Aa history Lovers 2010 moderators Nancy Olson and Glenn F. Chesnut page



Yüklə 25,47 Mb.
səhifə1/173
tarix18.06.2018
ölçüsü25,47 Mb.
#49655
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   173

AA History Lovers 2010 — moderators Nancy Olson and Glenn F. Chesnut — page




AA History Lovers
2010
Messages 6185-7089

moderated by


Nancy Olson

September 18, 1929 – March 25, 2005

Glenn F. Chesnut

June 28, 1939 –

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII


++++Message 6185. . . . . . . . . . . . RE: Recovery rates

From: lester gother . . . . . . . . . . . . 12/28/2009 5:00:00 PM


IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Hi All,
I have in my hands a survey of the Jersey Group dated January 1, 1940. This

is the mother group of AA in New Jersey which just last month celebrated 70

years. I will copy the results as written on the survey.
Total # contacted: 41
Total who have never taken a drink since joining: 19 > TOTAL SUCCESSFUL:

26
Number who have had only one slip since joining: 8


Number jailing thus far but still members: 6
Number jailed and dropped out: 6
Percentage of complete success: 46.3%
Percentage of successes/ complete or just one slip: 63.4%
Percentage of failures: 36.6%
Total sober time achieved by Jersey Group as a whole: 21years
Growth - 400% from 10 to 40 in last 9 months
Membership spread over 23 towns
I have placed here as failures 5 men who attended only 3 or 4 meetings at

most.
These men I feel, tho exposed to our idea did not take the treatment.


If we include only those who really tried the program for 3 months or more

our percentage of successes rises to 72.2%


13 members have now been dry for a period ranging from 6 months to 3 years.
Some of the members of the group include:
Henry P. (The Unbeliever)
Henry B. (A Different Slant) (Fred on pg. 39 in the BB)
Morgan R. (Spoke on the Gabriel Heatter radio broadcast "We the People")
I hope this sheds some light on the subject that has been questioned since

the second edition was printed in 1955. By the way I was a skeptic until I

did a lot of digging.
LOVE AND SERVICE
Lester Gother
Archivist
Area 44
Northern New Jersey
"HOME OF THE BIG BOOK"
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
++++Message 6186. . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Recovery rates

From: jax760 . . . . . . . . . . . . 12/30/2009 2:37:00 PM


IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
I had done some research related to Bill's success rate assertion found in

the


foreword to the second edition p.xx that may be of interest to you.
The first instance I had found of Bill quoting success rates was in a letter

to

a New York Banker in July of 1938.


"Out of the some 200 cases with which we have dealt there seems to be

approximately 100 recoveries. So far as any of my doctor friends know,

nothing

like this has ever happened in the world before with alcoholics commonly



regarded as incurable by the medical profession . . . "Letter from Bill

Wilson


to Mr. Charles Parcelles, July 1, 1938.
Shortly after Bill repeats the claim in a letter to Dr. Cabot of

Massachusetts

General Hospital.
"We have never developed any accurate statistical information but I should

say


we have dealt with about 200 cases in all, almost half of whom seem to have

recovered." Letter from Bill Wilson to Dr. Richard Cabot – July 1938


The first time Bill publicly disclosed AA success rates was at the

Rockefeller

Dinner in 1940.
"To continue with what had happened out in Akron. By the time the book was

published last April there were about one hundred of us, the majority of

them in

the West. Although we have no exact figures, in counting heads recently, we



think it fair to state that of all the people who have been seriously

interested

in this thing since the beginning, one-half have had no relapse at all.

About


25% are having some trouble, or have had some trouble, but in our judgment

will


recover. The other 25% we do not know about." Excerpts of the Rockefeller

Dinner


Feb 8, 1940
There actually is proof (both pre and post release) of Bill's claims.

Note the significance of the part of the statement given at the dinner

"...in

counting heads recently..."


*On January 1, 1940 the New Jersey Group of AA (A.A. Group #4) conducted a

survey of its membership which was used in part to provide A.A. success

rates of

the for the Rockefeller dinner. The survey lists 41 names, addresses, and

the

number of slips for the members, many of them well known pioneers. After the



list of names the following summary is given.
Total members contacted – 41

Total members who have never taken a drink since joining – 19

Number who have had only one slip since joining – 9

Total successful 26


Total failing thus far but still members – 6

Number failed and dropped out – 6

Number of complete successes – 46.3%

Number of successes complete or just one slip – 63.4%

Percentage of failures – 36.6%
Total sober time achieved by Jersey Group as a whole 21 years

Growth 400% - 10 to 40 in the last 9 months.


Membership spread over 23 towns.
I have placed here as failures 5 men who attended only 3 or 4 meetings at

most.


These men I feel, tho (sic) exposed to our idea did not take the treatment.

If

we include only those who really tried the program for 3 months or more our



percentage of successes rises to 72.2% - End of Summary.
Its clear to this writer that the NJ Group Survey was taken in preperation

for


Bill's talk at the dinner. He also mentions statistics from the Chicago

group


later in his Rockefeller talk. Interestingly enough the 75% success rate

often


attributed to early AA in Akron would appear to be somewhat limiting based

on

the NJ survey. The groups in both South Orange and Chicago (and perhaps the



rest

of the fellowship) were at that time achieving similar success rates. Strong

program and one to one sponsorship of those "that really tried" were vitally

important to achieving the early success rates for "real alcoholics." (Big

Book

p.21)
As Glenn points out the report issued in January of 2008 (AA Recovery



Outcomes)

is most informative. Of importance to my research was the note found in the

second edition of the Big Book on an unnumbered page @168 preceding the

personal


stories. If you do the math Bill's recovery rate assertions are again

validated.


"When first published in 1939, this book contained twenty-nine

stories about alcoholics.

To ensure maximum identification with the greatest number

of readers, the new second edition (1955) carries a consider-

ibly enlarged story section, as above described.

Concerning the original twenty-nine case histories, it is a

deep satisfaction to record, as of 1955, that twenty-two have

apparently made a full recovery from their alcoholism. Of these

fifteen have remained completely sober for an average of sev-

eral years each, according to our best knowledge and belief."


*Excerpts from Chapter V of the manuscript The Golden Road of Devotion; "

The


Rockefeller Connection"
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
++++Message 6187. . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Recovery rates -- lets look at

the DETAILS, and at a few more early examples

From: Glenn Chesnut . . . . . . . . . . . . 1/1/2010 6:50:00 PM
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
EARLY NEW JERSEY:
This is in response to Lester Gother's posting of a survey of the New Jersey

Group dated January 1, 1940 which deals with a small group of only 41

people,

but nevertheless seems to show an outstanding success rate when we look at



the

survey's initial claims, even though the mathematics seem to be a bit off:


Total members who have never taken a drink since joining -- 19

Number who have had only one slip since joining-- 9

Total successful 26
How do we get 26 out of 19 and 9? I begin to have less confidence in a set

of

statistics when the mathematical calculations shown in the document don't



work.
But anyway, it is only when we read all the way down to the end of the

survey


that we realize that 30 of these 41 people in the database have only been

attending AA meetings for nine months or less -- many of them much less.


So the numbers in the database are too few, and the period of time over

which


they have been tracked is FAR TOO SHORT in three quarters of these cases to

make


any strong claims about long term success rates.
- - - -
People who defend the notion of extraordinarily high success rates in early

AA

like to cite the New Jersey document nevertheless, because that particular



set

of data fits their theories. This is called cherry picking however, because

they are neglecting to look at other sets of data from that early period

which


do not at all support their theories.
- - - -
EARLY MINNEAPOLIS:
So let us look instead at the figures for the early Minneapolis group, which

are


much more carefully assembled, and cover a much longer period. These are

contained in an article from the Grapevine which was reprinted in Wally P.,

Back

to Basics Instructors Manual, rev. ed. April 2002.


You see, the problem is that people in early A.A. often kept their

statistics in

forms totally different from what is customarily used today. We have what

appear


to be some fairly careful statistics kept in Minneapolis, for example, from

1943


to 1945, given in this article in the Grapevine. But as we shall see, even

though we can make a few useful observations, these figures are in fact very

difficult to translate into a modern format.
The headline says they were achieving a 75% success rate, which is in fact

incorrect. They liked the figures "50%" and "75%" so much that they tended

to

adjust numbers in that direction whenever possible. This was not necessarily



to

make themselves look good. The actual figures given in the article below the

headline show a 77% to 83% overall success rate, which in fact is actually

higher.
The problem is that the way they have manipulated the figures to make them

come

out that way is entirely different from the way in which success and



retention

rate figures are calculated in all the modern data.


The way we usually give success rate figures in modern studies of AA, is to

take


a large group of people who have been encouraged to attend a few AA meetings

(many of them perhaps court ordered, and others trucked in rather

unwillingly

from treatment centers run by psychiatrists who are hostile to AA and let

their

patients know how silly they think AA is). Now if 77% to 83% of these people



were to decide that they actually WANTED to quit drinking, and threw

themselves

wholeheartedly into AA, and were found to still be clean and sober three

years


later, and even five years later, this would be quite an extraordinary

accomplishment indeed.


And there are people today who would want us to believe that there was some

version of early AA which can take one hundred court appointed people who

had

been convicted of drunk driving, and can turn seventy-five of them into



sober

and dedicated AA members, "just like in the good old days."


But let's look a little harder at the Minneapolis statistics. Large numbers

of

the people who were in their early months were going back out and getting



drunk

again, and only a very small percentage indeed of these people ever came

back

and tried to get sober again. And they were excluding from the count all



those

who had not completed their first 90 days successfully (where the number who

quit and got drunk again was presumably very high indeed, probably close to

an

80% failure rate, for the part of the curve which they did reveal was



clearly an

exponential curve).


But their people with 3 years, 4 years, and 5 years sobriety were all

staying


sober. This counterbalanced all the newcomers who were failing to make it.

So in


any given year, they could truthfully say that 77% to 83% of THEIR TOTAL

MEMBERSHIP was staying sober.


That did not at all mean that 77% to 83% of the newcomers who walked into

their


meetings for the first time were going to end up permanently sober.
So for example, of those who had completed their first 90 days, but had not

yet


completed a full six months, the Minneapolis chart tells us that 52% of

these


people went out and got drunk again. And between six months and nine months,

there was still a hefty 30% who went back out and got drunk. This was an

incredibly high failure rate.
These figures from 1943 to 1945 are not better than modern AA. In fact,

based on


the figures in the Triennial Reports, this was WORSE than modern AA. We do a

whole lot better than that nowadays, at least with the people who have been

in

the program between three months and nine months, where their problems in



Minneapolis seem to have been greatest.
The A.A. Grapevine, August 1946, Page 1

Minneapolis Record Indicates that 75% Are Successful in A.A.


The Minneapolis Group, in March, 1943, inaugurated a system for keeping a

record


of the sobriety of members from three months on up. As a result, the

following

exact percentages have been arrived at:
For the Year 1945
5-yr. members ... 100% successful ... 0% slipped

4-yr. members ... 100% successful ... 0% slipped

3-yr. members ... 100% successful ... 0% slipped

2-yr. members ... 89% successful ... 11% slipped

18-mo. members ... 90% successful ... 10% slipped

1-yr. members ... 80% successful ... 20% slipped

9-mo. members ... 82% successful ... 18% slipped

6-mo. members ... 70% successful ... 30% slipped

3-mo. members ... 48% successful ... 52% slipped

(Of those who slipped in 1945, only 16-1/2% have worked back to any degree

of

sobriety.)


Over-all Percentages
1943 78% successful 22% slipped

1944 83% successful 17% slipped

1945 77% successful 23% slipped
- - - -
MODERN A.A.
In the modern AA figures -- see http://hindsfoot.org/recout01.pdf -- we

follow


newcomers month by month for an entire year, and we don't rely on whether

the


person says that he or she has been continuously dry, but merely record

continued attendance at AA meetings. And then our figures record how many

have

been attending AA meetings for over one year, over five years, over ten



years,

and so on. Since it is only rarely that people continue to attend AA

meetings

over a long period of time if they are still drinking regularly (although we

certainly had a couple of people in my home group back in the past who kept

on

drinking for ten to fifteen years before they finally got sober!), it is



clear

that MODERN A.A. HAS A VERY IMPRESSIVE LONG TERM SUCCESS RATE.


- - - -
EARLY PHILADELPHIA:
The early Philadelphia figures are a lot like the early New Jersey figures,

that


is, the majority of the successes they are claiming, which they are using to

claim such a prodigiously high success rate, are based on cases where the

people

have only been dry for three or four months (or in one case just a single



month). There is no workable way to compare them very well with modern AA

retention rate figures like the ones just mentioned. But here is what the

Philadelphia figures said:
Philadelphia A.A. Statistics 1940-1941
The Philadelphia A.A. group was formed February 20, 1940
Special Report On AA Work At The Philadelphia General Hospital
December 13, 1940
The following is the complete experience of the Philadelphia A.A. Group with

patients of the Philadelphia General Hospital since March 15. On this list

are

included only those men who have attended at least two or three A.A.



meetings

and have signified their intention of following the A.A. program.


Brief notes on the various individuals follow (the original letter had full

names & addresses):


Joseph A. - Dry seven months, no trouble.

Frank B. - Dry five months, one slip after he left group one month ago.

Herbert C. B. - Dry four months, no trouble.

Joshua D. B. - Probably psychopathic; continuous slips.

Charles J. C. - Dry nine months, no trouble.

John D. - Dry four months through Philadelphia General Hospital and Byberry.

Joseph D. - Dry four months, no trouble.

George G. - Dry one month, no trouble.

John H. H. - Continuous slips before and after hospitalization.

William K. - Dry four months, no trouble.

Alfred K. - Dry four months, no trouble.

Arthur T. McM. - Dry eight months, no trouble.

William P. - Continuous after two hospitalizations, only attended five

meetings,

no work.

Harry McC. - Dry eleven months, one slip two months ago, hospitalization

then.

James S. - Continuous slips before and after hospitalization.



George K. - Continuous trouble up to two months ago, first hospital May.

C. M. M. - Dry nine months, no trouble.

Hugh O'H. - Dry two months, no trouble.

Edmonds P. - Dry nine months, hospitalization recent, trouble since.

William J. P. - Dry three months, no trouble.

James R. - Dry five months, no trouble.

William R. - Dry six weeks, no trouble.

Carl R. - Dry eight weeks.

Biddle S. - Dry four months, hospital trouble now dry one month.

Thomas S. - Dry four months, one slip.

David W. - Dry seven months, no trouble.

William W. - Dry nine months, no trouble.

Margery W. - Dry three months, no trouble.
Nineteen out of twenty-eight who have come through the Philadelphia General

Hospital have had no trouble. Of the nine who have had trouble, five have

been

with the group and had trouble previous to hospitalization.


This list was made at the request of Jack Alexander, writer for the Saturday

Evening Post.


(Signed) A. W. Hammer M. D. - Surgeon

(Signed) C. D. Saul, M. D. - Chief resident, Saint Luke's Hospital

(Signed) Philadelphia General Hospital, By: John F. Stouffer M. D. - Chief

Psychiatrist


*************************
From:

AA

Philadelphia Group



Post Office Box 332

William Penn Annex


To:

Alcoholic Foundation

30 Vesey Street

New York, N. Y.

December 14, 1940
Gentlemen:
We believe that the time has arrived when we can give you a preliminary

statement of the results of the work of Alcoholics Anonymous in Philadelphia

since its inception in this city on February 20, 1940. This in effect is a

ten


months' report but for all practical purposes it can be considered only nine

months because about a month was occupied in working out methods of

prosecuting

the activities.


According to the records of the Group, which have been kept with reasonable

accuracy, ninety-nine men and women have during this period attended at

least

two meetings of the A. A. Group. In other words, they have had a fair



opportunity to familiarize themselves with the A. A. program of recovery as

given at the Thursday night meetings held at Saint Luke's and Children's

Hospital.
Of the ninety-nine, seventy have remained dry without any slip at all;

thirteen


others are recovering from one or more slips, and sixteen have slipped

without


recovery up to the present time. It is not impossible that some of these

sixteen


may yet return to the Group.
Of the seventy, who have been dry without slips, thirty-nine have been dry

from


one to three months; seventeen from three to six months; twenty-five from

six


months to a year, and five from one to three years.
Obviously these five were not dried up through the activities of the

Philadelphia A. A. Group but have recovered from alcoholism in other

localities

and through other means.


You can see that the Philadelphia A. A. Group has a core of thirty men who,

we

have every reason to believe, will never drink again. Seventeen more have



gotten

by the three months' critical period. It has been our observation that the

first

three months are the most difficult and that the man who gets by that period



has

every reason to believe that he is on the road to complete recovery.


We are even more sanguine of results which shall be achieved since we

succeeded

in opening our clubhouse about one month ago. It is being used extensively,

especially by the unmarried men and is proving helpful not only as a social

center but as a base for the spreading of the A. A. message.
We can testify as physicians to the increasing interest in A. A. work among

members of the medical fraternity and are grateful for the opportunity that

the

A. A. has given us of assisting in the recovery of the unfortunate victims



of

alcoholism.


(Signed) A. W. Hammer M. D. - Surgeon

(Signed) C. Dudley Saul, Chief Resident Saint Luke's Hospital


*************************
Statistical Record of Philadelphia Alcoholics Anonymous Group (dated

9/29/41)
The Philadelphia A. A. Group was formed February 27, 1940, with seven men as

a

nucleus. Six of these are definitely recovered cases.


We consider a man or woman an active member of A. A. when they have been dry

in

the group two months and have attended at least six general meetings.


We now have an ACTIVE MEMBERSHIP of one hundred and thirteen alcoholics,

eighty-three of whom have not had a drink since their first A. A. meeting.

Five

of these have been dry from two to four years, twenty-seven dry from one to



two

years, forty-one dry from six to twelve months and twenty-six dry three to

six

months.
Twenty-three of these active members came directly from the Philadelphia



General


Yüklə 25,47 Mb.

Dostları ilə paylaş:
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   173




Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©genderi.org 2024
rəhbərliyinə müraciət

    Ana səhifə