Page 9
- PUBLIC INFORMATION COMMITTEE REPORT
- INTRODUCTION AND OPENING COMMENTS: Thank you for giving us the opportunity to be of service. I would like the committee to introduce themselves beginning with the officers. These individuals have worked tirelessly to provide this body with a variety of public information options. Included in the handouts are several graphs and a summary of statistical data from the
Page 10
1997 and 1999 P.I. Surveys. We will distribute “self adhesive posters,” designed with the conference approved artwork distributed in 1999, before the close of the Conference. Please take note of the suggested distribution guidelines included in your handouts. Also, we have communicated with the CAWS 2000 Convention Committee our desire to host a P.I. Workshop.
- MOTIONS:
- Referral #1481 – Prepare a letter from CA to advice columnists (such as Dear Abby) which would include general information about CA, & statistical regarding our membership. Motion: The attached letter has been composed and approved by the 2000 CAWS P.I. Committee to be included in your 2000 P.I. Workbook. This letter would be included as an alternate version of a letter addressing groups or organizations, on pg. 19, of the P.I. workbook.
- Steve: Is it your intention to add this to the P.I. workbook.
- Shauna: Yes.
- Hal: Point of Information – I don’t remember the referral asking for statistical information.
- Steve: Would you accept a friendly amendment that this letter be included as an alternate version of a letter addressing groups or organizations, on pg. 19, of the P.I. workbook with this letter?
- Shauna: No
- Walter: Would like a correction to the letter.
- Shauna: Yes, we will make that correction.
- Steve E.: Point of order – are we to understand that we will be editing the letter on the floor
- Jahi: Point of order – I’d like to refer to Standing Rule #14.
- Chair: I am going to allow this since they did pass this out before the break.
- Bryan: Point of order – How come Kevin’s correction is allowed and mine is not?
- Chair: Kevin’s is a correction.
- Mark K.: Point of Order – We have a motion on the floor.
- Brenda: Point of Order – A Point of Order must be recognized immediately.
- Hal: Point of Information – If you can edit this…
- Shauna: The point of the book is meant to be a flexible framework for areas and districts to start from….
- Hal: I am asking if the regional trustees will be informed whether the content of these letters is being changed before sending out for review of tradition violations, etc. We have had problems in the past with materials coming out of P.I. that groups/districts/areas, etc. have edited that have become problems with tradition violations, etc.
- Tony D. Call for the vote. Motion passes.
- Vote on the main motion. Must be counted.
- Elizabeth: Call for quorum.
- DOORBELL
- Vote on the main motion again. Motion passes.
- Mike G.: Minority opinion – the information regarding the membership survey is inaccurate at this time. We have traditions and principles that say we are going to be honest, and we will be sending out information that is incorrect.
- David: We have just given conference approval to this letter.
- Mark K.: I believe this letter does not represent what CA is for.
- Roy: Point of Information – If this is a minority opinion, why was that previous gentlemen allowed to speak?
- Chair: He is an alternate delegate and allowed to speak on the floor.
Page 11
- David: What is the difference between point of information and point of order.
- Chair: I apologize for this. I will be more aware. Right now we are doing minority opinions.
- Amy: Point of order – In our WSM, pg. 6.13 it explains…
- Bryan: I came up to speak against due to misrepresentation of us by this letter…my Area would not think to edit something that came from this body.
- Jim: Motion to reconsider the previous motion. I voted with the prevailing side. Passes.
- Jim: I just realized that I voted to put something into the workbook as it stands now – I thought it was open to corrections before it became final.
- Jay: I don’t believe we had substantial unanimity on the previous vote.
- John: Is the workbook approved?
- Shauna: Yes.
- Discussion continues.
- Motion to reconsider passes.
- Shauna: We would like to withdraw this motion.
- ITEMS REFERRED TO OTHER COMMITTEES; WORLD SERVICE OFFICE, OR BOARD OF TRUSTEES:
- Referral #1015 – Solicit short contributions from the fellowship on the principles for the purpose of printing a CA meditation book. Response – Referred to Chips, Literature, and Formats as it is beyond the scope of Public Information.
- REFERRALS THAT DID NOT RESULT IN MOTIONS:
- Referral #1006 – All conference committees to adapt the 12-point approval process for all publications, including PSAs and instructional videos. Response – The P.I. Committee uses a group conscience and the trustee serving on our committee to ensure documents produced do not contain any tradition violations.
- Referral from 1999 – Rework the P.I. membership survey to delete all statistical questions regarding anything other than recovery issues and work on this survey should be proofread by Unity Committee. Response – The information gathered serves two purposes: to identify areas in which we can better concentrate our outreach efforts, and to provide information to the general public. With these goals in mind, the survey questions cover a wide range of topics, not all of which are recovery based. No action was taken by this committee in regards to the Unity Committee proofreading these works, however this referral was passed on to the Unity Committee as well.
- Referral from 1999 – That the word “hotline” in item 5 of booth guidelines be changed to read “helpline”. Response – This change was made and will be reflected in the revised edition of the P.I. Workbook.
- Referral #1115 – A clear definition of guidelines by which we can print submissions to free, local recovery newspapers. Response – See chapter 2 in public information workbook for information on traditions surrounding public information work (page 5). Also, see chapter 5 which outlines ways to approach and deal with the media in regards to public information work. Some sample form letters are contained within chapter 8(Anonymity at the Media Level).
Page 12
In further clarification from the maker of this motion, we suggested he speak with his regional trustee and other area newsletter chairs, concerning copyright laws and tradition violations. As a committee we will look into working with the trustees to develop a piece entitled “Newsletter Guidelines” that can be added to the P.I. Workbook.
- BREAK at 2:45 p.m.
- Shauna: Thank you for constructive input on letter. Talked to Unity Committee and understand that graphs may be inappropriate in their headings, comparisons and divisions. Please do not distribute them to the general CA public.
- Roy: Survey Report: The Public Information Committee would like to extend our sincere gratitude to the conference delegates. With the World Service Office in a transitional phase last year, they were not able to include the survey in the delegate mailings. This means that, in spite of some controversy, the delegates adhered to the spirit of the 12th Concept and took the surveys back to their areas. This support of the Public Information Committee’s work resulted in 830 responses, a 10% increase over 1997.
Every two years, the Public Information Committee conducts an informal survey of our membership. While this is in no way a scientific process, we hope that the results can provide us with a general overview of the fellowship. Wherever possible, results from the 1995 survey are included; otherwise all comparisons deal with the 1997 survey. The information gathered serves two purposes: to identify areas in which we can better concentrate our outreach efforts; and to provide information to the general public. With these goals in mind, the survey questions cover a wide range of topics, not all of which are recovery-based.
The first area of consideration is “Who We Are”, focusing on exactly who makes up our fellowship. The information included in this section fulfills both of the goals of the survey. Questions regarding age, language, lifestyle, and disabilities can all be used not only to carry the message to the still suffering addict, but also to better serve the fellowship as a whole. Gender, education, occupation, and ancestry information can be used to identify the ‘typical’ addict – who, we all know, doesn’t exist.
In this section, we find that the ratio of men to women has changed from 2 to 1 in 1995, to 3 to 2 in 1999. That’s a change of over 8% in just 4 years. Also, it appears that our fellowship is aging. In 1995, nearly half of our membership was under 35. By 1999, that number had dropped to 38%.
The question regarding educational level was added in 1999 to address the myth of the ‘dumb’ addict. The fact that 31% of us finished high school or the equivalent, and 57% of our fellowship had at least some college would serve to dispel that myth. As a group, we seem eminently employable. Most areas are relatively unchanged, with the largest growth in the sales/business and other categories. (Quite a few gentlemen in the ‘other’ description wrote ‘jail’, meaning that some enterprising souls took the surveys into H&I meetings.) Responses regarding language and disabilities remain unchanged. Ancestry is predominately Caucasian/European (57%) and African-American (29%), showing little change since 1995.
Another question that was new in 1999 dealt with alternative lifestyles. This question was somewhat controversial, dealing as it does with a rather sensitive topic. No invasion of privacy
Page 13
was ever intended. It was added with the sole intent of carrying the message to a group of people that might otherwise be overlooked. Approximately 11% of those responding live an alternative lifestyle.
“What Got You Here?” is the ‘what it was like and what happened’ portion of the survey. Again, it serves to fulfill both goals of the survey. The answers regarding substances abused show a drop in all categories except ‘stimulants’. This showed a marked increase of 8% over 1997. Of the 64 responses with the ‘other’ line filled in, methamphetamine or crank was indicated on 53% of the surveys. (These were included in the ‘stimulants’ category.) How we used cocaine showed some change. There were decreases in snorting, injecting, and freebasing of 4%, 4% and 7% respectively. Crack usage rose 1%. The number of respondents that never used cocaine increased 3% from the 1995 survey.
Hospitals and recovery programs continue to be the most commonly cited means of getting to C.A. appearing on 44% of the 1999 surveys. This reflects a 7% increase in both 1997 & 1999 from 1995 totals. Other members and other fellowships also play a significant role, increasing by 6% & 8% respectively. 42% of respondents said that they had received some type of professional counseling before coming to C.A. 25% received counseling after joining C.A.
“What Are We Like Now?” tells of our life in C.A. This section deals with time clean, but also how we conduct ourselves and carry the message within our fellowship. Length of sobriety has changed rather dramatically. In 1997 21% of our fellowship was in its first 90 days. By 1999, that number had grown to 32%. On the other hand, members with one year or more represented 54% of our fellowship in 1997. That number dropped to 42% in 1999. Number of meetings attended per week grew in two categories: 1 to 2 and 7 or more. Respondents who felt that moremeetings were needed in their area increased slightly.
The numbers regarding sponsorship were very telling. 50% of our membership is either sponsored by someone outside of CA, or not sponsored at all. In 1999, only 30% of respondents said they sponsored someone.
Members with service commitments, dropped from 49% in 1997, to 37% in 1999. Commitments at the meeting level fell dramatically from 1997 – over 11%.
Encouraging is the 6% increase in those who never relapsed. However, of those who have relapsed, 75% relapsed in their first year in both 1997 and 1999. How this number relates to or results from the answers to the sponsorship and commitment questions bears further examination.
As an aid to local outreach efforts, the Public Information Committee can generate area-specific results. Please contact the World Service Conference Public Information Committee Chairperson with your requests.
- NEWLY SELECTED COMMITTEE TRUSTED SERVANTS:
- Vice Chairperson: Dale Schneider – Wisconsin Delegate
- Secretary: John Whitaker – San Fernando Valley, California Non-Delegat
- CLOSING COMMITTEE COMMENTS: I would like to acknowledge the committee for their
Page 14
tireless efforts in carrying the message. We will continue work on the P.I. Workbook. Further updating is necessary to make it easily interpreted and comprehensive in the examples given. It us our goal that the information provided effectively teach public information within the bounds of the Traditions. Thank you for letting us be of service.