Anyone see the episode about AARC on Fifth Estate?

[Mixalot27]

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2008-2009/powerless/video.html

Sounds like some pretty crazy shit going on here. Yet they claim an 80% success rate. Anyone have any personal experience with this place?

[TKRIS]

I'll watch the video later, but looks interesting thus far.
I've been meaning to ask a couple people i know about this.


I'm going to go ahead and call shenanigans on their 80% success rate though. That's setting my bullshit-o-meter off right away...

[BlueGoblin]

I watched it.

Studies has consistently shown that Twelve step programs are bullshit and have an effectiveness no better than -and amazingly sometimes worse- than untreated addicts simply deciding they had had enough.

I expect that if their actual 'success rate' -using a common operational definition of success- exceeds the baseline success rate shown in research that it is likely only due to the possibility that they are sucking large numbers of non-addicted teens into the program to help fudge their numbers.

I found it funny that the night before this aired, the alcoholics anonymous episode of Sourth Park was on...

[yue]

beyond does not have enough space for all the things i have to say about this 'treatment facility' or the parents who send their kids there.

[banned3x]

were you treated there?

[mzsamoore]

My husband and myself just finished watching this show. It is shocking what is being allowed in terms of drug treatment. Who and where are the protectors of our children? What is wrong with the parents of these children? Are they that self centred that they are allowing their own child to take the fall for their own misdeeds? Unbelieveable!!!!

[CUG]

It's funny, I seriously thought I had seen one of those girls on that show in Kensington begging for money on the street.

Doesn't look like a very objectionable report though.

Originally posted by BlueGoblin
I watched it.

Studies has consistently shown that Twelve step programs are bullshit and have an effectiveness no better than -and amazingly sometimes worse- than untreated addicts simply deciding they had had enough.

I expect that if their actual 'success rate' -using a common operational definition of success- exceeds the baseline success rate shown in research that it is likely only due to the possibility that they are sucking large numbers of non-addicted teens into the program to help fudge their numbers.

I have to throw the BS flag up on this post dude, sorry. I've seen a number of people have their asses saved by court ordered 12 step programs. You find me those "studies" and I'll recant.

[Mixalot27]

The thing that struck me was that it seems like lots of the teens don't even have a problem. Rather they are just experimenting like many teens do with Alcohol or weed. I mean if these were hardcore meth addicts or crackheads or something then whatever, maybe you can kind of justify it under some tough love, saving their lives, kind of mentality.

I just found it kind of shocking that this type of shit goes on here in Calgary. I had heard of AARC before of course, but didn't know much about it. I thought it was a legitimate agency that helped people out with counseling and this type of thing. I had no idea what actually goes on there and their shady history.

[mzsamoore]

Originally posted by CUG
It's funny, I seriously thought I had seen one of those girls on that show in Kensington begging for money on the street.

Doesn't look like a very objectionable report though.

I have to throw the BS flag up on this post dude, sorry. I've seen a number of people have their asses saved by court ordered 12 step programs. You find me those "studies" and I'll recant.

Are you saying that because a person is asking for money that they deserve the kind of treatment as depcited in that video or that they should be subject to such treatment?

[CUG]

Originally posted by mzsamoore


Are you saying that because a person is asking for money that they deserve the kind of treatment as depcited in that video or that they should be subject to such treatment?

I'm questioning the integrity of the reporting, and the integrity of the person being interviewed. I've also heard those same people have tried several times to sue that place and have failed miserably.

Are you suggesting that because it was on the news that it is true?

[Redlyne_mr2]

I know a few people who have been there and it worked for them. If I had an addict kid that would be the first place he'd be going, wouldnt think twice about it.

[BlueGoblin]

Originally posted by CUG
It's funny, I seriously thought I had seen one of those girls on that show in Kensington begging for money on the street.

Doesn't look like a very objectionable report though.

I have to throw the BS flag up on this post dude, sorry. I've seen a number of people have their asses saved by court ordered 12 step programs. You find me those "studies" and I'll recant.

Just because a twelve-step program worked for somebody does not mean that the program is effective beyond either alternative treatment or even non-treatment. It could be (and this would be my belief) those you know who were 'saved' by twelve step were motivated into changing their conduct by getting into the trouble with the law that sent them there. They probably had a multitude of causal factors around their recovery.

Sorry for the wall of text here. You can just watch this if you want the fun and pretty much uncited answer:


Acquiring the actual study is tough online (without paying for it), but one of the most cited is one done my Deborah Dawson in 1992. The Abstract is here and although it doesn't specifically mention twelve steps, other studies which cite it state that Twelve Steps fares worst among treatment options.

The Cole's Notes of the Abstract is that 'treated' alcoholics in a study were more like likely to abstain from alcohol following treatment than untreated alcoholics (38.8% abstaining vs. 16.4%) but far less likely to have gone a year without engaging in alcohol abuse or dependance upon alcohol (28.0% vs. 57.8%.

There have been studies done that would seem to indicate some measure success overall by alcoholic treatment -of which twelve step programs are a majority - but meta-analysis of the data used in those studies shows that twelve steps ranks at the bottom of the treatment option ladder in terms of success rate.

I will apologize in advance for this because I can only find citations and an abstract for a related analysis but this is the most often cited meta-analysis:

Miller, W.R., Brown, J.M., Simpson, T.L., Handmaker, N.S., Bien, T.H., Luckie, L.F., Montgomery, H.A., Hester, R.K., and Tonigan, J.S. (1995). What works?: A methodological analysis of the alcohol treatment outcome literature.

There is a follow up study by Miller et al as well that found the following:

Findings: Methodological quality of studies was significantly but modestly correlated with the reporting of a specific effect of treatment. Among psychosocial treatments, strongest evidence of efficacy was found for brief interventions, social skills training, the community reinforcement approach, behavior contracting, behavioral marital therapy and case management. For the first time, two pharmacotherapies also appeared among the most strongly supported approaches: opiate antagonists (naltrexone, nalmefene) and acamprosate. Least supported were methods designed to educate, confront, shock or foster insight regarding the nature and causes of alcoholism.

Conclusions: Treatment methods differ substantially in apparent efficacy. It would be sensible to consider these differences in designing and funding treatment programs.

I would like to add that these studies and meta-analyses were published in reputable journals and - very importantly - used large data samples.

[CUG]

Originally posted by BlueGoblin


Just because a twelve-step program worked for somebody does not mean that the program is effective beyond either alternative treatment or even non-treatment. It could be (and this would be my belief) those you know who were 'saved' by twelve step were motivated into changing their conduct by getting into the trouble with the law that sent them there. They probably had a multitude of causal factors around their recovery.
.

I've seen first hand the failures of the "harm reduction" and alternative approaches to addiction. Alcoholism and addiction isn't logical. It makes zero sense to people who aren't familiar with it. It is often confused with phases/fads and brief social pressures that eventually fade.. whereas with the Alcoholic, it's not a disease that ever goes away, it's terminal and physiological. The physical element of it involves hyperactivity of the neuroreceptors/neurotransmitters and the resulting dependency in the brain/body/mind etc.

The only time I've ever seen an alcoholic or drug addict remain abstinent from alcohol and or drugs in their entirety is when they've committed to a 12 step program and apply those principles to their lives.... a "medicine" if you will.


The other thing I wanted to bring up was the number of high caliber individuals that support the AARC program, who willingly attach their name and money to help fund the place who know the entire scope of operations there, some sit on the board of directors:

M. Ann McCaig (Chair)
Chancellor Emeritus, University of Calgary
Past-Chair, The Calgary Foundation

F. Dean Vause, PhD.
Executive Director
Alberta Adolescent Recovery Centre

Larry Delf (Vice-Chair)
Senior VP & Director Business Development
Cushman & Wakefield Lepage Inc. Peggy Stirrett
Consultant

Ken Wilson
Sr. Vice President
Coril Holdings Ltd.

Don Copeland
Consultant

Dennis Feuchuk
President & CEO
Base Resources Inc.

Dr. Alan Stanhope
Physician

Jan Brenneman
Consultant

I'm well aware of what the McCaig family has done for the Calgary community and I know that philanthropists wouldn't typically support an organization that "abuses" their clients.

I'm aware of AARC's operations... they're quite transparent as required by the board who regularly sit in on meetings and sessions to ensure proper risk management and liability control. The place is a registered charity and I've seen the good work they've done in the community. They're endorsed by more proven higher caliber people than not who give to the community. I'm inclined to think 2 things here:

1.) That these are isolated incidents that appear to be an issue with the individuals involved and should ABSOLUTELY be addressed if they did in fact happen, if they hadn't been already. I find it questionable that no police statement was ever made, no one has been charged and that these allegations had only started in the last 4 years.

2.) Those involved in the report may have been encouraged to spice up their stories. I spoke with 3 other people who were interviewed by the 5th estate, and they all mentioned that the reporter seemed to be looking to hang the place. Oddly enough, their tapings weren't a part of the story... likely because they had nothing bad to say about the place.

This was not objective journalism, it was sensationalism and I believe there are likely many other stories that could easily put things into a different perspective.

People naturally want to hear drama... well, they got it I suppose.

[BlueGoblin]

While I sympathize - I do - anecdotes are trumped by longitudinal studies with over a thousand participants.

Nobody wants to hate an organization that seems to do good in the community, and that's why so many philanthropists are drawn to it. Just to play devil's advocate, if an organization is particularily good at hiding its abuse, said abuse may not come to light for some time. The revelations of widespread sexual abuse within the Catholic Church for instance were well suppressed for a long time.

If the abuse alleged in the show was in fact just an isolated incident, then why the suppression tactics (calling the alleged victim a liar etc.) instead of calling for n investigation?

I am deeply skeptical of their success claims - on the simple basis of extreme improbability based on independent studies of all treatment programs.

[CUG]

Originally posted by BlueGoblin
While I sympathize - I do - anecdotes are trumped by longitudinal studies with over a thousand participants.

Nobody wants to hate an organization that seems to do good in the community, and that's why so many philanthropists are drawn to it. Just to play devil's advocate, if an organization is particularily good at hiding its abuse, said abuse may not come to light for some time. The revelations of widespread sexual abuse within the Catholic Church for instance were well suppressed for a long time.

If the abuse alleged in the show was in fact just an isolated incident, then why the suppression tactics (calling the alleged victim a liar etc.) instead of calling for n investigation?

I am deeply skeptical of their success claims - on the simple basis of extreme improbability based on independent studies of all treatment programs.

That's hardly suppression, the program director simply responded with "how do you know they're telling the truth?" In my opinion, a perfectly legitimate response to "how do you know they're lying?"

I've heard on good advice that the response for this type of thing in that organization is termination of treatment to the offending client and full cooperation with criminal investigations.

I again reiterate the transparency required by their board of directors. I understand what you're saying about the church abuses and whatnot, but this isn't a dictatorial organization where you have a priest and a bunch of followers, their structure simply wouldn't allow for these things to be hidden.

They've had nearly 500 clients go through with varying degrees of success, and the 3 people attacking AARC are 3 people from an anti-AARC message board who have been blatantly colluding their stories for the past 4 years. I've been following these things as I've had friends go through the program whose lives have done massive 180's. I've seen from those same 3 people in the docu, major discrepancies in their accounts of what happened as described on their forum, compared to how it was described in that documentary.

These kids aren't your weekend warriors that hang at a friends house, blaze and drink, then go back to work or school on monday. The majority of them have late level 3/4 addictions that have them on the verge of major criminal charges, death or clinical insanity. You know that show intervention? It's pretty much that, only there may be court ordered treatment involved if the client refuses, or the parents sign their kid in if they're under 16 or 18 or something.

Now that said, no organization is perfect and no doubt it's made mistakes in the past.

I really don't believe, given the histories of those 3 girls, that it is fair to judge that place on their accounts alone. To me it seems that they should be attacking the individuals via the police and pursue criminal charges.... for some reason, NONE of them have filed any kind of statements with the police.

As I said before, there are many more supporters of that place than haters... exponentially more in fact. That carries much more weight with me than a non-objective 5th estate report.

[yue]

Originally posted by banned3x
were you treated there?

nope, but it's just the same bullshit wrapped in new paper. programs like this have been around for decades and every time they pop up there is always controversy.

IMO, this report exaggerates the experiences of all parties involved. aarc's claimed 80% success rate is questionable as well as the experiences of the former patients.

i disagree with the notion that patients are powerless and have no control over their actions. this is no defense in a court of law and should not be the cornerstone of any treatment. everyone is accountable for their own actions; whether they are consciously aware of the ramifications or are blissfully ignorant.

though this may be a solution for some, i doubt that it is the most efficient and effective solution for the masses. for families who claim their children are successful graduates of this program their stories would gain credit if the child's past would be fully revealed. brushes with the law can mean anything and so can experimenting.

*did anyone else notice that the graduate guy at the beginning was smoking? i find it counter productive to endorse an anti-addiction program while simultaneously consuming an addictive product.

what's the message? drugs, bad. alcohol, bad. smoking, we don't care, it's not covered in our sales pitch.

[Mixalot27]

Originally posted by CUG


1.) That these are isolated incidents that appear to be an issue with the individuals involved and should ABSOLUTELY be addressed if they did in fact happen, if they hadn't been already. I find it questionable that no police statement was ever made, no one has been charged and that these allegations had only started in the last 4 years.

2.) Those involved in the report may have been encouraged to spice up their stories. I spoke with 3 other people who were interviewed by the 5th estate, and they all mentioned that the reporter seemed to be looking to hang the place. Oddly enough, their tapings weren't a part of the story... likely because they had nothing bad to say about the place.

I fully agree with your first point here. I don't know if any of the individual's stories were true or not. I would give it 50/50 chance of their stories being true or not. There is obviously no physical evidence and not a strong enough case to press charges. But that could also be explained by victims who were too afraid, or mentally/emotional troubled to come forward right away. At this point the only people that will ever really know for sure are the ones that were there in the room during the incidents.

I don't really find much basis to your second comment. Why would 5th Estate and CBC have some type of vendetta against AARC? It just doesn't really make sense to me. Also they did add in interviews with those supporting the organization, as well as an interview with the director near the end. I actually felt that they at least attempted to show both sides of the issue.

Originally posted by CUG
This was not objective journalism, it was sensationalism and I believe there are likely many other stories that could easily put things into a different perspective.

There well may be and I hope to hear more of stories about this, both positive and negative. That was my basis for making this thread.

Originally posted by CUG
The only time I've ever seen an alcoholic or drug addict remain abstinent from alcohol and or drugs in their entirety is when they've committed to a 12 step program and apply those principles to their lives....

I have had quite a different personal experience with addicts. I've have known several who have successfully kicked there addictions, and been sober, for years now, without any professional help what so ever. Most times it takes something pretty traumatic to happen for them to do it.

My Grandfather was a hardcore alcoholic and smoked 2 packs of cigarettes a day. When he was around 70 he was having liver problems and had developed emphasyma (sp). The doctor told him he wouldn't live much longer if he didn't quit smoking and drinking. He quit drinking completely the next day. He never was able to quit smoking though and that's what eventually killed him.

I also have a friend who is a gambling addict and another who was a meth addict for around 3 yrs. The gambling addict spent over $60 000 each year on VLT's while he was making about $80 000 yr at his job. This went on for about 5 or 6 yrs. At which point he had accumulated around $80 000 in gambling debts and was about to lose his house. He tried going to a 12 step program but it didn't really work out for him. In the end he just broke his addiction himself through shear willpower. He hasn't gambled now in over 2 years.

My other friend did Meth pretty daily for 2 or 3 years. He was a trucker and used to put in a crazy amount of hours. So he started doing it occasionally to stay awake. Then he got hooked and pretty strung out. One day he just said fuck it and quit cause he knew it was going to kill him. He told me he had withdrawal symptoms for like 4 months and it was the hardest thing that he ever to do, but still he made it. Hes been sober for like 5 years now.

Also numerous people have quit smoking and you can find studies saying tobacco is more addictive than heroin (although I doubt it). Point is you can definitely beat an addiction without a 12 step program, it happens everyday. Its just really difficult and not everyone can do it. I have little doubt that many people do benefit from these programs though. Its just not the be all, end all for addiction. Just like there are many causes there can also be many solutions.

Originally posted by CUG
I'm aware of AARC's operations... they're quite transparent as required by the board who regularly sit in on meetings and sessions to ensure proper risk management and liability control. The place is a registered charity and I've seen the good work they've done in the community. They're endorsed by more proven higher caliber people than not who give to the community.

It makes me wonder if their operations are so "transparent" as to be invisible to the average board member, benefactor, supporters, etc. They wouldn't be the first charity found to be corrupt or involved in a scandal. Most publicly traded companies and government organizations also are supposed to be "transparent". But we have seen many examples where this isn't always the case. If there is a strong enough will to hide something, it can be usually be hidden. A lot of "high caliber" people just throw their money at any "do gooder" cause out there without much investigation or knowledge of the day to day operations. Just because the rich support something isn't necessarily a good argument for its validity or credibility.

Originally posted by CUG
That's hardly suppression, the program director simply responded with "how do you know they're telling the truth?" In my opinion, a perfectly legitimate response to "how do you know they're lying?"

However it struck me that the "program director" seemed to have a pretty quick fuse. Judging from his demeanor and body language, I was expecting him to go off. It seemed almost to me that if the camera crew wasn't there, he would have given the reporter a beating.

Originally posted by CUG
They've had nearly 500 clients go through with varying degrees of success, and the 3 people attacking AARC are 3 people from an anti-AARC message board who have been blatantly colluding their stories for the past 4 years. I've been following these things as I've had friends go through the program whose lives have done massive 180's. I've seen from those same 3 people in the docu, major discrepancies in their accounts of what happened as described on their forum, compared to how it was described in that documentary.

Like I said before before I didn't base my opinion on the 3 people interviewed on the tape. I also would question their credibility in regards to their claims of rape and such. I don't believe that AARC has a policy of raping their "patients".

Rather my concern is with some of their so called treatment methods and their history. They seem kind of creepy and even "cult" like in ways, for example:

-The program involved was basically banned in the United States, so they came here to Canada to take advantage of our lax justice system. They "slightly" tweaked the program to make it more acceptable. They don't make the inmates flap their arms around like birds anymore (I mean what the fuck was that about) and no more belt-looping.

-Teens are assessed and counseled by "peers" who have no education or qualifications in addiction other than their experience in the the AARC program. You have to wonder how accurate these assessments are. It kind of seems to me that they will take pretty much any kid who admits to smoking a joint or having a drink, as long as their parents can afford the 50k fee that is.

-These assessments are than used to imprison these teens for sometimes years at a time it seems. I really question how many of them are even addicts. Or even if they are addicts, if they need to be in there for these lengths of times.

-They don't allow inmates any unsupervised access to family or friends. You can't even talk to your parents without them listening or watching.

-A main principle of their system seems to be humiliation and confrontation. "Breaking them down" I think they called it. Pretty much seemed to just be verbal abuse and making them admit to being an addict even if they don't believe they are.

Those are the main conclusions I drew from the story. I have no doubts AARC does help some people. Mainly cause it gives them time away from the drugs/alcohol. And also it probably scares them straight and they never want to go back to a place like that. But I don't know all together it seems like kind of a fucked up place and program to me. I'm glad I never had to go there and would never send my kids, that's for sure.

[CndnGirl]

I have direct experience with the AARC program. I was a program parent and my son is a recent graduate.

I also have a year of independant research.

The Fifth Estate could not possibly put all the people on their show that they interviewed (myself included) as the show is only one hour in length.

If you have any questions about this program or our experiences in it, please ask.

One thing that struck a nerve with me was the comment about the people who support or on the board of directors of AARC.

As much as AARC claims to be unique they are not. Vause used to work at Kids of Bergen County, ran by Virgil Miller Newton when it began operations here in Calgary.

KIDS program started as Miller Newton had a child in the STRAIGHT program. Straight started because... and so on.

See a flow chart here, you will also see AARC listed at the bottom:

http://www.thestraights.com/flowchart.htm

Straight was endorsed by Nancy Reagan, and Princess Diana. Straight was also found abusive and shut down.

So, it really does not matter to me anymore WHO endorses a program. You can not judge from the opinion of people who are so far removed from the inner workings of a place to honestly know what goes on inside day to day, moment to moment.

You can also show me 10,000 (exaggeration) graduates who claim this place "saved their life" and that means nothing to me either because many people thought Jim Jones was THEIR saviour and they drank the koolaid anyway.

Regarding AARC you are either in or out of this place. They tried very hard and were almost successful in completely destroying my family.

They convinced my son that his family did not care if he lived or died. They told him I was aware of everything that happens at the center and that I was sick of his ***** and had surrendered him to AARC, walking away and washing my hands of the whole thing, and him.

D. Vause even went as far as to tell him he was now his father, and that he had legal guardianship of him. Completely untrue. I had sole custody and guardianship of my son, that had never changed.

I tried desperately to contact my son, he was there under court order. The judge in the case is married to a long standing board member of AARC and has ordered kids there as much as 10 years ago.

I was banished from the program. And there was absolutely NOTHING I could do legally. I would go to the center to try to even see him come or go. AARC would send a goon out to stare me down and try to intimidate me away. I was even given a "no trespass" notice one day when I was parked across the street from the center. The police told me it was completely invalid as I wasn't even on their property. When staff would notice that I was there they would close the blinds to the center so I couldn't see inside.

I tried to get back into the program. I was told I had to write a request to the parent committee, and the decision would be up to other parents in the program if I were to return.

I would also have to remove my youngest autistic son from the household as the program was detrimental to him in ways that I will explain if anyone wants to know, and he could not participate as a sibling.

I was told to place him in the care of children's services or kick him to the streets. I was told and given examples of other parents who had to do the same thing when the siblings could not or would not participate. Children's services did not appreciate that AARC was referring people to them in this manner and they also told me they would not accept my son if he was not being abused or in danger living with me.

So my option was to kick him out, and I was not willing to sacrifice one of my children for the other and AARC has NO right to expect parents to do this. I was actually told by another program parent that my autistic son had a better chance out there (on the streets) than my client child.

I also had to pay outstanding fees that I was in no position financially to pay. AARC's claims that they don't turn people away due to finances is garbage. I lost work while in the program and I had to give up a roommate who's contribution was critical to my financial situation.

The next 10 months of my life was an excruciatingly painful hell, not knowing if my son was even alive, or properly looked after, and not knowing when or IF I would ever see him again.

I knew he had urgent dental problems that needed to be addressed and was told by AARC that he couldn't receive dental treatment until Level 4 of the program. The oral surgeon told me it was urgent, that there was absolutely no excuse to wait until "level 4" and if his jaw became infected, he could lose his jaw. My son did eventually have the work done (on level 4) by someone suggested by AARC and not his own surgeon.

The day before graduation my son called me. He was very angry with me. But he wanted his iPod!!! (kids!!!) He came over the day after graduation. As his living situation collapsed ( I think the other grad he was going to live with ended up in jail) he needed a place to live. I told him he was always welcome at home. And that's what he did, the Tuesday after graduation he moved back home.

Since graduation my son did not go on to work at the center as a peer counselor. He has not joined their alumni, and he does not attend any "grad" meetings. 10 years from now he will NOT still be going to AARC and associating only with other AARC people. He has decided to live his own life.

He has also not said anything negative about AARC to those inside or outside the program. Yet he has received contemptuous email, he has been tagged as a "traitor" in pictures of AARC kids on Facebook, and told he is going to live a horrible life.

You tell me if a legitmate rehab would do that to a graduate who leaves to carry on with their life?

Because I openly disagree with the treatment and methods at AARC I have also been attacked publicly.

Please see several comments here:

http://www.mcgilldaily.com/article/3...een-need-help-

and here:

http://fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.p...earest#p324368

and here, just to name a few:

http://fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.p...41&hilit=Mommy

I'd like to know how others would feel in this situation.

[CndnGirl]

I encourage everyone to watch "Over the GW"

http://www.overthegw.com/

This film was created by Nick Gaglia. Nick was a client at Kids of Bergen County. The same facility where Vause worked prior to opening AARC.

Nick has graciously sent me a copy of the film. The resemblence to AARC is uncanny.

[mango]

One wonders why AARC would classify a non-addicted person, such as the young lady featured on the program, as a "Level-3" addict and then intake them, treat them and graduate them as such?

Perhaps having a non-addict graduate from the AARC program helps to maintain the "80% success rate" that AARC claims to have.

My brother went through AARC with three of the AARC graduates featured on this show.

As a "sibling" who never had a drinking/drug problem, I had to attend "sibling rap" for the duration of my brother's treatment (approx 1.5 years). I was 15-16 years old at the time.

As a result of my treatment, I had essentially become institutionalized. After my family graduated from AARC, myself, a once popular, outgoing individual, I was no longer able to relate or connect with my peers at school.

My experience at AARC had completely stripped me of my true sense of self. I had been forced to take on the “cookie cutter” persona required in order to progress through the AARC program. This “cookie cutter” persona can be seen in almost all family and clientele who have recently graduated from the AARC program.

I’m sure you will find avid support of the AARC program from those who have either recently graduated, or who continue to find a place of belonging there as “alumni”.

But for the many like myself, who long after graduation, continue to try and fail at successfully reintegrating or finding belonging in the world outside, you will find strong objection to this program’s tactics.

More than a decade later, I am still unraveling the damage and confusion caused by the treatment I had to undergo at AARC. I was treated mainly by Dean Vause and his hired peer counselor and recent AARC graduate who, at a mere 18 or 19 years old, was leading my sibling rap.

In fact, I had contacted Dean Vause by email this past year, offering to openly discuss the challenges I face today as a result of my treatment in AARC, with the intent to shed light on some of the possible long-term, damaging effects of the AARC approach.

Dean never bothered to get back to me but one of his staff did and over a brief telephone conversation, was quick to dismiss my current challenges as not having anything to do with my treatment at AARC.

Today, I am Professional Engineer, married and soon to be mother of two. It may be of significance to mention that neither I nor my husband use alcohol or drugs and neither of us belong to any AA related program.

However, unfortunately my brother, like many of the true addicts who have graduated from the AARC program, still struggles with his dependency on both.

I thank CBC for airing this show. Hopefully it will throw a wrench into Dean Vause's almighty "AARC Machine".

A well executed, independent assessment of AARC is imperative and long overdue.

I will vouch for that.