Topic: program development

Most people who enact laws aren’t healthcare experts or even for that matter particularly interested in the subject of addiction and treatment.

In some communities, where resources are few, the only way to access residential services is by getting arrested and sent by the Court.

My longstanding rule is to design your program to treat your population, not some idealized group of subjects who did well in a research setting with a significantly different structure.

To make the CMHC system a reality, we’d need— hold your breath, this can be scary— a national plan that requires stable funding.

Mike Golic, a former pro football player, was asked to recall his five best-ever performances. He couldn’t. “Ask me about my five worst games,” he countered.

The system here isn’t designed to help a sick addict get off (and stay off) alcohol and drugs. It’s designed to process people in accordance with the expectations of society.

Correlation is not, I repeat not, causation, but it has some value in itself.

Lose the community’s confidence in our ability to provide a safe, secure environment for their loved ones, and it’s over.

“I don’t know why we bother. Hardly any of the stuff we predict ever comes to pass.”

If Project MATCH had it right, and all three work but none works significantly better than the others– then what’s all the argument about?