Which Intervention Model Works Best? A Guide for Families Facing Addiction
Families often reach a breaking point when a loved one’s addiction becomes too destructive to ignore. The emotional toll of watching someone spiral into substance use can leave parents, partners, and siblings feeling helpless, exhausted, and desperate for solutions. Deciding to stage an intervention is not a small decision — it is a courageous step that shifts the family from waiting and worrying to taking purposeful action.
But once that decision is made, another critical question follows: What type of intervention should we use? Not all interventions look the same. Over the years, several models have been developed, each with its own philosophy, structure, and method of engaging the addicted person. Some are direct and confrontational, designed to break through layers of denial quickly. Others are invitational and collaborative, focused on preserving relationships and reducing conflict. Still others emphasize gradual behavior change, teaching families tools to reinforce healthy choices over time.
Choosing the right model is not about theory — it can determine whether the person responds with openness or defensiveness. The wrong approach for the situation may cause withdrawal or rejection, while the right approach can open the door to treatment and recovery.
This is why families often turn to a professional interventionist. An interventionist has the training to assess urgency, understand family dynamics, and recommend the most effective model for the circumstances. Yet, even before working with a professional, families benefit from learning about the different options. Understanding the landscape of intervention models empowers them to:
Recognize that they do have choices.
Engage in the process with greater confidence.
Reduce fear of the unknown by knowing what to expect.
Work more effectively alongside the interventionist to achieve the best outcome.
Knowledge transforms hesitation into readiness. By learning the different types of interventions and how they work, families can replace uncertainty with clarity — and take action with both compassion and confidence.
Why There Are Different Types of Interventions
Interventions have been around for decades, but the way they are conducted has evolved significantly. Early models leaned heavily on confrontation, with families surprising their loved one in a dramatic meeting. While this approach sometimes worked, it also carried risks of rejection and damaged relationships. Over time, practitioners realized that not every family — and not every addicted person — responds the same way.
As a result, new models were developed that emphasize collaboration, transparency, and gradual change. Today, families have more than one path to choose from, each designed to address different levels of denial, resistance, and family dynamics. Understanding why these models exist helps families appreciate that there is no “one-size-fits-all” solution. Instead, the right intervention is the one that meets the family where they are and moves their loved one toward treatment in the safest, most effective way possible.
Factors That Shape the Right Intervention Approach
When families first hear about intervention models, they often wonder: Which one works best? The truth is that effectiveness depends on the situation. Several key factors shape the decision:
Level of denial or resistance. Someone in deep denial may need a more direct approach, while a person who is somewhat aware of the problem may respond better to an invitational model.
Severity and urgency. If there is immediate risk of overdose or legal consequences, families may need to move quickly with a direct confrontation. If the risks are lower, a gradual or collaborative model may be appropriate.
Family dynamics. High levels of conflict, enabling, or codependency can influence which model is most effective. Some families benefit from structure and confrontation, while others thrive under a cooperative approach.
Cultural or personal values. In some families, secrecy or confrontation is seen as harmful, making invitational models a better fit. Others may prioritize firm accountability.
Past treatment attempts. If informal talks or prior rehab efforts have failed, families may need a different model to break the cycle.
By weighing these factors, an interventionist can recommend the approach most likely to succeed.
The Role of Family Dynamics in Choosing a Model
Addiction doesn’t exist in isolation; it is deeply tied to family relationships. When one person struggles, the entire family system shifts to adapt. Parents may cover for missed responsibilities, partners may rescue financially or emotionally, and siblings may avoid conflict altogether. While these patterns are usually driven by love and fear, they often end up enabling the addiction to continue unchecked.
Because of this, family dynamics are one of the most important factors in choosing the right intervention model. The way a family communicates, handles conflict, and sets boundaries can determine whether a particular approach will open the door to treatment or close it further.
In high-conflict families, a direct, confrontational model like Johnson may backfire, escalating arguments unless carefully managed by an interventionist. Collaborative approaches such as ARISE or Invitational often provide a safer option in these cases.
In families where enabling is strong, CRAFT is particularly effective. By training loved ones to reward positive behaviors and remove unintentional reinforcement of substance use, it changes the family environment and encourages healthier choices.
In families fearful of confrontation, ARISE and Invitational models can lower anxiety while still ensuring the family delivers a united message. These models emphasize openness and respect while maintaining accountability.
Recognizing these dynamics is not about blame; it’s about acknowledging how addiction shapes relationships and then using that knowledge to select the intervention style most likely to succeed. Families that are honest about their patterns — and willing to work with a professional interventionist to address them — dramatically improve their chances of leading a loved one into treatment.
For families wondering when these dynamics should trigger an intervention, our article The Right Time for an Intervention: Signs Your Loved One Needs Help Now provides a detailed look at the warning signs. Pairing an understanding of timing with the right intervention model ensures families act before the damage deepens and gives their loved one the best chance at recovery.
The Johnson Model: Direct and Confrontational
The Johnson Model is one of the earliest and most recognized intervention approaches, developed in the 1960s by Episcopal priest Dr. Vernon Johnson. Johnson believed that people with addiction often needed a dramatic wake-up call to break through denial, and that families could play a central role in delivering that message. His method emphasized urgency, confrontation, and accountability, which marked a shift from waiting for “rock bottom” to taking proactive action.
This model is structured around a planned, surprise meeting, where the individual is brought into a room with family and close friends who have prepared written statements. These statements describe, in specific and personal terms, how the addiction has harmed the person themselves and those around them. The goal is not to shame but to present the truth so directly that denial becomes difficult to maintain. At the same time, families set clear boundaries and consequences if treatment is refused — such as ending financial support or changing living arrangements.
Strengths
Breaks through denial. Many people with addiction remain convinced they are in control. The Johnson Model’s intensity can cut through this denial by making the consequences of continued use impossible to ignore (Johnson, 1973).
Creates urgency. The element of surprise often prevents the loved one from preparing excuses or avoiding the meeting. This can make the confrontation more impactful.
Emphasizes accountability. Boundaries and consequences are presented clearly, showing that the family will no longer enable the behavior. This often shifts the balance of power away from the addiction and toward recovery.
Limitations
Risk of defensiveness. Because the meeting is not voluntary, individuals may feel ambushed or attacked, triggering anger, withdrawal, or outright refusal (Liepman, Nirenberg & Begin, 1989).
Requires strong professional oversight. Without an interventionist to mediate, the meeting can easily slip into blame, shame, or uncontrolled emotion, which can damage trust and reduce the likelihood of success.
Not always appropriate. For families with a history of high conflict or estrangement, a direct confrontation may widen the divide rather than build a bridge.
When It Works Best
The Johnson Model is most effective in situations where:
The addiction is severe and escalating.
Previous attempts to encourage treatment have failed.
The loved one is in strong denial and consistently rejects help.
The family is prepared to follow through on consequences if treatment is refused.
When executed correctly with the guidance of a professional interventionist, the Johnson Model can be highly effective at disrupting dangerous cycles and motivating immediate entry into treatment. However, because of its confrontational nature, it is not the right fit for every family. This is why understanding alternative approaches — such as ARISE, CRAFT, or the Invitational Model — is equally important.
The ARISE Model: Invitational and Collaborative
The ARISE Model (A Relational Intervention Sequence for Engagement) was developed in the 1990s as a response to the challenges families faced with more confrontational approaches. Rather than surprising a loved one with a one-time meeting, ARISE takes a gradual, invitational approach. The process emphasizes respect, openness, and collaboration, with the goal of engaging the individual in treatment without creating feelings of shame or betrayal.
With ARISE, families — under the guidance of a trained interventionist — invite their loved one to participate from the very beginning. Instead of being ambushed, the person is asked to join structured conversations where everyone shares concerns, observations, and hopes for change. These conversations typically unfold in multiple stages:
First Call: A family member reaches out to an interventionist, who begins coaching immediately.
First Meeting: The loved one is invited to attend a conversation where concerns are shared openly.
Follow-Up Meetings: If needed, additional sessions are held to build trust, strengthen boundaries, and increase motivation until the loved one accepts treatment.
The philosophy behind ARISE is that addiction is best addressed in the context of relationships, and that preserving trust is as important as motivating treatment.
Strengths
Reduces shame and defensiveness. Because the process is open and transparent, the addicted person is less likely to feel ambushed or attacked (Garrett et al., 1998).
Preserves family relationships. By avoiding confrontation, ARISE helps maintain bonds that might otherwise be strained by more aggressive models.
Strong evidence of success. Research shows ARISE achieves high rates of treatment engagement, often comparable to or better than confrontational models (Landau et al., 2000).
Flexible process. The model allows for multiple conversations, giving the loved one space to move from resistance to willingness.
Limitations
Takes time. Because ARISE can involve several meetings, it may delay immediate entry into treatment — a drawback when the individual is at high risk for overdose, legal consequences, or medical emergencies.
Requires consistent family involvement. The process depends on participation from multiple family members, which can be challenging if relationships are fractured or if some are unwilling to engage.
When It Works Best
The ARISE Model is often most effective when:
Families want to minimize conflict and avoid confrontation.
The addicted person is somewhat receptive to dialogue, even if resistant to treatment.
Preserving long-term family relationships is a priority.
The situation allows for time to build buy-in rather than requiring immediate crisis intervention.
For many families, ARISE feels more natural and less intimidating than a surprise confrontation. It reassures them that interventions do not have to be dramatic or adversarial; they can also be grounded in respect, patience, and unity.
The CRAFT Approach: Behaviorally Focused
The CRAFT Model (Community Reinforcement and Family Training) takes a distinctly different approach compared to traditional intervention models. Rather than centering on a one-time meeting, CRAFT is built around teaching families new skills to reshape daily interactions and gradually motivate their loved one toward treatment.
The foundation of CRAFT is behavioral psychology. Families learn to positively reinforce sober behaviors — showing encouragement, praise, and support when the loved one makes healthy choices — while also withdrawing reinforcement for substance use. For example, family members might stop giving money that ends up funding alcohol or drugs, but they might offer rides, companionship, or positive attention when their loved one engages in non-using activities.
CRAFT also focuses heavily on communication training. Families are taught how to set boundaries, avoid arguments, and use motivational techniques to keep the door open to recovery. Over time, these shifts in the family environment reduce enabling behaviors and create a situation where treatment becomes the most rewarding option.
Strengths
Evidence-based. Research consistently shows CRAFT has some of the highest success rates for engaging resistant individuals into treatment — in some studies, up to 64% of families successfully got their loved one into care compared to 30% or less with other approaches (Miller, Meyers & Tonigan, 1999).
Empowers families. CRAFT provides families with concrete tools, reducing the sense of helplessness and chaos that addiction often creates.
Improves family well-being. Even if treatment is not accepted immediately, families report reduced stress, better communication, and stronger boundaries (Smith & Meyers, 2004).
Non-confrontational. For individuals who shut down or explode in response to direct confrontation, CRAFT offers a gentle yet effective alternative.
Limitations
Takes time and consistency. Because CRAFT is a gradual approach, it requires weeks or months of steady effort. This can be difficult for families in crisis or for situations where immediate action is necessary.
Not ideal in emergencies. If there is high risk of overdose, violence, or legal jeopardy, families may need a faster-acting intervention model.
Requires training and guidance. Families benefit most when supported by an interventionist or counselor trained in CRAFT. Attempting it without support may lead to inconsistent application and reduced effectiveness.
When It Works Best
CRAFT is often the best fit when:
The loved one is highly resistant to treatment and has rejected direct attempts.
Families want to stay engaged over the long term rather than relying on a single intervention meeting.
Enabling behaviors are strong, and the family needs new tools to break unhealthy cycles.
The situation allows for gradual progress rather than requiring immediate placement.
In many ways, CRAFT gives families hope that change is possible even when the addicted person appears unreachable. By focusing on practical skills, communication, and consistency, families not only improve their own quality of life but also significantly increase the likelihood of their loved one entering treatment.
The Invitational Model: Open and Transparent
The Invitational Model is a modern approach to intervention that emphasizes openness and transparency from the start. While it shares similarities with the ARISE Model, it is often considered more streamlined and straightforward. Instead of staging a surprise confrontation, families — with the guidance of an interventionist — simply invite their loved one to a scheduled meeting where concerns can be addressed openly.
The philosophy behind the Invitational Model is that secrecy and ambush tactics can feel manipulative or adversarial, which may damage trust. By contrast, being upfront about the purpose of the meeting fosters honesty, reduces defensiveness, and sets the stage for collaboration. Family members still prepare statements and boundaries in advance, but the process feels less like a “trap” and more like a collective request for change.
Strengths
Reduces defensiveness. Because the individual is not caught off guard, they are more likely to engage in the discussion without immediate hostility (Logan, 2011).
Strengthens trust. Transparency shows respect for the individual, reinforcing the idea that the intervention is about care and concern rather than manipulation.
Feels less adversarial. Families often report feeling more comfortable with this model because it avoids secrecy, surprise, and confrontation.
Flexible format. The meeting can be adapted to the family’s needs, with the interventionist ensuring the conversation stays productive and balanced.
Limitations
Requires willingness to attend. The biggest drawback is that the loved one must agree to come. If denial is strong or resistance is high, they may refuse, leaving the family without a platform.
Less immediate leverage. Compared to more confrontational approaches, the Invitational Model may carry less urgency, which can be a disadvantage in high-risk situations.
Dependent on preparation. Families must still plan carefully; without strong preparation and interventionist guidance, the meeting can lose focus or dissolve into unproductive dialogue.
When It Works Best
The Invitational Model is most effective when:
Families value openness and want to avoid secrecy or confrontation.
The addicted person is unlikely to respond well to surprise tactics but may be open to respectful dialogue.
Trust and relationship preservation are high priorities.
The situation allows for a collaborative process rather than requiring immediate action.
For many families, the Invitational Model provides a sense of relief. It shows that an intervention does not have to be adversarial or confrontational to be effective. Instead, it can be an honest, structured conversation where love, concern, and accountability are expressed openly — with the interventionist ensuring that hope and treatment remain at the center of the discussion.
Comparing the Models: Which Works Best?
When families reach the point of considering an intervention, one of the first questions they ask is: Which approach actually works? The answer is more nuanced than many expect. Research and clinical experience both show that there is no single universal “best” intervention model. Effectiveness depends on multiple factors — the family’s dynamics, the addicted person’s level of denial, and the urgency of the situation (Stanton & Heath, 2004).
Johnson Model: For Crisis and Deep Denial
The Johnson Model remains one of the most widely recognized because of its ability to break through strong denial quickly. It works best in situations where:
The addiction is severe and escalating.
Previous attempts to encourage treatment have failed.
Immediate action is required to prevent further harm.
Its confrontational style can create a sense of urgency that other models lack. However, it also carries the greatest risk of defensiveness, making professional oversight critical.
ARISE and Invitational Models: For Families Prioritizing Trust
The ARISE and Invitational approaches are designed for families who want to minimize conflict and preserve relationships. These models rely on transparency, respect, and gradual dialogue. They are especially effective when:
Families fear confrontation may push their loved one further away.
The addicted person has some level of openness to communication.
Long-term trust and relational repair are key priorities.
While they may require more time, these models often reduce shame and defensiveness, making treatment acceptance more sustainable.
CRAFT: For Long-Term Skill-Building and Resistant Loved Ones
CRAFT stands out because it does not rely on a single meeting. Instead, it trains families in practical strategies to reshape the environment, reward positive behavior, and reduce enabling. It is particularly effective when:
The individual has rejected treatment repeatedly.
Families want ongoing involvement and skill-building.
Immediate crisis is not present, and time allows for gradual progress.
CRAFT’s evidence base is strong, showing higher treatment engagement rates compared to many traditional approaches (Miller, Meyers & Tonigan, 1999). Even if treatment acceptance takes time, families benefit from reduced stress and stronger communication.
No One-Size-Fits-All Answer
Ultimately, the “best” intervention is the one that fits the unique situation. A high-risk case involving overdose potential may call for the Johnson Model’s directness, while a family with deep relational wounds may benefit most from ARISE or Invitational. For long-term resistant individuals, CRAFT often produces results where other methods have failed.
What matters most is not just the model itself but the guidance of a trained interventionist who can assess urgency, family dynamics, and risks, then match the right approach to the family’s needs. An interventionist ensures that whichever model is chosen, it is implemented effectively, with preparation, structure, and a clear plan for treatment.
The Role of the Interventionist
No matter which model a family chooses, the interventionist is the critical factor that determines whether the process succeeds or fails. Their expertise ensures that theory translates into practice. An interventionist does far more than show up on the day of the meeting — they begin by assessing risks, evaluating family dynamics, and determining which model best fits the situation. They then prepare each family member, rehearse statements, and set clear expectations for boundaries and next steps.
During the intervention itself, the interventionist keeps the process on track. They de-escalate conflict, redirect conversations when emotions run high, and ensure that the focus stays on treatment rather than blame. Afterward, they often assist with transportation, admission to treatment, and family follow-up.
Without professional support, even the most evidence-based model can unravel under the weight of emotions, denial, and long-standing family conflict. With professional guidance, however, interventions become structured, compassionate, and far more likely to result in lasting change.
Final Word: Matching the Model to the Moment
Choosing the right intervention model is not about finding a flawless, one-size-fits-all solution. It’s about selecting the approach that fits your loved one’s needs, your family’s dynamics, and the urgency of the situation. For some families, a direct and immediate model like Johnson is necessary to break through denial. For others, an invitational or collaborative approach like ARISE or the Invitational Model works better to preserve trust. And in cases where resistance runs deep, the CRAFT method can provide families with tools to steadily reshape the environment until treatment becomes the natural choice.
While each model has unique strengths, they all share one common purpose: moving someone out of denial and into recovery. That is the real goal, no matter which path is chosen.
For families unsure of where to begin, working with a professional interventionist can provide clarity. At Solace Health Group, our intervention specialists are trained in multiple models and know how to adapt each one to your situation. We help families prepare, stay united, and choose the strategy that offers the best chance for lasting success. With the right guidance, structure, and compassion, an intervention can shift the trajectory of a loved one’s life — and give families the hope they’ve been waiting for.
References
Garrett, J., Landau-Stanton, J., Stanton, M., Stellato-Kabat, J., & Stellato-Kabat, D. (1998). ARISE: A method for engaging reluctant alcohol- and drug-dependent individuals in treatment. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 15(4), 333–343.
Johnson, V. (1973). I’ll Quit Tomorrow. Harper & Row.
Liepman, M. R., Nirenberg, T. D., & Begin, A. M. (1989). Evaluation of a program designed to engage alcoholics in treatment. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 6(3), 171–178.
Logan, D. (2011). Invitational intervention: A new paradigm. Journal of Addictive Behaviors, 36(4), 379–383.
Miller, W. R., Meyers, R. J., & Tonigan, J. S. (1999). Engaging the unmotivated in treatment for alcohol problems: A comparison of three strategies for intervention through family members. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67(5), 688–697.
Stanton, M. D., & Heath, A. (2004). Family approaches to treatment in drug abuse: Progress, problems, and prospects. Family Process, 43(2), 151–170.
