An Interview with Board Certified Interventionist Roger Canevari

By Meghan Vivo

If someone doesn’t want help for their addiction, there’s nothing anyone can do. This is a myth that has been debunked by decades of successful interventions. A group of caring friends and family can “raise the bottom,” helping an addict recognize the seriousness of their drug problem and find the strength to recover – even if they don’t fully buy into the process at first.

Addiction interventions have saved millions of lives in the past 50 years, and they are becoming even more effective as our knowledge of addiction grows. Roger Canevari, a board certified interventionist with more than 25 years of experience in the field of addiction and owner of Recovery Found, notes a few key ways the modern addiction intervention differs from interventions of the past.

A Loving, Respectful Approach

Early on, interventions were viewed as opportunities to vent long-held resentments and to blame and shame an addict into getting help. In the past two decades, addiction interventions have evolved into a respectful expression of love and concern, explains Canevari. Rather than condemning the addict, family, friends and co-workers respond with compassion and an understanding of the impact addiction has had on the individual’s ability to make healthy decisions.

“Our role as professional interventionists is to guide the intervention on a loving and respectful course,” says Canevari. “We encourage the family to make decisions based on what they are emotionally and physically capable of following through on, and then express themselves in a healthy way.”

Not Just About Drugs

In the past, experts assessed the need for an intervention based on the type of drug being used and the extent of abuse. Now, it is just as important, if not more so, to evaluate how the addictive behaviors have impacted the individual’s quality of life.

“Drug use is a symptom of an underlying problem,” Canevari explains. “If we focus on the drug, the individual comes out of rehab and uses a different drug or a compulsive behavior like gambling or sex. The intervention has to delve beneath the drug use into the real issues.”

Entering drug rehab is not something that is forced upon the addict, but rather a decision they are actively involved in. If the addict is reluctant to get treatment, Canevari presents more than one drug rehab center to choose from and asks that the addict at least tour the facility to see what they’re saying no to.

One Size Doesn’t Fit All

After decades of research, we know that addiction treatment is most effective when it is tailored to the needs of each individual. The same is true for addiction interventions. While the structure of interventions has largely remained the same over the past 20 years, according to Canevari, the modern approach is flexible enough to meet clients wherever they are.

Canevari doesn’t routinely recommend a particular drug rehabilitation center for every client, but rather works with the family to understand the type of care that would be most effective for the individual. The intervention participants and the individual struggling with addiction then make the final decisions.

“Intervention should be a very individualized and creative process,” says Canevari. “We do not use generic models or a cookie cutter mold; we design a specific plan to meet each patient and family’s needs.”

A Long-Term Process

Despite becoming more widely available, most people’s knowledge of addiction interventions is limited to television portrayals on shows like A&E’s Intervention.

“Television shows highlight one moment in time, but an intervention is so much more than that,” explains Canevari.

The intervention is only the first step. Addiction recovery is a lifelong process, which is why interventionists like Canevari are focused on the long-term success of their clients.

In addition to guiding the intervention, Canevari educates his patients about relapse prevention and remains involved throughout the treatment process. He serves as a liaison between the drug rehab center and the family to help facilitate a smooth transition from treatment to daily life back at home.

The Critical Role of Family

Traditionally, interventions have been designed with one purpose in mind: getting the addict into treatment. For Canevari, the primary goal is making changes within the family system, which typically has the effect of convincing the addict to enter drug rehab.

“What we’re really doing is teaching the family how to do an intervention,” Canevari explains. “It is critical that the message comes not just from a professional but also from the people the addict cares about most.”

Canevari recommends that the family stay involved throughout the process, from beginning to end. When the intervention ends, the family doesn’t put their loved one on a plane and go back to life as usual. Instead, Canevari recommends that they accompany the interventionist and the addict during the admissions process, spend the first few nights in a hotel near the drug rehab, and actively participate in the center’s family program. Not only does family involvement increase the likelihood that the addict will complete treatment, but it also helps the entire family begin to heal.

“It is very helpful for the family to physically see the facility and make a connection with the staff for a smooth admission and treatment stay,” says Canevari, who was rescued from addiction by a life-saving family intervention in 1983. “In the most successful addiction interventions, the addict doesn’t feel like they’re being tossed away. The family’s message is, ‘It’s not just about you, it’s about all of us.’”

A Growing Field

When Canevari first started conducting addiction interventions nearly 20 years ago, he was part of small group of specialists doing this work. Since then, thousands of interventionists have joined the ranks.

When choosing a professional interventionist, Canevari advises families to find someone who is board certified and highly experienced, and to interview more than one to determine if their philosophy is a match. A professional intervention is one of the most effective ways for addicts and their loved ones to begin the healing process, but it requires experience and know-how to ensure that it is done right.

Since 1995, Canevari has conducted interventions throughout the U.S. and South America with a 97% success rate of getting addicts into treatment. He has more than 25 years of experience as a nationally certified alcohol and drug counselor and board certified family interventionist. Although he is not affiliated with any particular drug treatment center, Canevari works closely with some of the best drug rehab centers in the world, including Promises in Malibu, California.

“I consider it a privilege to guide others into recovery just as I was guided over 25 years ago,” says Canevari. “For me, an addiction intervention is not a confrontation but a celebration of life in recovery. By taking away some of the shame, fear and denial surrounding addiction, we can create a window of opportunity where one may never have existed.”

An Interview with Interventionist Earl Hightower, BRI-II, CCDC.  Earl Hightower has performed over 2,000 interventions and has been doing interventions for over 20 years. Visit his intervention site for more information.

Without hesitation, Earl Hightower responds to the question, “Is there such a thing as a failed intervention?”

“You should never regret an intervention. It’s the beginning of a process. Even if the identified patient is unwilling to go into treatment right then, they now know that the rules have changed.”

Earl goes on to explain how intervention is not an event; it is a process.

“My opinion is that intervention is ongoing. You’re not done. And the mistake that a lot of interventionists make is that they hang their hat on that event within the process. They do the pre-intervention work to a certain degree, they go and they intervene on the person; if they don’t go into treatment, they’re out. That’s it, because they like that finite process and that’s what they believe they get paid for. We get paid a pretty substantial sum for what we do, and that’s for the process, and the whole process includes the post-intervention work.”

“If they say no to treatment, we remain involved with the family in helping to continue to press the agenda. What we try to tell every family we work with is that we need to present a fork in the road to the identified patient. There are options here and we understand that. And we understand it is a hard decision that we’re asking them to make: to stop using and enter into treatment. But what we want to make very clear is that neither fork involves going back to business as usual. It’s different now. If you intervene effectively you’re not going in and engaging in a dialogue; you’re going in and delivering information to somebody who is unable or unwilling to protect themselves. And we’ve come to protect them in the face of that. And this information that we’re giving them lets them know that we can never go back to the way it was. We’re through loving you to death; we’re through co-signing or giving you the impression on any level that this is okay with us, because it’s not. So we’re going to talk about the elephant in the room now. So the options before you do not include, you say no and we say okay nice try and go back to business as usual. Not going to do it.”

Earl says that an intervention re-trains the family on how to interact with the identified patient to move them toward treatment.

“We’re building a foundation upon which these individuals can survive the circumstances at hand: addiction. Our goal is to get them into treatment. Treatment is designed to break down their resistance to getting them involved in recovery. Recovery is where they’ll really heal. Intervention is this very short-term thing in the big picture, the tip of the spear. Treatment is really triage: stop the bleeding, stabilize the client, get them enough information to try, and get them across the bridge from treatment into recovery where they will ultimately live or die. That’s the arc. Stop this arc of addiction, get them into the arc of treatment, and do so understanding your role in that continuum. Intervening to start the process is what we do.”

If someone is considering tying another intervention, Earl asks them to tell him about the earlier intervention and the process they went through with the interventionist.

“Then I want to know about the intervention itself – what was the specific reaction to the circumstances. Tell me how it all unfolded. Let me know the specifics of the case. Then I can actually figure out what might have gone wrong – for example, maybe you went in too early, it’s still working for the guy, he’s still very entrenched. Here’s how you can continue to keep that process on the table.”

When Jane Mintz tells you that her 17 years as an LPGA golf professional helped prepare her for a career as an interventionist, you might smile when you imagine what she means. The truth is, Jane approaches addiction intervention the same way she approached golf: as a consummate professional who hones her craft through hard work, tenacity, and dedication.

“I came into the field after going to treatment myself for alcoholism. As part of my recovery strategy, I went back to school because I needed structure. I got my Master’s degree and became a licensed therapist. At the same time I cross-trained in all the addictions and process addictions,” says Jane.

As addiction intervention becomes one of the fastest growing segments of the behavioral health field, Jane has been developing her own unique blend of techniques to work with particularly complex and acute clients.

“I gravitate toward cases with lots of moving parts and highly reactive clients,” she explains. “I’ve developed a reputation of working with the most complex co-morbid cases.”

Jane has created her own model of intervention: the Field Model of Intervention.

“What I saw in the industry is that there are several models out there that address methodologies. That’s all well and good, and important in terms of how you’re going to strategize helping someone, a family, through a crisis. But none of these models really addressed the clinical underpinnings of the clients themselves,” Jane says.

Although Jane feels the other models are very competent in terms of how to do the intervention, they do not necessarily help you when the situation gets more complicated.

“The intervention client is the most complex client you’re going to come across because they’re so acute. People don’t need an intervention unless they’ve had a litany of failed attempts to help them. They are truly in crisis. What do you do if that crisis escalates? How do you assess for weapons or suicide risk? Are they a long Axis I or do they have some Axis II features? My goal is training people clinically, because the clientele is getting more complex, not less complex,” Jane says.

Jane describes the Field Model as an overlay to the other models. You can be a Johnson-style interventionist or an invitational-style interventionist, but you still want to be a Field Model Interventionist. It is based on the Johnson model, so it’s a fully functional model in and of itself, so rather than completing with other models, it’s complementary to them.

“The Field Model is about proper assessment of the client so you can set up strategies to prevent disasters in the intervention. You train on what to do in emergencies, how to use a PAT (Psychiatric Assessment Team) Squad, how to work with body guards or private detectives, how to predict the potential for violence. This is what a crisis interventionist needs to know,” she explains.

Jane calls it the Field Model because it specifically trains to techniques you can use in the field, during the actual intervention, should problems arise.

“I think you can prepare people, and we can come up with a strategy, but when it’s really live TV it never works out that way,” she says.

Jane believes the most critical element in the intervention is to get the family members to start to align.

“These are fragmented people. They have different opinions. I often use the example of the herd. In the wild, animals survive by traveling in herds. It’s always the animal that strays that gets picked off. That’s what the addict is looking for during the intervention: that one lone ranger who thinks they can save the day. Then it’s over.”

Jane structures the intervention in such a way that the different family members begin to feel like they are part of a greater good. During the first conference call, she invites everyone who is concerned about doing the intervention or has questions or information that might be helpful.

“When they get their questions answered and they feel their concerns are being heard and addressed, they start to become part of the fabric of this team,” she explains. “The intervention is as much about the families as the affected individual. They’re in as much crisis. When the client figures out the family is moving forward without them in a different way, they panic. They like the drama, the spinning plate routine. They are the masters of illusion, telling this half-truth to one family member, this lie to another. When the family aligns and confronts them in a firm but loving way and tells the addict we will do anything possible to support you in your wellness, but will no longer participate in your illness, it’s creates a powerful shift.”

With addiction, families often become enmeshed and co-dependent with the addict. During the intervention they must come to understand the difference between co-dependency and responsible relationships.

“I have a simple litmus test: are you a part of the problem or are you a part of the solution? This litmus test helps people redefine their relationships. They can ask themselves: What am I doing today? Am I moving somebody further away from their disease or allowing them to stay sick longer? This is often a huge revelation to people.”

Jane’s success rate in getting people into treatment is close to 98%.

“It’s very rare a person doesn’t go into treatment. It’s usually a certain profile, young, antisocial males, who are the most resistant,” Jane explains.

Jane recently launched 3IS, a training program for the Field Model of Intervention and the first online training program in the intervention and addiction fields accredited by the Association for Intervention Specialists Certification Board as well as The National Association for Addiction Professionals.

“I personally don’t believe that anyone who has not been trained should work as an interventionist with families. They need to adhere to some professional code of ethics. I ask those interventionists to further their education, take a training course, and become accountable. If they take it one more step and become a credentialed interventionist, they can become a real professional with credibility with major treatment centers. They become part of the greater good,” Jane says.

Jane lives this philosophy by continually improving her own training. She has a Master’s degree, and also holds the following credentials: Licensed Professional Counselor (LPC), Board-Certified Professional Counselor (BCPC), and a Board Registered Interventionist (BRI-II).

To learn more about 3IS and online training in the Field Model of Intervention, visit http://www.3isonline.com. To learn more about Jane Mintz’s intervention practice, visit http://www.realifeinterventions.com