This data keeps going around but is not accurate. (I have a copy of
the graph if anyone wants to see it.)

The below data are NOT correct:

===========================================
Averaging the results from the five surveys from 1977 to 1989 yielded
these numbers:


* 81% are gone (19% remain) after 1 month;
* 90% are gone (10% remain) after 3 months,
* 93% are gone (7% remain) after 6 months,
* and 95% are gone (5% remain) at the end of one year. "

=============================================

These data are derived from a graph that had been intended for AA
internal use. I have a copy of the graph if anyone wants to see it.
Someone unknowledgeable about statistics misrepresented what the graph
intends to indicate, and now the data from the graph are making the
rounds.

AA conducted triennial surveys. I am in touch with a man who has some
knowledge of the data-gathering process here (not very good for
statistics, I have to say).

The graph is titled "% of those coming to AA within the first year that
have remained the indicated number of months"

The graph represents DISTRIBUTION, not retention.

Of **PEOPLE WITH UNDER ONE YEAR** at an average meeting,

19% have been coming for one month
13% for two months
10% for three months
9% for four months
8% for five months
7% for six months
7% for seven months
6% for eight months
6% for nine months
6% for ten months
6% for eleven months
5% for twelve months

(The 102% is from rounding -- the graph was composed from data based on
FIVE triennial surveys -- rounding would have occurred in each of the
five triennial surveys.)

So, of people who have been "coming to AA in the first year", 19%
reported they had been coming for a month, and 5% for twelve months.

It is widely known that people tend to go to more meetings early in
recovery than they do later on. It is also known that people are more
likely to "go out" within the first 90 days -- that does seem to be the
biggest drop-off point.

This is NOT to say that a retention rate of 5% isn't correct -- what
I'm just saying is that the data presented here represent DISTRIBUTION,
and retention rates cannot be derived from them (though some are trying
-- I've seen an unbelievable "leap" with some "analysts" who totally
ELIMINATE those first three months and claim a retention minus those
people!)

ScottyFLL@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> This is NOT to say that a retention rate of 5% isn't correct -- what
> I'm just saying is that the data presented here represent DISTRIBUTION,
> and retention rates cannot be derived from them (though some are trying
> -- I've seen an unbelievable "leap" with some "analysts" who totally
> ELIMINATE those first three months and claim a retention minus those
> people!)
>

Given your continued capacity to evade success, why do you bother
babbling about statistics?

ScottyFLL@gmail.com wrote:
Date: 14 Sep 2006 09:43:37 -0700
Message-ID: 1158252217.600593.116610@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.c om

>
> MY HISTORY over 13 years has been that I can't get 90 days clean with
> a sponsor. I've tried. Multiple times. My longest period of sobriety
> was 2 and a half years -- I did it without a sponsor, and might have
> made about 5 meetings that entire time.
>

--
Bob.
"I don't believe in evil, I believe in right and wrong, and very often
they are the same thing" ... Paul Theroux.

Robert McGregor wrote:
> Given your continued capacity to evade success, why do you bother
> babbling about statistics?
>
Why do you feel a need to be nasty?

Scotty...@gmail.com wrote:
> Robert McGregor wrote:
> > Given your continued capacity to evade success, why do you bother
> > babbling about statistics?
> >
> Why do you feel a need to be nasty?

Indeed, why do you take something out of context, from a different
post, on another group, when I'm discussing here a graph whose data are
making the rounds and which is being misinterpreted?

And why didn't you indicate my current time sober?

ScottyFLL@gmail.com wrote:
> Scotty...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Robert McGregor wrote:
>>> Given your continued capacity to evade success, why do you bother
>>> babbling about statistics?
>>>
>> Why do you feel a need to be nasty?

You want to give it but can't take it? According to you, being nasty is
fun. http://tinyurl.com/m6fsg

> Indeed, why do you take something out of context, from a different
> post, on another group, when I'm discussing here a graph whose data are
> making the rounds and which is being misinterpreted?

Jeez, you started this thread out of context, without example of what
you claim is "making the rounds" .... unless your pooncy "Part Deux"
hides statistics yet to be revealed.

>
> And why didn't you indicate my current time sober?
>

It's even less than your claimed most time sober, so alters nothing
pertaining to my post. Rather than argue about it, why didn't you post
it yourself and prove my point? Bye

--
Bob.
"I don't believe in evil, I believe in right and wrong, and very often
they are the same thing" ... Paul Theroux.

Robert McGregor wrote:
>
> Jeez, you started this thread out of context, without example of what
> you claim is "making the rounds" .... unless your pooncy "Part Deux"
> hides statistics yet to be revealed.

Just checked back and must admit I was wrong there. The example he gave
was a fair precursor to his argument.

--
Bob.
"I don't believe in evil, I believe in right and wrong, and very often
they are the same thing" ... Paul Theroux.

So what do these stats say? Nothing. There is no given reason why people
are leaving--no study. The numbers may be a starting place for AA to work
on retention, but the next step is to find-out why people leave.

Devon <spam@4dv.net> wrote in message
news:c8udnWNuJseso4nYnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@4dv.net...
> So what do these stats say? Nothing. There is no given reason why people
> are leaving--no study. The numbers may be a starting place for AA to work
> on retention, but the next step is to find-out why people leave.

Well I can tell you based on membership numbers, that this very high volume
of folks leaving AA are not joining other recovery groups. Either, they have
just stopped drinking or moderated on their own, or went back to drinking.