AA Recovery Rate articles
(See here for original article)
A summary of the data has also been included below together with an extract from the introduction to the paper.
Quote:
“Summary of the data:
The A.A. Triennial Membership Surveys for 1977 through 1989 show that, of those people who are in their first month of attending A.A. meetings, 26% will still be attending A.A. meetings at the end of that year.
Of those who are in their fourth month of attending A.A. meetings (i.e., those who have completed their initial ninety days, and have thereby demonstrated a certain willingness to really try the program), 56% will still be attending A.A. meetings at the end of that year.
For growth of AA sobriety ranges, the 1983 Survey showed 25% of AA members sober over 5 years and the 2004 Survey showed 50% of AA members sober over 5 years.
For growth of AA sobriety averages, the 1983 Survey found the average AA member sober for 4 years and the 2004 Survey found the average AA member sober for more than 8 years.
In 2002, global AA membership was around 2.1 million (1.2 million of that in the US). These membership numbers are likely understated; even so, it is a substantial quantitative indicator of AA success:
AA was helping 1 alcoholic for every 7 active alcohol dependent adults. If we consider alcohol abusers to be potential members then it is 1 AA member for every 15 problem drinkers.
Corresponding research in the 1991-1992 NIAAA "National Longitudinal Alcohol Epidemiologic Survey” (NLAES) showed similar numbers. There was 1 AA member for every 7 alcohol dependent people and 1 for every 12 either alcohol dependent or alcohol abusers.
The authors state in conclusion: "The above are not measurements of failure."
FROM THE INTRODUCTION:
This paper addresses an erroneous myth that AA is experiencing a 5% (or less) “success rate” today as opposed to either a 50%, 70%, 75%, 80% or 93% (take your pick) “success rate” it once reputedly enjoyed in the 1940s and 1950s. The term “myth” is used to emphasize that the low “success rates” promulgated are a product of imagination, invention and inattention to detail rather than fact-based research.
Also noteworthy in the derivation of the mythical percentages, is the absence of fundamental academic disciplines of methodical research, corroborating verification and factual citation of sources. Regrettably, some of the advocates who are propagating the myth are AA members who purport to be “AA Historians” and appear to be advocating agendas that portray fiction as fact and hearsay as history ....
Claims of a 10%, 5% or less success rate for contemporary AA are erroneous and rest largely and misguidedly on the misinterpretation of data in a 1989-1990 internal AA General Service Office report on “AA Triennial Membership Surveys.”
The assertion of a 50-75% success rate in AA is derived from various AA literature sources and other written sources, but is not explicitly demonstrated except in one instance. That instance pertains to the AA members who had their personal stories printed in the first edition “Big Book” ....
Over the years, the internet has provided an international forum for anyone who can access it. A number of so-called “recovery” or “AA history” or “AA archives” web sites have proliferated. Many teem with personal grievances, screeds, and widely varying (and revisionist) interpretations of AA history and the AA program of recovery. An abundance of academic and medical special interest web sites have materialized as well.
The erroneous 10%, 5% or less success rate myth for contemporary AA has proliferated without as much as a token challenge to its veracity or investigation of its origin. The topic of AA success or failure outcomes suffers from a great deal of anecdotal misinformation, misinterpretation and editorializing ....
Based on research discoveries to date, it is believed that the 50% + 25% success rate is in all probability a very reasonable “best estimate” of AA’s success (both early and contemporary).
The sole qualification (it is vitally important and often disregarded) is that the 50% + 25% success outcome rates apply only to those prospects who attempt to give AA a serious try (i.e. you get out of AA what you put into it). This rests on the simple, obvious, premise that a remedy cannot be construed as either a “success” or “failure” until it is at least tried and tested.
Also of contextual importance, is that the subset of the past and present prospect population falling into this category is estimated to be 20% to 40% (1 or 2 out of 5) of the total prospect population.”
End of quote
PS Oh yes! Still a deafening silence from the cult and Primary Purpose groups - could it be that they have no answer to this evidence that challenges their argument that the Fellowship and its message have been corrupted over the years? Where do they go from here? Hopefully elsewhere!
14/11/08
Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) Recovery Outcome Rates
Contemporary Myth and Misinterpretation
January 1, 2008
We have been sent a very useful reference by one of our site visitors. The title (above) of the paper describes its contents most accurately. Refreshingly the authors (who would all seem to be AA members) actually recognise the difficulties in researching this issue. However they do make the effort to cite in detail their sources, make a convincing argument based on the available evidence and present a case that we believe undermines significantly the unsubstantiated claims made by the cult and other groupings within the Fellowship that these rates have fallen over time.
The statistical analysis at the start of the paper can be somewhat taxing (here is another opportunity not to be a mental loafer!) but at least should encourage people to be more careful in interpreting such material. The latter part deals more with “success rates” and repeatedly makes the point that the often misquoted recovery rates of 75 percent are always qualified to exclude those who have attended but few AA meetings and/or who cannot easily be included in those who “really tried”.
It is interesting to observe that within hours of pointing out the dearth of evidence supplied by the Primary Purpose groups to support their claim for falling recovery rates we have been sent good evidence to the contrary. We are wondering how long this deafening silence will continue – could it be that they have none!
Cheers
The Fellas
13/11/08
A quick update to the article below
aacultwatch contacted one of the main Primary Purpose websites based in the US asking them if they had any evidence to support the claims made widely by these groups that recovery rates had fallen significantly in AA since its inception. As you may recall we argued (see article below) these assertions that early recovery rates were as high as 75 percent are based on a misquote from the Big Book and therefore grossly misrepresent the possible success rate and seem to suggest a massive decline since those days. The email was sent on the 19th October. So far we have not had a reply.
2/11/08
A repudiation of the myth of falling AA recovery rates
This article has been prompted by some reflections on the assertions made on the part of both the cult and Primary Purpose groups (as the latter designate themselves). We shall separate these two groupings for the present since it would seem that although they share at least one thing in common (a claim that their message is somehow closer to the original, pure, undiluted AA message) they do display some differences with regard to strategy (although we have discerned a degree of convergence in this respect).
The fundamental premise of these groups is that recovery rates amongst AA members have fallen over the seventy or so years that AA has been in existence. They attribute this decline to the ‘fact’ that the AA message has become 'diluted' or ‘garbled’ over time and that AA as a Fellowship has lost its way; it is indeed sometimes stridently proclaimed that mainstream AA meetings are ‘sick’ or have degenerated into ‘mere therapy groups’ etc. They claim that their message is in fact closer to the one communicated in the basic text of the book Alcoholics Anonymous, and that the methods they employ are more in line with those employed in the early days of the Fellowship, and therefore of greater efficacy.
We would dispute these claims and argue that in fact recovery rates are probably only slightly less than they were and that there are other more credible reasons why they may have varied over time. Further, that the efficacy claimed for the methods emphasised by both these groupings, and here we specifically refer to the role of ‘sponsorship’, probably have little or no impact on recovery rates either. We stress the use of the word “probably” because the facts are that we have no independent statistical research to support or refute our proposals – but then for that matter nor do they; perhaps this might serve as a basis for such a review.
Recovery rates
The factors that have remained unchanged are:
First: in terms of the literature presenting the recovery process - this has remained much the same over the whole period. The basic text of the Big Book has remained as it was first published in 1939. Several editions have been issued since then and some amendments made to the stories and appendices added. However the programme itself remains the same.
Second: as far as we are aware the disease of alcoholism has not mutated in the intervening period. Its manifestations as described in the various accounts of the early members do not seem at all different to those personal stories that one might hear at any contemporary meeting.
The misquote
One of the frequently cited bases for arguing that recovery rates have fallen is a highly selective quote from the Big Book:
“Of alcoholics who came to AA and really tried, 50% got sober at once and remained that way: 25% sobered up after some relapses, and among the remainder, those who stayed on with AA showed improvement”.
(Foreword to Second Edition (which came out in 1955) p. xx – our emphasis).
You will note that we have emphasised the phrase “and really tried” – and there we go again. The reason why we wish to draw especial attention to this section of the quote is that both the cult and Primary Purpose groups universally ignore this phrase when it comes to presenting their argument for recovery decline. So now we shall examine the statement and consider some of its implications.
(We should make it clear at this point that by the term ‘alcoholic’ we employ the definition widely used in AA – someone who has lost the ability to control their drinking and will never regain control).
First: as is stated in the Traditions, the only requirement for AA membership is a desire to stop drinking. AA does not carry out any medical examinations, interviews, questionnaires etc; the condition of alcoholism is self-diagnosed and membership of AA self-declared. So if someone calls themselves an ‘alcoholic’ that is the end of the matter; what other people think or judge is irrelevant. But the fact is that (this is on the basis of observation) a small minority of people who join AA are neither alcoholic nor problem drinkers. They come to AA because they like the sense of comradeship and perhaps they are just lonely. They do not tend to remain in the Fellowship long because they quickly realise that it is not really for them.
Second: there are those who come to AA because they do have a drink problem but they are not alcoholic. They may variously be described as problem drinkers, heavy drinkers, etc. They may be drinking to excess and this might itself have been occasioned by some emotional trauma that has occurred in their lives. They may exhibit many of the signs of alcoholism eg. physical harm, blackouts, relationship difficulties, financial problems, encounters with the police etc. However the key difference is that once they realise that drink is not going to alleviate whatever pain they are experiencing - and perhaps they receive more appropriate assistance (in which AA may play some part) - they find that they are able to sort out their lives and then subsequently resume what may be described as a ‘normal’ social life including ‘social’ alcohol consumption. It could be said that they have suffered from an ‘acute’ form of alcohol dependency but, as is the case with all ‘acute’ conditions, this has now run its course and they are genuinely able to drink safely, having no problems with control and suffering no adverse effects. It may seem to members of AA that these people have relapsed since they are drinking again, have left the Fellowship and no longer attend meetings. However it should be recognised that significant numbers of such people will have attended AA initially because they genuinely believed that they had a serious drink problem but they discover, through an honest appraisal of their situation, that in fact there are differences between their physical responses to alcohol and those of ‘real’ alcoholics.
So we reiterate the term ‘alcoholic’ can be applied to both the above categories simply on the basis of self-diagnosis or incorrect assumptions made by other AA members.
Finally we come to what may be called ‘real’ alcoholics as defined in the Big Book. Again we refer you to that particular quote:
“Of alcoholics who came to AA and really tried, 50% got sober at once and remained that way: 25% sobered up after some relapses, and among the remainder, those who stayed on with AA showed improvement”.
Now in this case these are indeed individuals who have lost the ability to control their drinking and have found that they are unable to resume normal alcohol consumption. They have discovered, through their own experience, that on every occasion when they have tried to “drink like a gentleman” that the phenomenon of craving reasserts itself and once again they are firmly in the grip of active alcoholism. However the following quotes from the Big Book should be noted:
“At present, our membership is increasing at the rate of about seven per cent a year. So far, upon the total problem of several million actual and potential alcoholics in the world, we have made only a scratch. In all probability, we shall never be able to touch more than a fair fraction of the alcohol problem in all its ramifications. Upon therapy for the alcoholic himself, we surely have no monopoly”. p. xxi. (our emphasis)
“Though the aggregate of recoveries resulting from psychiatric effort is considerable, we physicians must admit we have made little impression upon the problem as a whole. Many types do not respond to the ordinary psychological approach”. p. xxvii
“Exceptions to cases such as yours have been occurring since early times. Here and there, once in a while, alcoholics have had what are called vital spiritual experiences.” p. 27.
(our emphases)
As far as we are aware Alcoholics Anonymous has never claimed to be the sole means by which alcoholics can recover. Therefore there will be a proportion of alcoholics who may attend AA for a while but decide that whereas they admit they are alcoholics they decide to go elsewhere for a solution to their problem. It is not the case that they are in denial or they do not acknowledge that AA may have a valid approach – simply that it does not suit them. It cannot be assumed that all these fail. Again figures are not available to support or disprove this view but it does seem highly improbable given the quotes above that there is a 100 per cent failure rate for this grouping.
Further:
“Most alcoholics have to be pretty badly mangled before they really commence to solve their problems”. p. 43.
So it would seem that most AA members also “have to be pretty badly mangled” before it can be said that they “really tried”. Now we would argue that there are a number of factors that should be considered as to why there may have been a slight decline in recovery rates before jumping to the conclusion that this is due to the AA message becoming distorted over time, both in terms of its content and its presentation by AA members:
1) Reduced stigma - In its infancy it is likely that people involved with AA would have tended to be at the latter stages of the disease – ‘last gaspers’. They would definitely have qualified as being “pretty badly mangled” and consequently rather well motivated to go to “any lengths”. By contrast nowadays AA is almost universally well known. Meetings are much more widespread and more frequent. Publicity both by individuals and via the media has familiarised the general public to the notion of alcoholism and consequently the stigma attached to it is greatly reduced; this is evidenced by the increasing numbers of women and younger people who have joined the Fellowship (according to surveys carried out by AA itself). It is no longer the case that a majority of people who attend meetings would be described as ‘low bottom’ drunks and therefore we believe that it is reasonable to conclude that they may not be as strongly motivated to apply themselves to the recovery programme as earlier generations of AA members.
2) Secularisation – in the early days in the States the typical profile of an AA member would be a WASP – White Anglo Saxon Protestant – and furthermore usually male. With increasing secularisation a willingness to consider a spiritual (or religious) approach would be correspondingly more difficult to contemplate.
3) Proliferation of other 12 Step programmes - The development of other Twelve Step programmes such as Narcotics Anonymous would serve as alternative venues for people to recover – it is quite clear that a growing number of individuals who come to AA are dual (or cross addicted). Some of these will choose to make other fellowships their primary source of support whereas in the past they would have had only AA as an option.
4) Under-reporting of membership - Surveys are carried out within AA to try to assess the raw numbers, demographic composition and regularity of meeting attendance of the membership. Since no one is obliged to respond and the survey is not monitored to ensure that it is universally available it is a reasonable supposition that under reporting takes place.
5) Under representation of longer-term members - It is usually the case that longer-term sober members will be attending fewer meetings than newer members. Therefore the frequency of their participation will be significantly less well represented in any surveys.
6) The increasing availability of other means of treating alcoholism – various therapies, programmes utilising different approaches (cognitive behavioural etc).
To summarise:
Recovery rates presented by the Primary Purpose and cult groups are misquoted and therefore give an inflated figure for early recovery rates against which alleged ‘lower’ rates of recovery are measured. To hammer home the point: the recovery rates of 50% etc do not refer to the entire population of AA, only to those who “really tried”.
A proportion of individuals attending AA meetings are neither alcoholic nor even problem drinkers. Yet they will figure in any assessment of relapse rates (statistical or observation based) since they self-diagnose and self-declare their membership. Given the greater stigma attached to alcoholism in the earlier years of AA this sector may not have figured so significantly in the membership as they may do now.
We would argue that because of some of the factors mentioned above these will lead to a greater proportion of members relapsing or leaving AA for reasons completely unrelated to the mode of presentation, ‘pure’, ‘distorted’ or otherwise.
If one takes into account all of the above and apply the recovery rate figures only to those “who really tried” we would assert that there has been no significant fall in recovery rates over the time AA has been in existence and that that which has occurred has little to do with ‘diluted’ messages or an enfeebled structure within the Fellowship.
Finally, and we happily admit that this viewpoint is purely subjective, on the basis of personal observation amongst the Cultwatch team (which includes people who have been continuously sober in AA for decades) we have seen no evidence that recovery rates are significantly lower than when we came to AA or that the cult and Primary Purpose groups have contributed to higher rates of recovery - which brings us on to our next point.
Sponsorship
It is the case that sponsorship is widely suggested within AA as a useful tool in assisting newer members to recover from alcoholism. However there seems to be some confusion within the cult and PP groups in relation to both the range of a sponsor’s responsibilities and the extent of their power. Firstly we would argue that the sponsor’s duty, if it can be called that, is to ‘take someone through the programme’ (by the programme we mean the one outlined in the book Alcoholics Anonymous). Their role is to assist and be a support in this process – the work however remains the sole responsibility of the sponsee.
The most relevant sections of the basic text lie on pp.60-63 beginning with the three pertinent ideas and concluding at “…. was felt at once.”
The three “ideas” make it clear the problem lies with the fact that our lives had become unmanageable, that it was “probable” that nobody else was going to be able to do anything about this (including ourselves or a sponsor or any other member of AA for that matter) and that the solution lay in following a spiritual path towards a God of our understanding. It then goes into a very detailed description of “self-will”. It is quite easy to demonstrate that the sponsorship styles advocated certainly by the cult and to a lesser extent within the PP groups mirror exactly the very behaviour outlined on pp. 60-63 that we are supposed to be trying to overcome. Cult sponsors are quite convinced that their “motives are good.” They run essentially on the basis of “self-propulsion”. They want to “run the whole show….and the rest of the players [that is the rest of AA] in his own way”. Cult sponsors are convinced that if they can only get the rest of us to do it their way “Life would be wonderful. In trying to make these arrangements our actor may sometimes be quite virtuous. He may be kind, considerate, patient, generous; even modest and self-sacrificing. On the other hand, he may be mean, egotistical, selfish and dishonest.” And so the passage goes on. We will leave it to you to draw the parallels from the remaining text. Finally we come to the Real Power behind our recovery. “First of all, we had to quit playing God. It didn’t work.” Again the passage continues expanding on this theme. It is quite clear from these sections of the text that the last person on earth that should ever be put in any kind of position of “power” over an alcoholic is another alcoholic and yet this is precisely the role played by cult sponsors in their relationships with their sponsees. They arrogate to themselves the right to intervene and direct the affairs of their charges in every area of the latter’s lives. We refer you to the two websites run by the cult in which it is made explicitly clear what a sponsee’s relationship is with their sponsor.
“Sponsor
It is suggested that you phone daily and do exactly what your sponsor tells you. If you don't have a sponsor, look upon every meeting you go to as a chance to find one.
NB If anything is unclear, ask your sponsor.”
(cult website)
There is no suggestion here of any kind of delimitation to the extent of a sponsor’s power; it is quite unequivocal – “do exactly what your sponsor tells you” - this advice is nowhere indicated in the recovery programme of AA.
Again we refer you to the BB. “…, and the alcoholic is an extreme example of self-will run riot, though he usually doesn’t think so.” (p. 62)
Here is another example of the kind of egomania that derives from this approach:
“Having Had a Spiritual awakening: Misery Really is Optional
We were told that this is something that makes AA unique – no spiritual tradition or programme apart from the steps of Alcoholics Anonymous can guarantee a spiritual awaking as a result of taking certain actions.”
(cult website)
We can think of a number of spiritual traditions that can make such a claim – and they have all been around considerably longer than AA.
So we would argue (according to the information presented in the basic text) that human power is not going to be able to effect recovery. Sponsorship, meeting formats, literature, service, glib one liners (our special favourites: “Do the right thing and the right thing will happen”, and “Misery is Optional”) will have absolutely no impact on recovery unless the individual concerned has: “…decided you want what we have and are willing to go to any length to get it – then you are ready to take certain steps.” (p. 58). Note: it does NOT say that your sponsor decided that “you want what we have”, nor that he/she wills you to “want what we have”, nor that they decide what constitutes “any lengths” nor even that they decide if you are “ready” or not.
To hammer this point home we refer you to Appendix II “Spiritual Experience”: “With few exceptions our members find that they have tapped an unsuspected inner resource which they presently identify with their own conception of a Power greater than themselves.”
Note: the resource they have located is “inner”, not outer, and this is their own conception, not someone else’s – and – “Willingness, honesty and open mindedness are the essentials of recovery. But these are indispensable”; there is no suggestion here that anyone else other than the person concerned decides what constitutes these three indispensable qualities.
So it would seem that the essential basis of recovery as it is described in the AA programme is the nature of the relationship that exists between each person and their conception of a Higher Power or as it is expressed on p. 59.
“11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.”
Note: not our sponsor’s will nor our sponsor’s power.
Contrary to the claims of the cult and the PP groups the key to recovery, and therefore recovery rates (if indeed they subscribe to the AA programme) is the vital relationship between the alcoholic and the God of their understanding (which of course can include No God) and not the relationship between the alcoholic and other alcoholics, specifically that of the sponsor-sponsee. Whilst the emphasis is placed on the “human power” relationship then the “God power” relationship is consequently displaced.
It is our view that the weight placed by the cult and PP groups on the alleged decreasing recovery rates and the derived emphasis placed upon sponsorship as having a pivotal function in reversing this trend reflects more the “wilful” approach of their methods and the licence is permits them to run other people’s lives rather than a genuine concern with “facilitating” other people’s recovery.
Finally our suggestion to both these groupings operating within AA – either read the book or stop using AA to propagate your perversion of the AA programme!!
Our suggestion to newcomers to AA – go to AA – not to the cult!!
