sounded condescending.  My point with that comment is that if they chose a study point of 3 years instead of 4 then the population would rise from the 14 and the larger sample size would lend itself to a higher confidence interval...ie the higher the confidence the better the probability.



...

[TheWho]

I had never heard of AARC before comeing to this site.  Do they have anything like that in the united states?  I am from the midwest and Hazelden has a great reputation but is expensive and my insurance woud not cover hardly any of it.  Has anyone from the US gone to AARC or is it just for canadians?  Thank you in advance. the information so far from reading here has been helpful.

[psy]

I had never heard of AARC before comeing to this site.  Do they have anything like that in the united states?  I am from the midwest and Hazelden has a great reputation but is expensive and my insurance woud not cover hardly any of it.  Has anyone from the US gone to AARC or is it just for canadians?  Thank you in advance. the information so far from reading here has been helpful.

AARC, formerly called "KIDS of the Canadian West", is a direct derivative of Miller Newton's KIDS of North Jersey, a branch of Straight Inc., a Synanon based cult that originated in the United States.  The movie, Over the GW is based on KIDS of North Jersey.  The closest US facility currently in operation would be Kids Helping Kids (Pathway Family Center), one of the last surviving Straight based facilities in the United States (the rest of which have been shut down).  I recommend reading the links I provided if you wish to know more about these types of facilities.

[psy]

TheWho - ?. ?? ?? ?? ?. ? ? , ? ? ?? ? ? ? . ?? ? ?? ? ?? ? ? ??. ?? - ?? ? ? ?. ?? , ?? ?? ?? ?, ? ? ? , ? ?.

TheWho ?

[TheWho]

@psy ??

[Anonymous]

I'm afraid I don't understand how that number could come off of confidence interval tables or sample/prediction tables.  There is no figure given in the study for the number of grads in the sample who are still living clean and sober lives four years after graduation.  One would require this number in order to use confidence interval tables or sample/prediction tables.  Although the number of graduates in the sample who have been graduated for over four years is given in the study, you had no number to use to predict any probabilities with regard to the number of graduates who are still sober after 4 years.
One could take the 48% of the sample who did not report continuous sobriety, using the average time since graduation of 2 years 3 months, and determine the probability that  graduates who had been graduated for 2 years 3 months were still sober, or the probability that they were not clean and sober.
The study does not, in fact show that 93% of graduates were still clean and sober after one year.  The study does show that 93.1% of graduates who had been graduated for less than two years had maintained continuous sobriety for a period of 12 months or more.  There is no figure given indicating how many graduates were still living clean and sober lives one year after graduation.
I'm not interested in what your thinking was, but rather in your claim that the first year is the most difficult.  The evidence from the AARC study would indicate that the first year is in fact the easiest, since, as you puport, the grads have a 93% chance of staying sober their first year, but only a 48% chance of staying sober until the 2 years three months mark.  If 93% of grads are in fact sober for the first year, then they are over 7 times as likely to use drugs or alcohol in the 15 months after their first year than they are during the first year after graduation, since 52% of the sample graduates had resumed drug and or alcohol use after a mean time of 2 years 3 months.
So, after ten to fourteen months of six days of continuous indoctrination per week, 93% of graduates stay sober for a year, after which time it can be expected that most resume drug and alcohol use.

[TheWho]

I'm afraid I don't understand how that number could come off of confidence interval tables or sample/prediction tables.

Thats okay, it takes some many years to fully understand statistics.  It is not something that can easily be picked up thru casual conversation.

There is no figure given in the study for the number of grads in the sample who are still living clean and sober lives four years after graduation. One would require this number in order to use confidence interval tables or sample/prediction tables. Although the number of graduates in the sample who have been graduated for over four years is given in the study, you had no number to use to predict any probabilities with regard to the number of graduates who are still sober after 4 years.

You would have to get your hands on the raw data to determine what the individual results and responses were.  

One could take the 48% of the sample who did not report continuous sobriety, using the average time since graduation of 2 years 3 months, and determine the probability that graduates who had been graduated for 2 years 3 months were still sober, or the probability that they were not clean and sober.

Yes, this is all done in the design phase of what needs to be reported.  If it was determined that they wanted to present the percentage of graduates who were still clean and sober after 2 years 3 months they could have done that.  But typically you choose yearly increments like 1,2,3, or greater than 4, 5 years etc.
The mean that you speak of is just the average of the sample population (median being the halfway point).  It has no real significance other than defining the sample.  If they choose to redo the study at another time they may get the same results but their sample population may have a mean of 3 years 4 months.  Think of it as a “snap shot in time”.  Another way to look at it is if they had used the same population but conducted the test a few months later then the mean or average time from graduation would shift from 2 years 3 months, but it would be the same group of people.

The study does not, in fact show that 93% of graduates were still clean and sober after one year. The study does show that 93.1% of graduates who had been graduated for less than two years had maintained continuous sobriety for a period of 12 months or more. There is no figure given indicating how many graduates were still living clean and sober lives one year after graduation.

Yes there is.  If you look at table 2 you will see that for those graduates who were out for a year 93.1% were still clean and sober.
For those who have been out 2 to three years 92.9% have been continuously clean and sober for 12 months or more.

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%

I'm not interested in what your thinking was, but rather in your claim that the first year is the most difficult.

That was a personal observation and feedback I have incurred speaking with others who have struggled with addiction.  The first milestones are typically the hardest...first week,.... first month..... first year

The evidence from the AARC study would indicate that the first year is in fact the easiest, since, as you puport, the grads have a 93% chance of staying sober their first year, but only a 48% chance of staying sober until the 2 years three months mark.

No, the mean is not a milestone.... here is what the report said:
Since graduation 48% of the sample reported continuous sobriety.  The report is speaking to the entire population of the study.

If 93% of grads are in fact sober for the first year, then they are over 7 times as likely to use drugs or alcohol in the 15 months after their first year than they are during the first year after graduation, since 52% of the sample graduates had resumed drug and or alcohol use after a mean time of 2 years 3 months.

Again you seem to be hung up on the 2 year 3 month mark.  What I find useful is to go back and reference the study each time just to clarify and recalibrate .  This mid point wasn’t mentioned here that I could see.

So, after ten to fourteen months of six days of continuous indoctrination per week, 93% of graduates stay sober for a year, after which time it can be expected that most resume drug and alcohol use.

I remember my first year stats course and it can be difficult to get a handle on the logic and how the data is presented.  What I always found useful is to keep going back and rereading the study.  Each time you read it it becomes a little clearer.  The important part is that you have an interest for numbers and the studies which is good.  Stats is fascinating if you enjoy mathematics and are analytical.

Going back to the study what it says is at:

1 year 93.1% were continuously sober for 12 months
2 to 3 years it dropped to 92.9%
4 or more years it goes down to 85.7%

48% of the entire population stayed continuously clean and sober the whole time since graduation.

[Anonymous]

This has been an interesting exercise.  I originally asked how the poster determined that 85% of all AARC graduates were still living clean and sober lives after 4 years after graduation, and how the poster determined that 93% of all grads were living clean and sober lives 1 year after graduation.  Since there is no data given in the study indicating how many grads in the sample were still living clean and sober lives 4 years after graduation, nor how many grads were still living clean and sober lives 1 year after graduation, the poster could not given a logical answer.  Instead, the Who claimed that somehow confidence intervals could be used to determine such numbers, even though no observed data from the study was available to make such calculations.  So immediately the Who had to lie, claiming that this figure was somehow "came off" confidence interval tables or sample/prediction tables.  Which is impossible, given the absence of a figure representing the proportion of grads in the sample groups who were still living clean and sober lives after either 1 or 4 years.  The Who simply chose, arbitrarily, the figure of 85% to represent the proportion of grads who were still sober after 4 years, in spite of the fact that this data is not in the study.  Why you mentioned obtaining the individual results and responses is unclear, as these have no bearing on the question, which is how the poster determined that 85% of all grads were still living clean and sober lives after 4 years.  No mention was made by the poster, or me, or anyone else of the median, which begs the question as to why you mentioned it.  And of course, the mean time since graduation is certainly as significant as one wishes to observe a "snapshot in time".  If the study had been conducted a few months later, then one could see how many sample grads reported continuous sobriety at the time of the study, and calculate the probability that grads are still living clean and sober lives at the mean length of time since graduation.  In the case of the actual study, 52% of grads in the sample had resumed using drugs and alcohol after a mean time since graduation of 2 years 3 months.
Unfortunately, table 2 does not show how many graduates were out for a year.  Rather, perhaps for the sake of convenience, all grads in the study who had been out for less than two years were included in the group whose time since graduation was "one year or less".  As this group includes those graduated for over one year but less than two, it does not provide a subject for observation of continuous sobriety for one year after graduation.  It includes grads who have been continously sober for 12 consecutive months, but as they have been graduated for up to 24 months, there is no way to tell when that 12 month period of consecutive sobriety occurred.  You will notice that from the same sample group of 85 respondents, in table 1 there are only 10 graduated 1 year or less, but in table 2 there are 29.  Stick with it Who, and one day you will be able to add something to the discussion.
I don't know who said that the mean was a milestone, but since it wasn't me, I'm not sure why you mentioned it.   Nor the midpoint, which was not mentioned either.  Your claim that the first year is the most difficult still appears to be unfounded based on the observations of the study.  
So 52% of the sample had resumed using drugs or alcohol after an average of 2 years 3 months since graduation.

[psy]

Who gives a flying fuck if it's "successful" or not!?!?  Are their treatment methods humane and ethical?  Do they deprive clients of their rights?  So many questions like these are far, far, more relevant.  Plus:  I'd trust the statistics coming from a program about as much as any other piece of spam.  Independently conducted studies?  Double blind?  Then STFU and jam your "statistics" up where they came from.

[Dr Fucktard]

Who gives a flying fuck if it's "successful" or not!?!?  Are their treatment methods humane and ethical?

We do! We (SIBS) are here to get druggies Straight!

The ends justify the means!

http://fornits.com/SIBS

[TheWho]

This has been an interesting exercise. I originally asked how the poster determined that 85% of all AARC graduates were still living clean and sober lives after 4 years after graduation, and how the poster determined that 93% of all grads were living clean and sober lives 1 year after graduation. Since there is no data given in the study indicating how many grads in the sample were still living clean and sober lives 4 years after graduation, nor how many grads were still living clean and sober lives 1 year after graduation, the poster could not given a logical answer. Instead, the Who claimed that somehow confidence intervals could be used to determine such numbers, even though no observed data from the study was available to make such calculations. So immediately the Who had to lie, claiming that this figure was somehow "came off" confidence interval tables or sample/prediction tables. Which is impossible, given the absence of a figure representing the proportion of grads in the sample groups who were still living clean and sober lives after either 1 or 4 years. The Who simply chose, arbitrarily, the figure of 85% to represent the proportion of grads who were still sober after 4 years, in spite of the fact that this data is not in the study. Why you mentioned obtaining the individual results and responses is unclear, as these have no bearing on the question, which is how the poster determined that 85% of all grads were still living clean and sober lives after 4 years.

Wow, I am sorry, you seem very frustrated with all of this.  I apologize if I am moving too fast.  It is difficult to know everyone’s background.  Maybe you should consider taking a break. But for clarity lets go back and look at the Tables again and I will try to clarify some of these points for the other readers.
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%
Lets look at the “four or more years” which has a population of 14.  Of this population of 14... 12 of the graduates experienced a continuous sobriety for “12 months or more” which is how they came up with the 85.7% (12/14 = 85.714%)
Lets look at the one year milestone which has a population of 29.  Of this population of 29 people, 27 of them were still continuously sober after one year which is how they came up with the 93.1% figure...   (27/29 = 93.103%).

No mention was made by the poster, or me, or anyone else of the median, which begs the question as to why you mentioned it. And of course, the mean time since graduation is certainly as significant as one wishes to observe a "snapshot in time". If the study had been conducted a few months later, then one could see how many sample grads reported continuous sobriety at the time of the study, and calculate the probability that grads are still living clean and sober lives at the mean length of time since graduation. In the case of the actual study, 52% of grads in the sample had resumed using drugs and alcohol after a mean time since graduation of 2 years 3 months.

If this is your belief that is okay.  

Unfortunately, table 2 does not show how many graduates were out for a year. Rather, perhaps for the sake of convenience, all grads in the study who had been out for less than two years were included in the group whose time since graduation was "one year or less". As this group includes those graduated for over one year but less than two, it does not provide a subject for observation of continuous sobriety for one year after graduation. It includes grads who have been continously sober for 12 consecutive months, but as they have been graduated for up to 24 months, there is no way to tell when that 12 month period of consecutive sobriety occurred.

Exactly, they broke it out into 3 categories “1 month”... “6 Months”....”12 months”.  If they broke it out into “1 month”.. “6 months” ...”24 months” then I am sure some people would ask why they didn’t do 12 months etc.  It is difficult to foresee or please everyone.
If we wanted to create our own category of say “2 years 3 months” or “24 months” or “36 months” We would have to obtain the raw data from Hazelden or AARC.  Or if we wanted to examine when each person’s 12 month period or more occurred we would have to look at the raw data also for this.

You will notice that from the same sample group of 85 respondents, in table 1 there are only 10 graduated 1 year or less, but in table 2 there are 29. Stick with it Who, and one day you will be able to add something to the discussion.

Hey that wasn’t very nice.  I have spent time trying to help you understand all of this.  That wasn’t called for at all.  I understand this can be difficult and these statistician people are not always clear.  Each one of them likes to set up their tables differently but we need to understand that we don’t have access to the raw data which makes it difficult to impossible to break down the categories differently then how they are presented.

I don't know who said that the mean was a milestone, but since it wasn't me, I'm not sure why you mentioned it. Nor the midpoint, which was not mentioned either. Your claim that the first year is the most difficult still appears to be unfounded based on the observations of the study.

That is my feeling, yes.  Sometimes in discussions people inject their own experiences or feelings on the subject.  I was clear that this was a personal believe and not part of the study.  The study doesn’t address the level of difficulty for each milestone, although, I think this would make for an interesting added dimension if the study were to be repeated.

So 52% of the sample had resumed using drugs or alcohol after an average of 2 years 3 months since graduation.

This is something that you believe in and that is okay.  It is important to differentiate between what the report says and our personal beliefs.



...

[psy]

Hey who.  Ever heard of "GIGO".  It means that if you feed bullshit in, you get bullshit out.

Garbage In, Garbage Out (abbreviated to GIGO) is a phrase in the field of computer science or ICT. It is used primarily to call attention to the fact that computers will unquestioningly process the most nonsensical of input data and produce nonsensical output

Another analogy would be to say that you can't turn shit into gold.

So who is verifying the purity of the input data here?  I really don't care how you interpret it.  I want to know how it was collected and whether the data is accurate.  This means independently conducted studies and double blind control groups (otherwise, it's just marketing).  I'd also like to see whether AARC's rate of "success" is any higher (or lower) than the spontaneous rate of recovery.

So tell me, Who, and stop spinning around in circles: why exactly am I supposed to trust this data given by a biased party as impartial and accurate?

Furthermore, as I stated above: "Who gives a flying fuck if it's "successful" or not!?!? Are their treatment methods humane and ethical? Do they deprive clients of their rights? So many questions like these are far, far, more relevant."