Leadem Counseling & Consulting Services, P.C.668 Commons Way, Bldg. IToms River, NJ 08755(732) 797-1444www.leademcounseling.com

Why Must They Suffer So LongAn Introduction to

Therapeutic Intervention

Presented By:

John Leadem, Elaine Leadem & Sherry Young

Definition & Purpose of Intervention1st Aid to

both driver and passengers

Traditional intervention models share a common goal: to

facilitate a process that brings the addicted person (AP) to the

point of entering treatment.

We believe therapeutic interventions can be a powerful therapeutic tool in the hands of a skilled therapist that begins the treatment process for all

involved in the crash of addiction and not just the

driver.

Definition & Purpose of InterventionTreatment

begins before the intervention ends

“Raising the Bottoms” goes beyond education and referral

and introduces the Intervention Team (IT) and the AP to an initial phase of treatment…

To Intervene or NotA risk benefit analysis The risk of standing by while the

AP free falls to some frightfully low bottom while the family system crumbles under the

weight of an active addiction is huge.

As most of us know - an untreated addiction leads to one

of three places: jails, institutions, or death…

1. If IT members are not properly assessed and prepared to examine their own needs and the needs of the AP, they might abandon the process or be re-traumatized by an introduction of past memories of abuse.

RelativeRisks

Risks of Intervention

2. The IT members who are prone toward anxiety and panic may experience heightened states of arousal because of the depth of the information under examination and fear of the AP’s reaction.

RelativeRisks

Risks of Intervention

3. If the AP, who has a history of volatility, is intervened on during a drug altered state or is the target of an intervention model that indicates s/he alone has the problem, there may be an increased risk of reactivity and concomitant fear on the part of the IT members.

Our kindergarten teacher told us not to point!

Risks of Intervention

1. The AP’s resistance to self-examination may generate an increased level of alienation from IT members, but even then the alienation is not likely to be greater than that which is generated by untreated addiction.

Pay now or later

Benefits of Intervention

2. An intervention that causes the participants to hit bottom before the storm of addiction does irreparable damage to the trust and integrity of the family system is worth the investment of time, energy, and resources.

3. The greater the depth of an unchecked bottom - the lower the risk of recovery - because the person who has lost all is left feeling that they have little to gain from accepting help.

“Long suffering” is not necessary

Benefits of Intervention

1. Differentiate your practice to handle complex interventions and process addictions.

2. Add a revenue stream to your clinical practice through provision of intervention services ($2500 - $10,000) per intervention agreement.

Benefit to practice or facility

Benefits to Using a Treatment Model

3. Increase your practice growth through exposure to multiple family members through a treatment based intervention model, who examine themselves and seek ongoing help whether the AP responds or not.

Growing your practice

Benefits to Using a Treatment Model

4. Contract your intervention services to treatment centers for additional revenue and build a network of cross referral – who are sent for aftercare, IOP, intensives, on-going support groups and monitoring.

Growing your practice

Benefits to Using a Treatment Model

5. Build a network of alumni and family members that spreads by word-of-mouth and generates ongoing referrals back to your practice.

Building your referral base

Benefits to Using a Treatment Model

1. Create the opportunity to be engaged in the recovery process from intervention to aftercare to positively contribute to overall quality assurance.

2. Expand professional expertise, range and adaptability of services.

3. Build teaching and mentor relationships with other therapists who want to learn this style of intervention treatment service.

Benefit to you the professional

Benefits to Using a Treatment Model

1. Johnson Model

2. Invitational Models

3. “Raising the Bottoms” Model of Intervention

Making the best choice

Overview of Intervention Models

1. The individual resistance of each of the IT members can be addressed without the AP being unnecessarily hurt by the resentment and desire for retribution that IT members can sometimes bring to the early training meetings.

2. The IT members are free to learn from each other and the interventionist without undue concern for the AP’s reactions to the process.

The advantages of this model

Overview of the Johnson Model

1. Challenges of managing IT members’ anxiety related to AP’s reaction to “surprise” and fear of reprisal from the AP.

2. Does not ask that the IT members construct or present the results of their own self-examination and their individual plan for personal change to the AP.

The disadvantages of this model

Overview of the Johnson Model

1. Reduces the anxiety of IT members associated with the surprise and fear of reprisal.

2. Allows the AP to participate in the psycho-educational training that could help to reduce denial that is associated with ignorance about the progressive nature of an addictive illness.

The advantages of these models

Overview of the Invitational Models

1. Tend toward an exclusive focus on getting the AP to enter treatment and could diminish the treatment needs of the IT members.

2. Provide no clear process for the IT members to examine the role that they may have played in a diminished quality of their own life or the behaviors that may have contributed to the progression of the addictive illness.

The disadvantages of these models

Overview of the Invitational Models

3. Perpetuate the AP as the identified problem in most models, since IT members do not present their personal self-examination of personal need for change or plan for getting those needs met in a contractual way.

The disadvantages of these models

Overview of the Invitational Models

1. Begins the intervention process at the earliest entry point possible - with the IT members, whose traumatic reactions to the assault of addiction is generating powerlessness and may be enabling the AP to suffer unnecessarily.

2. Prepares the IT to present a far less threatening intervention platform because they are going to first “point” the finger at themselves and not at the AP.

The advantages of this model

“Raising the Bottoms” Model

Overview

3. Cost effective – The IT can be trained to deliver the intervention without the cost of a professional interventionist in generally a shorter amount of time because distractions related to the presence of the AP are eliminated.

4. Matches the needs of the IT and the AP with clinical expertise of the therapist and treatment resource.

The advantages of this model

“Raising the Bottoms” Model Overview

5. Intervenes on the entire system: IT, AP, and treatment resource which allows for immediate application in situations that target relapse prevention or when relapse has followed a previous period of recovery.

The advantages of this model

“Raising the Bottoms” Model

Overview

1. Generally will require greater breath and depth of clinical experience to prepare the IT to carry the message of hope that is based in personal identification with powerlessness and unmanageability that the AP is experiencing while communicating strength and hope.

The disadvantages of this model

“Raising the Bottoms” Model

Overview

2. If the therapist is involved in the intervention on the AP and the treatment course it may increase the cost of the intervention to the IT and place additional demands on the therapist’s schedule.

The disadvantages of this model

“Raising the Bottoms” Model

Overview

1. Intervene on the enabling system and IT members

2. Intervene on the AP

3. Intervene on the treatment process

A three-fold intervention model on the addictive process

“Raising the Bottoms” Intervention Model

1. Verify presumptive justification for intervention and conduct IT and AP needs assessments.

2. Provide case specific education on the addictive process as it impacts the IT members and the AP rather than canned educational programs.

3. Build a strong bond within the IT to match the powerlessness felt by all involved.

Intervene on the enabling system and IT members

“Raising the Bottoms” Intervention Model

4. Assist in the development of individual IT members’ identification of areas for needed change and a therapeutic plan to address those needs.

5. Support the IT members with the development of their own Individualized Intervention Packet.

6. Dress rehearse the actual intervention regardless of the role that the professional interventionist will play.

Intervene on the enabling system and IT members

“Raising the Bottoms” Intervention Model

7. Train one IT member to act as interventionist should team decide to or need to go it alone.

Intervene on the enabling system and IT members

“Raising the Bottoms” Intervention Model

1. Present the IT Members’ Personal Inventory and Plan for Recovery.

2. Offer detailed description of concerns associated with the AP’s involvement with “drug of choice”.

Intervene on the AP

“Raising the Bottoms” Intervention Model

3. Establish IT members’ presentation of Commitment of Support.

A. Assess the AP’s motivation to seek help

B. If AP refuses to accept a referral to professional help then – Present the IT Members’ Plan for Redefining Their Relationship with AP

Intervene on the AP

“Raising the Bottoms” Intervention Model

1. Facilitate the AP’s admission to treatment in a way that maintains or builds on to the motivation reached by the conclusion of the intervention.

2. Maintain optimal accountability between treatment experience and the intervention team rather than permitting the AP to start over once they begin treatment.

Intervene on the treatment process

“Raising the Bottoms” Intervention Model

3. Coordinate the integration and continuity of care between the treatment experiences of the AP and the IT respectively.

Intervene on the treatment process

“Raising the Bottoms” Intervention Model

Love/Sex Addiction & InterventionThis

model is a unique fit for both

1. The professional interventionist providing the IT training will need to have extensive training/experience in the identification and treatment of love/sex addiction to properly train the team to intervene regardless of the model used.

2. Careful selection of the IT members – to prevent unnecessary secondary trauma to team members from exposure to sensitive material associated with the symptoms peculiar to love/sex addiction.

Love/Sex Addiction & InterventionThis

model is a unique fit for both

3. The powerlessness and unmanageability of the typical love/sex addict is much more obscure than the First Step material of their substance addicted counterparts.

4. Gentle and therapeutic introduction of “concerns” by IT members as material is revealed may be highly volatile for family members because of post-traumatic reactions to previously discovered betrayal information and in some cases could introduce new betrayal material.

Love/Sex Addiction & InterventionThis

model is a unique fit for both

5. Greater likelihood of collusion between IT members to keep dark secrets – than in situations involving substance addiction or other process addictions.

6. Level of ignorance related to love/sex addiction can be frightfully high in the general population as well as the substance addiction treatment industry.

Closing SummaryTime for Q & A

We are always intervening on functional addiction in one way or another. With the provision of intervention services we can

help to raise the bottoms of those suffering with addiction to

spare them the cost of the sudden STOP at the bottom,

whenever that is…

Leadem Counseling & Consulting Services, P.C.668 Commons Way, Bldg. IToms River, NJ 08755(732) 797-1444www.leademcounseling.com

Why Must They Suffer So LongAn Introduction to

Therapeutic Intervention

Presented By:

John Leadem, Elaine Leadem & Sherry Young