8  2010 CAR
Service System
Our vision statement lays out an inspiring view of what our services are striving to
accomplish. However, realizing our vision isn’t like being on the Starship Enterprise
and being able to just say, “Make it so!” If it were just a matter of desire or hard work,
we would be there already. We addicts are certainly dogged in the pursuit of our goals.
Our service structure was created so that groups can
focus on their primary purpose to carry the message to
the addict who still suffers, while our service bodies
come together to build public relations, carry meetings
into institutions, produce literature, and perform other
services that support the groups. As you have shared
with us in numerous forums and workshops, however,
our current service system can, at times, almost seem
to make things harder rather than easier.
Our First Tradition talks of the unity needed in NA
groups to fulfill our primary purpose, while our First
Concept talks of groups coming together to create a
service system to better achieve this common aim.
But the reality of our current system is often far from
those ideals. For many years we have heard from delegates and members about
problems with the current service system. Finding enough members to be of service
and the atmosphere we encounter when we do serve are just two examples of some of
those challenges. We have discussed these issues as a fellowship with topics like
Infrastructure and Our Service System over the last few conference cycles in an effort
to move forward. Reviewing the history of the development of our system shows us
that we have been working on building ways to more effectively carry the message
almost since our inception as a fellowship.
A Brief History of the Service System
This may be a God-given program, but our service structure was surely human-made.
Like the LA freeway system, NA’s service system was created to meet the needs of a
fellowship very different from the NA of today. It has been added onto and changed as
our fellowship has grown and our needs have changed, but the system as a whole
hasn’t necessarily adapted in the most effective ways. We have, in a sense, always
paved this road as we’ve driven on it.
Where We Came From—A Vision of a Global Fellowship
Our service structure really began about 40 years ago with the creation of the World
Service Office by Jimmy K and Sylvia W. The office operated from Jimmy’s home and
served as a phoneline, literature creation and distribution point, and fellowship
development resource. It was intended to be a concrete way to fulfill Jimmy’s vision of
a worldwide fellowship. By 1963 discussions were underway to create some form of
service body to continue ensuring the growth of NA. These discussions resulted in the
1964 formation of the Board of Trustees, consisting of two addicts and two nonaddicts.
The trustees’ role was loosely defined as providing guidance to the growing
fellowship and creating new literature.
Concept One:
To fulfill our primary
purpose, the NA groups
have joined together to
create a structure which
develops, coordinates,
and maintains services
on behalf of NA as a
whole.
2010 CAR 9
The idea of a Parent General Service Organization grew from discussions among our
earliest members and was presented to the trustees in early 1969. This GSO provided
for monthly meetings with group representatives, the establishment of a central office
and a public relations committee, and the re-formation of the trustees as the General
Service Board of Trustees.
Following a business meeting at the first world convention in November 1971, the first
actual WSO was opened in 1972. Also around this time, NA “intergroups” began to
appear, following the AA service structure model, with a focus on sharing experience
and resources to better carry the message. These were initially in Northern California
and Philadelphia. By 1973 the new chairman of the GSO, Greg P, had formulated
plans to create a new level of service between the groups and the GSO called the area
service committee. This idea was born from the problems that groups in Southern
California encountered due to the geographical distance between them. As the
fellowship grew, it became increasingly impractical for groups to travel many miles for
a monthly business meeting with the parent GSO. The ASC would allow for groups to
band together and send one representative to the business meeting. The San
Fernando Valley Area was the first to embrace this idea and began holding its own
monthly meeting and sending a single area representative to the monthly GSO
meetings. After some resistance, other areas began to form similar bodies, and the
existing intergroups re-formed as ASCs.
The first World Service Conference was held in conjunction with the sixth World
Convention in 1976. It was here that the trustees presented our first service manual,
The NA Tree, created by Greg and Jimmy the previous year and adopted by the
trustees after much discussion. The NA Tree included the concept of levels of service—
group, area, and region—with each level sending a representative on to the next, and it
contained the first publication of the NA service symbol.
Where We Went—Creation of the TWGSS
At the 1982 WSC, the local section of the Service Manual of Narcotics Anonymous was
approved, but the world services section was rejected. A motion was passed to “compile
from previously approved actions, all of the information that would comprise the
Structure of NA.” This led to the 1983 creation of A Temporary Working Guide to our
Service Structure (TWGSS), which consisted of the various descriptions of the service
structure that had been approved at different meetings over the previous three years.
The WSC Policy Committee was instructed “to rewrite the service structure for approval
by the WSC.” The TWGSS was revised as motions were passed and the changes they
mandated were incorporated into the manual on a year-by-year basis. At the 1984 WSC
the Select Committee was formed to continue developing a guide to service. They
achieved little over the next two years and eventually decided to start from scratch in
1986. At the 1987 WSC, they presented a draft of A Guide to Service in Narcotics
Anonymous for review and input. This manual contained material on the previously
untouched subject of group conscience and the trusted servant. The next six years saw
deadline extensions, a name change to the Ad Hoc Committee on NA Service, and the
realization that NA needed a foundational piece on the principles of service.
Initially, ideas for this foundational piece revolved around the subject of delegation
and responsibility when it came to trusted servants and the groups they represented,
but the piece grew to become the Twelve Concepts for NA Service. Much of the
committee’s work between 1988 and 1992 focused on the material that became The
10  2010 CAR
Group Booklet (approved in 1990) and the concepts (approved in 1992), and led to
several changes to world services’ procedures and guidelines. Both the WSC Policy
Committee and the WSC Literature Committee were also involved in this work.
The TWGSS contained material on the basics of a group and its trusted servants, and
the purpose and structure of the ASC, RSC, and NAWS. The section on world services
constituted over half of the guide and contained detailed procedural guidelines. These
guidelines would be the focus of much of the conference’s energy over the next few
years, with most of the changes to the document over the next several years
addressing the internal workings of world services’ various boards and committees,
along with the conference itself, but with no significant changes being proposed to the
local service structure at any level.
The efforts of the Ad Hoc NAS, the Policy Committee, and the Literature Committee
finally led to the approval of A Guide to Local Services in 1997. (The remaining
material from the TWGSS on world services was published as A Temporary Working
Guide to our World Service Structure, also in 1997.) The GLS contained material not
previously included in the TWGSS. The main additions were:
 The Twelve Concepts for NA Service in the body of the manual
 A section on developing NA communities
 A section on dividing ASCs
 A section on metros
 Material on rural communities
 A sample Rules of Order for business meetings
 The section on the group, its trusted servants, and their responsibilities was enlarged.
The six points of what constituted an NA group were included for the first time.
 The sections on the ASC and the RSC were also expanded. The Area and Regional
Service Representative positions were renamed Regional Committee Member and
Regional Delegate to reflect the ideas on delegation and participation contained in the
concepts.
A summary of the service structure was added as a result of a motion at the 2002
WSC, but there have been no other significant changes to our primary local service
manual since its adoption thirteen years ago.
Reshaping NAWS—Inventory, Resolution, and Transition
World services, on the other hand, was fundamentally restructured during the same
time period. The difficulties with world services in the 1980s (and early 1990s) were
summarized in this extract from the WSC Ad Hoc Committee on NA Service report to
the 1990 WSC:
“One body – the group of conference committees – has large responsibilities for
developing and maintaining services, and highly detailed guidelines describing the
degree of accountability they are to be held to. Yet the conference committees have
almost no authority when it comes to making decisions concerning allocation of the
resources necessary for fulfilling those services. A second body – the World Service
Office Board of Directors – also has large responsibilities, but its fiscal authority far
exceeds those responsibilities. WSO directors, despite their substantial responsibilities
and authority, are the most distant from the World Service Conference of the three
service arms. Only one member of the board – its chairperson – is a conference
2010 CAR 11
participant, and only three of its twelve members are directly elected by the conference.
The third world service body, the World Service Board of Trustees, has only the most
vaguely defined responsibilities, and no authority whatsoever. Yet all the trustees are
voting members of the World Service Conference, and all are elected by the conference,
as if the conference believed them to be in positions requiring substantial participation
and accountability.”
The rapid growth of NA following the publication of the Basic Text, dissatisfaction with
the process of the WSC meeting itself, and the widespread duplication and inefficiency
of world service efforts finally led to the world services inventory, which was approved
by conference action in 1993.
The two-year inventory process identified several main problems:
 Lack of vision for WSO, WSC, and the World Convention Corporation
 Lack of a strategic plan
 Incorrectly sized committees and boards
 No integration of management techniques to world services
 Inefficiently bringing the message of hope to the suffering addict
In response to these problems, the Resolution Group was formed at the 1995 WSC.
The group developed four goals that they believed, if accomplished, would make a
significant contribution toward developing and implementing specific solutions to
these problems. These goals were:
 To write a vision statement for NA World Services
 To write a mission statement for the World Service Conference
 To create proposals for structural change of NA World Services
 To create proposals for future work
They presented a NAWS Vision Statement, a WSC Mission Statement, and a series of
eight resolutions to the conference in 1996, of which six were adopted.
 Resolution A proposed, in principle, a change in participation at the WSC. Its intention
was to reduce the number of representatives, ensure an equal representation from
all geographic entities, and move the conference toward consensus-based decisionmaking.
 Resolution B proposed, in principle, the adoption of a World Board to replace the
BOT, BOD, and WSC Admin committees.
 Resolution C2 proposed, in principle, a significantly downsized WSC standing
committee structure that would be responsible to the Board.
 Resolution E proposed, in principle, the adoption of a unified NAWS budget.
 Resolution F proposed, in principle, the adoption of the World Pool.
 Resolution G proposed, in principle, the adoption of the Human Resource Panel.
From 1996 to 1998 the Transition Group worked on a series of proposals to present to
the conference. Motions resulting from these led to the creation of the World Board,
HRP, World Pool, and a unified budget for NAWS. Resolution A was the only resolution
adopted that didn’t result in any specific proposals being accepted by the WSC at that
time, although subsequent conference action has led to some of the elements being
adopted, for example, the funding of delegates from all seated regions and the
adoption of CBDM guidelines at WSC 2008.
12  2010 CAR
Creation of the Service System Project
Part of our process with this project was to understand how we got the service
structure we have today and to review fellowship input about what’s working and
what’s not working within this structure. We’ve gathered input on this topic in various
forms over the past years—in the Issue Discussion Topics Our Service System and
Infrastructure, as well as from idea trees and general conversations at worldwide
workshops and zonal forums around the world. And now we are moving forward to
build on our strengths and try to resolve our weaknesses.
At the 2008 WSC, participants approved the Service System Project in an effort to take
a holistic look at how we can better provide services in a fellowship that has come so
far and changed so much over the years. We have seen tremendous positive benefit
from the changes in world services, but we have yet to take a similar holistic look at
local services. Since we have continued to evolve and look at processes at the world
service level, we wanted to focus this project on the other levels of our service system.
The Service System Project was created to begin imagining changes on a local level to
move the reality of our service provision closer to our ideal. After talking for years
together as a fellowship about “what’s working and what’s not working,” we
determined the only way to really address the fundamental issues with the service
system was through a project devoted to the system as a whole.
The project grew from this approach in the 2006–2008 NAWS Strategic Plan:
“Develop a vision for all NA service efforts and begin to explore best practices and
options for local service delivery. This project will be rooted in an analysis of the
success factors that work across our service structure, as well as allow for
flexibility in meeting unique local needs. This will ultimately result in a rewrite of A
Guide to Local Services in NA. We expect that the first cycle of this project will be
focused on gathering options and presenting them for discussion in the
fellowship.”
Of course, before we can bring the real closer to the ideal, we need to make sure we
are all focused on the same set of ideals, that we share a common vision. As the
approach in our strategic plan spells out, we were tasked with developing a vision for
NA service efforts.
Revising the NAWS Vision Statement
After some discussion we decided to widen the focus of the existing NAWS Vision
Statement to make it “A Vision for NA Service.” The NAWS vision is already embraced
by many groups, service bodies, and members, but it really is the NAWS vision. We
hope, with some relatively minor revisions, to be able to broaden the scope.
The draft vision included here for your consideration contains several changes. First,
we have tweaked the language in general so that it is more clearly a vision statement
for all NA services, not just for world services. Then we added a second bullet that
speaks to the joy and spiritual growth that come from service. We felt that adding the
new bullet in the second spot makes for a logical and elegant progression from a
bullet focused on addicts, to one on members, to one on NA communities, and finally
to one on the world at large.
2010 CAR 13
The next change, to the third bullet, was perhaps the most difficult for us. There was
much discussion about how to phrase the idea of systemic or lateral cooperation
throughout NA service, not just between world services and NA communities. After
several revisions, we think we captured the idea of interconnectivity that we were
trying to emphasize.
The final changes are to the closing paragraph. Again, these changes resulted after
much discussion. Our goal was to shorten the length of this paragraph but retain the
references to honesty, trust, goodwill, and a loving Higher Power.
From a technical policy standpoint, we actually do not need to include this motion in
the CAR as it is service material and we typically include service material in the
Conference Approval Track mailing. We included it here in the CAR, however, because
we believe it is fundamental to our primary purpose and will benefit from as wide an
exposure as possible. Our hope is that by creating a common vision for all of us to
work toward, we will be able to better focus our service efforts toward the ideal image
of the future we wish to create.

Motion 1: To approve “A Vision for NA Service” stated below to replace the existing
“NA World Services Vision Statement”.
A Vision for NA Service
All of the efforts of Narcotics Anonymous are inspired by the primary purpose of our
groups. Upon this common ground we stand committed.
Our vision is that one day:
 Every addict in the world has the chance to experience our message in his or
her own language and culture and find the opportunity for a new way of life;
 Every member, inspired by the gift of recovery, experiences spiritual growth
and fulfillment through service;
 NA service bodies worldwide work together in a spirit of unity and cooperation
to support the groups in carrying our message of recovery;
 Narcotics Anonymous has universal recognition and respect as a viable
program of recovery.
Honesty, trust, and goodwill are the foundation of our service efforts, all of which rely
upon the guidance of a loving Higher Power.
Intent: To replace the NAWS Vision Statement with a vision statement for all NA services.
Financial Impact: The cost of creating this material has already been incurred as agreed to
by passing the service system project plan at WSC 2008. The production and
translations costs associated with replacing the vision statement in the material
where it is printed would be minimal because these revisions would occur when there
are new printings.
Policy Affected: This motion would replace the current NA World Services Vision Statement:
All of the efforts of Narcotics Anonymous World Services are inspired by the primary purpose
of the groups we serve. Upon this common ground we stand committed.
Our vision is that one day:
14  2010 CAR
 Every addict in the world has the chance to experience our message in his or her own
language and culture and find the opportunity for a new way of life;
 NA communities worldwide and NA World Services work together in a spirit of unity
and cooperation to carry our message of recovery;
 Narcotics Anonymous has universal recognition and respect as a viable program of
recovery.
As our commonly held sense of the highest aspirations that set our course, our vision is our
touchstone, our reference point, inspiring all that we do. Honesty, trust, and goodwill are the
foundation of these ideals. In all our service efforts, we rely upon the guidance of a loving
Higher Power.
Options for Change—Opportunities for Growth
Working on a vision statement was only one small part of the work of the Service
System Project. We have spent most of our time preparing to develop “options for local
service delivery.” One of the first things we began to wrap our heads around was that
structure is just one part of a service system. In addition to structure, a system
includes people, processes, and resources. We cannot focus on any one of these
components to the exclusion of the others.
In order to begin thinking about alternative options for service delivery, we went
through a protracted process of defining and refining a series of essentials before we
began to frame more concrete ideas. What we wanted was to think very carefully
about our principles and the purposes of a service system before we began focusing
on practical implementation of those principles. Guided by the maxim “form follows
function,” we first created a long list of all the needs we expect our system to fulfill.
Some of these are very basic, like “an addict needs to be able to find a meeting,” while
others are more complex, like “treatment facilities need to understand who NA is, what
it does, and how it is relevant.”
After exhaustive brainstorming about the needs the service system was created to
meet, we began to compile more lists. At times this felt like a “list-fest,” as they got
longer and more numerous. We created a list of functions that any system would have
to include, such as PR/external relations, information management, and community
2010 CAR 15
development and support. From here we moved on to delivery vehicles like “meeting
directories” or “PR roundtables/focus groups.” We tended to think of the functions as
the “what” of the system and the delivery vehicles as the “how.” Our final stop was to
think about “who” is to fulfill these functions by creating a list of roles. As we worked
through the process we continually referred back to our initial needs document to
ensure we were covering these necessities.
In addition to this we spent a lot of time talking about the ideals of a service system.
We compiled a list of essential elements and principles that a system must embody
and a list of the many variables for which it should account. These tools will help us
“means-test” options as we design them; in other words, any models we come up with
can be held up to these essentials and variables to make sure it accounts for them all.
Throughout this part of the process we avoided any discussion of structure, as it
seems that many of our difficulties are rooted in our overemphasis on structure alone.
Clearly, issues like poor communication have as much to do with processes and
people as they do with structure. The most efficient structure possible will not work
unless we have sufficiently trained members in key positions. Accordingly, we are
approaching the task of framing options for service delivery as a systemic task and
focusing on each of the four components listed above: structure, process, people, and
resources.
We look forward to discussing these options with delegates at the conference. Keep a
lookout for more material from the project before the WSC in the Conference Report.
WSC Seating—An Uncomfortable Perch
Any discussion of our service system inevitably crosses paths with the topic of WSC
seating. Changes we make to one component of the structure directly influence the
other. As many of you know, the 2008 conference elected to institute a moratorium on
the conference policy on seating new regions until 2012. As we have reported
repeatedly over the years, the policy we were using, adopted in 2000, had proven itself
ineffective by 2006. The criteria did not provide a method for evaluation of either the
conference’s or the region’s needs, but sought to apply a rigid set of criteria across all
cases. What’s more, that policy did not address the desire to stem the growth of US
regions or regions resulting from a split. The 2008 Conference Approval Track material
explained this difficulty:
“The conference has discussed its own growth and how to deal with issues related to
representation for years without coming to consensus. We all agree that the growth of NA
is a positive thing, but we haven’t yet come to an agreement about how to reconcile our
growth as a fellowship with the need to conduct business effectively at the conference.”
And so, while the Service System Workgroup has been doing the background work for
us to begin thinking about alternative options for service delivery, the board has been
talking about models for seating at the World Service Conference. Any effective seating
model has to satisfy both the needs of the fellowship in ensuring clear communication
and participation, and the needs of the conference in terms of size, diversity, and
financial viability.
At times we have found ourselves stuck between deciding which comes first, local
service delivery or WSC seating. We spent a great deal of time talking about the basic
principles underpinning the seating issue, much as we did with the service system. We
16  2010 CAR
asked ourselves, “What is the conference for?” Decision making, training, sharing
experience, receiving direction from the fellowship, and the “magic” of coming
together as a global fellowship were all key points brought up in our discussion and
reflected in GWSNA. From here it isn’t hard to agree in principle on what we want to
see at an ideal WSC. We want the diversity of our fellowship to be represented, but we
want to not be so large that we are prohibitively expensive or unwieldy in our
discussions and decision making. We want our newer communities to participate, but
we want to retain the experience of our older communities as well. We want the
“magic” of worldwide NA to be felt broadly throughout our fellowship, but we are not
certain whether that must occur through WSC representation or through other means.
We are beginning to try to translate those ideals into something more concrete that we
can look at together at the conference. Although we do not plan to focus on world
services per se, world services and conference seating in particular have to be
considered as part of any proposed system.
The service system is a four-year project, and the seating moratorium extends for two
more years as well. We expect there will be many discussions about these topics over
the next two years. We will use this conference to talk together—board and delegates—
about the ideas generated from the board and workgroup so far. As we get closer to
the conference, preparatory materials like the Conference Report will have more
information. This will set the stage for the ideas and work the fellowship will be
discussing over the next two years.
2010 CAR 17
NAWS Resources—Money
As we mentioned in the service system essay above, resources is one of the four main
components of a service system, and while we in NA are well accustomed to working
with limited resources, recent years have presented us with financial challenges above
and beyond the usual “trying to do more with less.”
We started to report on our fiscal stability, our trends, our challenges, and our financial
changes beginning with the September–November 2008 NAWS News. As a fellowship,
we generally do not like to discuss money matters. We seem to think money is not
spiritual, but money and spirituality do have a positive association when we consider
the principles of abundance and generosity. These principles afford us the ability to
fulfill our primary purpose. The theme of this conference is Our Vision, Our Future, and
those of you who have been reading about our resource crunch understand that, while
we are ever-hopeful for the future, our present isn’t that bright. NAWS’ ability to realize
our vision has been affected this conference cycle with a marked decrease in
contributions from the fellowship. We have also had an increase in requests to discuss
funding at workshops and know that this is not something that only affects world
services. We felt providing fiscal updates in NAWS News was one way we could
respond responsibly to our fiscal difficulties. We communicated our challenges, we
asked the fellowship for support and input, and we have decreased expenses where
possible. This is the first time we have brought up the subject of money so centrally in
the Conference Agenda Report, but again, to do so seems like the most responsible
action. By presenting a frank overview of our position, we hope interested members
will be better able to get a picture of NAWS’ financial straits.
NAWS is approaching a critical point where the level of service that we provide on
behalf of the fellowship has been affected. We have operated at a loss for the last two
fiscal years. This means that it is costing us more money to operate than the income
we are taking in, and we are making up the shortfall by spending our reserves. It is not
that our income is unexpectedly low in all areas, though our donations have
decreased, but that our costs are rising to a level that is not sustainable.
To give a close-up picture, we will recap what we have previously reported in NAWS
News. For the fiscal year that ended 30 June 2008, we exceeded budget in the areas
of developmental literature, translations, fellowship development and workshops, WSC
publications, shipping, public relations, and the meeting of the World Service
Conference. There has been a cost increase of more than $100,000 with the
conference from 2006 to 2008, and we expect this increase to continue for WSC
2010. We thought that in our partnerships with regions, and since we are now fully
funding delegates to the conferences, regions would make contributions to NAWS to
offset WSC expenses. This has yet to be our reality. Our reliance on the sales of
recovery literature to fund services to our worldwide fellowship needs to be balanced
with membership contributions.
For our part, we have been looking at four main areas to save money: travel/fellowship
development, publications, convention, and literature distribution. We cut our travel
costs in half last year, as compared to the year before, though we won’t be able to
have this dramatic of a cut again this year because it is a CAR year. We are looking for
anywhere that we can save money with as little impact as possible to the services we
provide. For instance, we have been trying to send board members who are closest to
18  2010 CAR
a given event when board members travel. We might not have done that in the past
because we like to use trips to give board members exposure to communities they
might not otherwise get to visit/experience, but given our current situation, it’s a
prudent choice.
We have also decreased our attendance at professional events, reduced literature
subsidies for cooperative public relations events with local NA communities, and
begun taking steps to change criteria for considering requests for fellowship
developmental trips and workshops—yet, at what cost? We have made substantial
strides through public relations to help professionals view NA as a credible program of
recovery, yet we are acutely aware from our attendance at a medical residence
conference that many still have not heard of Narcotics Anonymous. We believe these
continued cuts in public relations efforts will affect an addict’s ability to find recovery
in NA.
Workshops, developmental trips, and cooperative public relations activities generate
enthusiasm in communities and strengthen our infrastructure. A decrease in these
activities affects our ability to carry the message to the addict who still suffers. NAWS
is at a critical juncture. We have steadily grown to the point where hundreds of
thousands addicts now find freedom from addiction worldwide, and now we find
ourselves wondering whether we will be able to continue to provide these services to
ensure no addict seeking recovery need perish.
Another place we have instituted changes is in our shipping costs (the first such
changes in ten years). We have been losing money on shipping for years, and given our
current financial state, it seemed only responsible to raise shipping charges. We aimed
this increase, which took effect 1 April 2009, to have shipping charges and shipping
revenue break even, and we are starting to see the benefit of this change already.
We are also looking very closely at publications and thinking about how we can cut
costs there. We have been studying Reaching Out, NAWS News, and The NA Way
Magazine and seeking ways to eliminate costs. We reported a 25 percent increase in
costs from 2006 to 2008 for conference publications, which is primarily due to
translations and distribution costs. For 2009 we were able to reduce our expenses for
NAWS News, but still spent more than budgeted for The NA Way as distribution
charges continue to climb. NAWS has been advocating for electronic distribution of
publications for a conference cycle, yet many members and groups seem reluctant to
give up the paper copy. We are also reviewing our production and distribution policies
to see if we can economize. For instance, we distribute an average of 42,000 paper
copies of The NA Way each issue. We are mandated by policy to send one copy to each
registered group, but we are questioning if such a mandate is a responsible use of our
funds. Do members read the publication? Is the envelope opened, or is a publication
placed on a literature table that many members ignore? Does the paper copy ever
make it past the ASC PO boxes where so many of these copies are mailed? We do not
have the answers for all groups in all countries, but we know that in many cases, these
issues go unread. Many never reach the group at all. These are the types of questions
that we ask ourselves as we consider publications and distribution practices.
And, with the 40 percent for translations and distribution of non-US NA Ways, we
wonder whether our efforts are valued and what languages really need to be
translated. We have not reviewed this particular aspect of publications in over a
2010 CAR 19
decade, and now seems like an optimum time to examine our publication practices.
We plan to discuss these types of publications issues at the conference. We would like
permission to see if we can cut costs by making
some changes to our automatic distribution
policy, for instance, before making hard and fast
alterations to policy. It’s possible we may have
more ideas by the time the conference comes or
that we may think of other things we can try after
WSC 2010. We will open this conversation with
conference participants so that we can make
sure the conference agrees with this direction
before moving ahead. We are doing what we can
and we need members’, areas’, and regions’
contributions to quell this downward spiral.
One of the more controversial ways we have
made changes to recoup our expenses was to
institute a change in pricing at WSO–Europe.
Years ago we set our literature prices based on the dollar-euro exchange rates each
month to ensure the availability of literature in Europe. This practice no longer makes
sense; all expenses at the European office are in euros, and there are additional
expenses in Europe with the VAT (value added tax), which is not incurred by NAWS in
the US. We should have changed our policy when the majority of WSO–Europe
customers moved to the euro but we did not, primarily because we had the financial
means to not have to consider this change. After listening to European members and
communities, we modified our initial proposal so that what took effect on 1 July 2009
represents a less dramatic increase than our initial plan. We want to see the effect of
this change before pursuing the idea of standardized pricing in Europe any further. We
have kept the discount policy for WSO–Europe that is much more advantageous to
small customers than our policy in North America. We can no longer operate on a
faulty business premise; we realize our decision was not popular, but it was one that
was long overdue and needed to be made.
Another money-related topic that has generated some buzz in the fellowship is the
world convention and losses we incurred. For members who have no information and
have not formed an opinion, we would like to recap how San Antonio incurred a loss
and how we projected a loss for Barcelona. Our past practice has always been to
estimate (“guesstimate,” even) the number of attendees at a convention; in other
words, we planned for members who did not pre-register. The number of members
who did pre-register was taken into account, and we would estimate for a percentage
increase onsite. We were sadly mistaken in our estimates for San Antonio. By the time
we realized that this convention was not going to include as many members as
projected, we could not get out of contracts that had been signed years in advance.
The substantial loss in San Antonio was a rude awakening, one that has us moving
toward pre-registered attendees only. To predict unknown quantities is irresponsible;
we can no longer afford this practice. We understand that some members tend to wait
to purchase registration onsite, yet San Antonio taught us the hard way that planning
is the key to success.
How do we stem the
rising costs of NA Way
distribution? Should we
discontinue automatic
distribution of paper
copies of The NA Way to
groups? What else
should we try?
20  2010 CAR
As we have previously reported in NAWS News, Barcelona was a different story. We
projected our expenses would exceed our income from the outset for that convention;
in fact, we have operated on that premise for all world conventions outside the US. We
are a worldwide fellowship, which was clearly demonstrated in the geographic
countdown in Barcelona; yet the thousands of members who usually travel to world
conventions in the “lower 48” US states were absent. We have no idea what affect the
global economic downturn had on attendance in Barcelona, but we can reasonably
speculate that it may have had some effect. We are happy to report that WCNA 33 was
actually very close to the financial picture forecasted and approved at WSC 2008. We
will have more detailed figures available soon.
The fact is that these tough economic times present a particular kind of challenge for
us. We are in a different position from many organizations or companies. NAWS has a
spiritual mission to fulfill and is governed by principles in line with that mission; we
cannot simply offer products or cut services to generate revenue with every downturn.
We need to review business practices because we function in a business environment
with production of literature, shipping those goods, and renting facilities and
distribution centers; yet our mission is spiritual.
We are always motivated by the desire to more successfully carry the message to the
addict who still suffers. To fulfill that spiritual mission, we rely on the contributions of
members, addicts who have found freedom and who are living productive, responsible
lives. Through self-support, we are free to focus on our singleness of purpose. But selfsupport
means more than just supporting your meeting or even your area; it means
supporting NA, helping those most in need, including those hardest hit by the
economic downturn. We have an expectation that those who have resources will help
support those who do not; that’s in line with our spiritual principles. Carrying the
message through literature, for example, is easier in some parts of the world than
others. The number of people and communities who don’t have resources has
increased, placing more pressure on those who do have them. More and more
demand is coming from communities that have limited resources, compelling those of
us who do have resources to give more.
In keeping with our mission to support the fellowship’s primary purpose, we have
continued to provide free and subsidized literature. Many of us recall how receiving our
first Basic Text inspired us to believe that recovery was now possible. Similarly, those
communities that received literature donations have more hope for recovery and are
better able to carry the message. NAWS has provided over $750,000 in free or
reduced literature in the 2009 fiscal year alone. That figure is an all-time high for
NAWS, in part because we gave away the Fifth Edition Basic Texts we still had in stock
after the release of the Sixth Edition. We expect we will not drastically reduce this
literature figure in the upcoming fiscal year, but will help to keep it from further
escalating with the expansion of local printing efforts.
We are continuing to seek ways to decrease costs. Yet, when all the excess is
trimmed—up-to-date, sound business practices implemented and day-to-day costs
contained—we are threadbare. It’s hard to find any more places to cut. With such a
gloomy picture, you may be wondering: Where is the hope? Fortunately, hope is one
principle that we always have a supply of in NA. Hope lies within each and every one of
us. We came into NA hopeless; our lives were unmanageable. In our process of
recovery, we came to believe that there is hope for us as long as we do not pick up
2010 CAR 21
that first drug. And there is hope for our fellowship and service efforts, too! Together
we can get through any tough time and prevail. We know this from our personal
experience. Even with scant resources, when we unite our efforts, we can carry our
message of freedom from active addiction to the farthest, most desolate corner of the
world—so that one day, in our future, every addict in the world has the chance to
experience our message in his or her own language and culture.
22  2010 CAR
Literature
Given the economic situation that confronts so many of us at all levels of the service
structure, it’s perhaps an apt time to present two new pieces of literature about selfsupport.
This CAR also includes a revision to In Times of Illness, and an update on our
ongoing literature project, “Living Clean”. There continues to be much going on in
literature development at world services, and as the regional motions evidence, not
everyone is satisfied with the process as it currently exists. After the updates about our
various literature projects, this section of the CAR closes with an essay about literature
development. It is past time to talk together about how to improve the methods and
timetables we use to put together literature. We may never come up with a system that
satisfies everyone, but we surely can come up with a system that improves upon what
we have.
Self-Support
This project was developed in response to the fact that our existing materials on the
topic of self-support haven’t shown a great deal of success in affecting the ways
members participate in funding NA services. The two current informational pamphlets,
IP#24, “Hey! What’s the Basket For?” (initially published in 1988) and IP#25, Self-
Support: Principle and Practice (initially published in 1998), have consistently been
among the least distributed of all our informational pamphlets, which would suggest
that they aren’t very useful to members. Many members continue to contribute the
same amount of money in each meeting that they gave years or even decades ago,
and most groups are still unaware of the fund flow model suggested in IP#25 that
involves contributing directly to each level of service.
Ensuring a consistent flow of funds to all levels of the NA service system has rarely
been easy for us as a fellowship. All of us as members can tell stories of service bodies
that are unable or challenged to do some of the things they would like to do to more
effectively carry the message, whether that is hanging bus posters, bringing books to
institutions, or sending a delegate to a zonal forum. For as long as we have been
engaging in the process of fellowship issue discussions, communities worldwide have
pointed out funding services as an issue of ongoing concern. It isn’t clear whether this
is because members simply make minimal contributions as a function of habit, or
because they do not see value in the services provided by the NA service system, or
more recently, because of changing economic times. Our hope is that these new selfsupport
pamphlets, Funding NA Services and Money Matters: Self-Support in NA, will
help to change the way the average member thinks about self-support and individual
contributions, and to encourage groups to contribute directly to each level of service
for a more stable fund flow that better covers the cost of services.
Work This Cycle
The board put together the Self-Support Workgroup not long after the last conference.
The group was small but diverse—and effective—with six members from three
continents. This was the first time we had a workgroup member from Africa (Egypt) and
the first time we used a nonboard member as point person (a member of our Business
Plan Workgroup), an “experiment” we consider very successful. The group met three
times, twice in 2008, to work on drafts of the pamphlets.
2010 CAR 23
The review and input period for this project took place in early 2009, and we received
sixty-nine pieces of input in response. Among the known sources, we received input
from nineteen states in the US, and from a total of five countries outside the US:
Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, and Turkey. The input numbers were a
bit lower than we might have hoped for, but we know that plenty of people did read the
drafts. Funding NA Services was downloaded a total of 644 times, and Money Matters:
Self-Support in NA 432 times. Perhaps unsurprisingly, a small segment of the input
seemed to reject the principle behind the drafts altogether. It seems some of our
members still consider it “wrong” or unprincipled to focus on the financial aspects of
self-support. This sentiment was relatively limited, and largely the input contained
information that helped to improve the pieces. The workgroup met a final time in 2009
to incorporate the fellowship input, and we are confident the approval drafts are
significantly improved.
What’s in the Approval Drafts
There are two IP approval drafts included as addenda to this CAR. The first, Funding
NA Services, which is focused around four main graphics, is meant primarily as a
short, easily understandable resource for groups. This pamphlet aims to reach groups
with the message that contributing directly to each level of service is necessary for the
stability and long-term viability of NA services. In support of that message, the graphics
illustrate some of the services that are supported by contributions to each level of
service. If groups change their contribution methods, they can help to bolster efforts in
each of these areas.
One of the graphics is a pie chart that illustrates a model for group contributions to
each level of service. Those of you who are familiar with the existing IP#25, Self-
Support: Principle and Practice, may notice that this chart depicts one of the three
models proposed in that IP: the 50/25/25 model. We talked about possible fund flow
models quite a lot in both the board meeting and the workgroup meeting, and after
much discussion, the 50/25/25 model seemed like the best ideal. In terms of the
percentage donated to NAWS, this is still a bit more conservative than in other twelvestep
organizations; most of the twelve-step organizations we looked at suggest at least
a 30 percent contribution to their world levels of service. We did make sure to clarify
that this model is simply one possible method by including text to that effect alongside
the graphic.
The other approval draft is a longer, textual piece entitled Money Matters: Self-Support
in NA. As the title suggests, this piece is not meant to be a comprehensive examination
of our Seventh Tradition or of the principle of self-support in NA, but instead deals with
the topic of how we fund the services that help us to carry our message. The piece also
points out that individual contributions from members are not the only source of
funding for NA services, but they are the primary focus of the piece. There are other
places in our recovery literature and service materials that we can go to for information
about the Seventh Tradition and other related topics. The purpose of this pamphlet is
to raise awareness and understanding of each member’s personal role in supporting
NA services, including some discussion of how doing so enriches our recovery.
24  2010 CAR

Motion 2: To approve the draft contained in Addendum A, Money Matters: Self-
Support in NA, to replace the existing IPs #24 “Hey! What’s the Basket For?” and
#25 Self-Support: Principle & Practice.
Intent: To replace the existing informational pamphlets, IP#24 and 25, with an updated
pamphlet on self-support.
Financial Impact: The cost of creating this material has already been incurred as agreed to
by passage of the self-support project plan at WSC 2008. The only additional costs
that will be incurred by adopting this motion are production and translations costs.
Policy Affected: This motion would replace the existing IPs #24 & 25 contained in Addendum D.

Motion 3: To approve the draft contained in Addendum B, Funding NA Services, as
a Conference Approved pamphlet.
Intent: To have a pamphlet that helps groups understand their contributions and
participation in the NA fund flow.
Financial Impact: The cost of creating this material has already been incurred as agreed to
by passage of the self-support project plan at WSC 2008. The only additional costs
that will be incurred by adopting this motion are production and translations costs for
the new pamphlet.
Policy Affected: None. This pamphlet would be Conference Approved material, making it
easier to change graphics or update numbers as necessary and easier for local
language communities to make any changes they need to as they do translations.
In Times of Illness
Targeted literature continues to be a priority for us, and this cycle our work in that area
focused on a revision of In Times of Illness (ITOI), a project approved at the 2008
World Service Conference. In Times of Illness is published in eight languages
(Castilian, English, Farsi, French, German, Italian, Norwegian, and Portuguese) and has
been distributed at meetings all over the world since its original publication in 1993.
Thousands of our members have utilized this as a resource when faced with an illness
or injury in recovery. Seventeen years is a long time, however, and we’ve known for
some time (and heard from plenty of you) that the booklet has needed updating to
better address the issues confronting many of our members today.
In the many world service workshops focused on medication and illness in recovery
since ITOI’s publication, the overwhelming sentiment has been that the booklet no
longer adequately reflects the experience of our members and the challenges they
face with mental health issues, chronic illness, and medication in recovery. With this in
mind, we offered a project at WSC 2008 to revise the In Times of Illness booklet.
Work This Cycle
After the conference, we carefully selected an eight-person workgroup. These members
from the US, Greece, Canada, and Ireland have a wide range of experiences with illness
and injury in NA, including living with these challenges in long-term recovery.
2010 CAR 25
The workgroup met a total of three times. There was a ninety-day review and input
period from 1 March through 31 May 2009, and the workgroup considered ninetythree
pieces of input received from regions, areas, groups, and individual members.
While the amount of input was relatively thin, the review draft was downloaded 1,057
times, so we know plenty of people read it. We even received input from a few
nonaddict medical professionals who work with addicts. The input was overwhelmingly
positive, and the ideas and experiences collected from the fellowship input helped
further improve the draft.
What’s in the Approval Draft
The revised booklet was drafted using the original as a framework. Nothing was
removed; things were only shifted and updated. Like the original, the revised ITOI is
divided into sections to assist the member who has a specific challenge. Some points
are restated throughout the booklet because we know some will want to read one
section exclusively, while others will read the booklet in its entirety. We have included
new sections that specifically address mental health issues, chronic illness, chronic
pain, terminal illness, and supporting members with an illness. Additionally, the
booklet has updated and expanded material in the sections devoted to members’
informing healthcare professionals of their addiction, medication in recovery, and
emergency care. To support the experience contained within these sections, we added
quotes from members and from the Basic Text and It Works: How and Why.
Illness and injury are a fact of life in recovery, and this resource needs to remain
current in order to be viable and reach the addict who still suffers. Suggestions in this
booklet are based on a wide range of experiences of many addicts who are recovering
in NA. It is not intended as a substitute for medical advice, or as an alternative to
working with a sponsor.
Our hope is that this piece will become a more useful supplement to the relationships
that support us in recovery: a sponsor, informed medical professionals, an NA support
group, and a Higher Power of our own understanding. Health problems are personal
and each situation will differ depending on the individual. What we offer here is simply
the experience, strength, and hope of many members who have faced illness and
injury during their recovery in Narcotics Anonymous. We are pleased to present a
revision that we feel meets the current needs of the fellowship, while honoring the
timeless message of recovery found through the Twelve Steps of NA.

Motion 4: To approve the revisions to In Times of Illness contained in Addendum C.
Intent: To revise and update In Times of Illness to better reflect our current experience.
Financial Impact: The cost of creating this material has already been incurred as agreed to
by passage of the targeted literature project plan at WSC 2008. The only additional
costs that will be incurred by adopting this motion are production and translation
costs of the revised booklet.
Policy Affected: This motion would replace the existing version of In Times of Illness
contained in Addendum E.
26  2010 CAR
“Living Clean”
“Living Clean” is one of the four-year projects approved at the last conference (Service
System being the other). And so, as of this writing, we are a bit past the midpoint for
this project and will be giving a progress report here in the CAR and talking about
some of the new ways we’ve tried to engage the fellowship in creating this piece.
The idea for a book of this nature was on the WSC Literature Committee’s work list for
many years prior to the restructuring of NAWS in 1998, and subsequently the idea
remained on the “to do” list. Fellowship response to literature surveys in 1999 and
2002, as well as the input received during the revision of the Basic Text, made it clear
there was an ongoing need for a book that focuses on just that—living clean, our daily
lives as recovering addicts. As we reported in the 2008 CAR: “This kind of project [can]
enable us to address many of the topics members have asked for literature about:
relationships, grief, parenting, working, and so on.”
One of the objectives in our strategic plan is to “make the NA message available and
relevant to a widely diverse membership and potential membership.” The “Living
Clean” Project attempts to meet that objective by creating a book that speaks about
the many varied aspects of our lives in recovery—from dealing with our physical selves
to living spiritually. As the Basic Text points out, “Our disease involved much more than
just using drugs, so our recovery must involve much more than simple abstinence.”
Some members have described this book as picking up from Chapter Ten in the Basic
Text, “More Will Be Revealed.” At this point in the recovery experience of our
fellowship, more has been revealed, and it’s time we offered that experience to our
members.
Work This Cycle
After WSC 2008, we formed a workgroup comprised of ten members representing a wide
cross section of experience, cleantime, and geography. By the time the WSC 2010 is in
session, the workgroup will have met eight times. Our initial meetings helped to draft the
outline for the book and established the topics to be covered in each of the chapters. Since
then we have gotten to work drafting the chapters, and we are excited about the results so
far. Those of you who have seen the outline know that we hope to cover many topics that
have been on the fellowship “wish list” for literature for a long time: relationships with
others, our own relationship with success, aging, and the journey of recovery.
In June 2009 we released the outline, Chapter One, and Chapter Two for fellowship
review and input for 90 days. We distributed more than 1,100 copies of the drafts
(830 downloads and 367 mailed), and we received 103 responses ranging from word
choices (change “but” to “and”) to conceptual concerns regarding the use of jokes or
anecdotes within the material. We belatedly realized that our presentation of the
outline was potentially misleading to some people—we intended it as a list of topics to
be covered in each chapter, not necessarily in order. Even so, the input we received
was useful, and we have reorganized the chapters as a result. Thank you to those who
took the time and energy to read the material and give input. You have helped to make
a book that is more reflective of us.
Innovations
That said, the best time to affect the contents of a new piece of literature is in the
beginning stages of a project, before the draft has been written and before the review
2010 CAR 27
period. Recognizing that, we have attempted a variety of ways to gather more input for
“Living Clean” in these early stages. We have tried to open the doors as wide as
possible to any member who wishes to contribute material to the book, and we’ve
made regular announcements in NAWS News and The NA Way Magazine highlighting
the opportunity for involvement.
At the beginning of the project we distributed an announcement that invited members
to contribute to the project by sharing with us about three general topics: Turning
Points, Obstacles, and Growing in Recovery. This was sent out in The NA Way and also
as an email that was forwarded to members who might not otherwise come across the
announcement. We tried something new and set up an online survey system members
could use to respond and share their experience, strength, and hope with us. All told,
we received 947 responses (888 in English and 59 in Spanish). This material provided
a springboard for the drafting of the book, and we are still using some of the
experiences shared through that online survey as source material.
In addition to the online survey, we have been utilizing a discussion board, open to any
member of the fellowship, to generate source material for the drafting of the text. You can
access the board from the link on the project page: http://www.na.org/?ID=Living
_Clean_Project. The discussion board went live in February, and by the end of September
we had over 460 members, with more still joining the board. The topic outline is posted at
the discussion board so that members can share about the subjects we are planning to
cover in each chapter. At times discussion has been lively regarding particular topics.
Perhaps predictably, the relationships chapter has been the most lively, covering topics
including parenting, dealing with aging parents, marriage, friendship, commitment, and
more. The discussion board will remain open throughout the course of the project. We
encourage everyone to join the discussion there so that the book can best reflect our
common experience of living clean.
What’s Next?
We have two more rounds of review and input for this project. The next review and
input period will take place in early 2010 (most likely April). This release will include
three chapters tentatively titled “Living Spiritually,” “Our Physical Selves,” and
“Relationships.” The final round of review and input will occur later in the year and will
contain the final two chapters and the introduction. The project plan calls for a
minimum of 90 days for the review and input process, and this was the timeframe
spelled out in the project plan at WSC 2008.
All of the revisions need to be completed so that the book can be released in approval
form in April of 2011, as called for in the literature approval process in A Guide to
World Services in NA. The 2006 World Service Conference passed a motion to release
book-length pieces at least a year prior to their being voted on at the conference, and
we have taken that necessity into account for this project. But the need to examine the
process by which we create literature, including the timelines mandated by our
policies, is clear—more on this topic in the pages following.
28  2010 CAR
Literature Development Process—Where We’ve Been
and Where We’d Like to Go
There are countless differing opinions about how to improve our literature
development processes in NA. It may be that the only thing we can all agree on is that
we have not yet found the ideal system. We have come a long way in our fifty-plus
years as a fellowship, but we know that there is plenty of room for improvement.
Over the years, there have been a number of attempts to improve the system, such as
some of the regional motions in this CAR, but we have not taken a holistic view of the
system and asked what changes should be made. Members keep trying to fix various
pieces of the process, and that sort of approach is at best a band-aid for some of our
current problems and at worst has unintended negative repercussions. We’ve been
trained, through our strategic planning process, to think about things in terms of need.
If we ask, “What is the need that has fueled the motions about literature process in
this CAR?” the answer seems to be the desire for more participation and more timely
communication.
Certainly, we have tried a number of ways to increase involvement by a broader
segment of our population over the last eight to ten years, with varying levels of
success. Conducting literature surveys, hosting workshops, and developing session
profiles for local trusted servants to conduct their own literature review sessions are
just a few of the steps we’ve taken to make the process a more inclusive one. Contrary
to our hopes, however, some members have become alienated even through their
experiences participating in the review and input process.
When members send written contributions to a literature project, they at times expect
that they will see that suggestion or piece of experience, in exactly their words,
reflected in the final product. It’s impossible to fulfill those expectations for everyone.
For one thing, so much of the input we receive is contradictory. One piece of input will
say, “How could you possibly include that?” and another will say, “Thank you so much
for including that!” For another thing, such a small proportion of our membership
participates in review and input that it’s impossible to determine what might actually
represent the will of the fellowship. The best we can do is to regard all input equally as
food for thought. As we mentioned in the previous section about the “Living Clean”
Project, review and input is not the only and perhaps not the ideal way to affect a draft.
Participation in the earlier stages of literature development allows members a greater
opportunity to shape the final outcome.
We are continually trying new ways to involve the fellowship earlier in the process. We
tried an online survey at the beginning of the “Living Clean” Project to generate frontend
input for the book. Almost three times as many people participated as the number
of people who provided input during the review and input period for the Basic Text
Project. Similarly, more than twice as many people submitted stories for the Basic Text
Project as provided input during its review and input period. This would seem to
suggest that it is possible to find successful ways to involve members earlier in the
process. Another tool we are using in “Living Clean” is discussion boards to encourage
members to share on the book’s topics. We know we haven’t done all we can in this
area. When the “Living Clean” Project comes to a close, we will be better able to
assess which parts were more successful and which were less. In addition to keeping
what works well, these lessons will help us decide what else to try.
2010 CAR 29
We are continually challenged to balance the need for involvement with the
responsible use of our resources. Any literature project that spans more than one
conference cycle is bound to consume a great deal of NAWS’ time and energy. With
international involvement, a four-year book-length project has direct costs of about
$400,000. To extend the process beyond four years would result not only in increased
costs, but also a greater strain on our human resources: Doing so would require that
we keep the conference, the World Board, and a workgroup focused on one topic for at
least six years. This is especially difficult in a system where trusted servants often turn
over every year or every other year. Furthermore, a major project draws resources
(money and people) from other possible projects or efforts.
We already have difficulties responding in a timely manner to fellowship requests for
literature covering various topics. Some members have expressed that we “already
have enough,” and we heard that opinion from a few participants at WSC 2008, but it
did not seem to be something that had broad support. The fellowship, in general,
continues to ask for new pieces, topics, and areas of focus for NA literature. We have
enough fellowship-generated ideas and requests for book-length pieces, booklets, and
IPs to keep us busy for many years. If we hope to respond to these expressed needs,
we need to have a literature development process that is responsive.
A particular difficulty we face in implementing a responsive system of literature
development comes in the form of some of the folklore surrounding the way our
existing literature was developed. In our earliest days, before the first World Service
Conference, NA literature was written by a handful of members, and helped to provide
the basis for core NA principles that we continue to hold dear today.
By 1980, the conference was meeting for the fifth time, and a world literature
committee existed for the purposes of creating and revising NA literature. At that
conference, a motion was made and approved that material for fellowship review be
sent out 60 days prior to the conference. It is helpful to keep in mind that what is
referred to here as “fellowship review” is not the same as what we now know as review
and input; it was more akin to our current approval-form literature. Input and revision
took place among those relatively small groups of members who attended world
literature workshops, and the drafts that were available to the fellowship were more or
less in their final approval form. Any changes to be made to those drafts had to come
in the form of motions on the floor of the conference.
In 1982 and 1983, the fellowship approved not just the Basic Text, but also the most
comprehensive NA service handbook that had been developed up to that point,
followed by a dozen new IPs. In terms of the Basic Text alone, Chapters One through
Ten were released to the fellowship in November 1981, followed by the personal
stories in February 1982, and the book in its entirety was approved three months later
at our seventh World Service Conference in May 1982. In the decade that followed,
our fellowship saw the publication of five editions of the Basic Text, along with ongoing
stops and starts with work on a steps and traditions book. Ultimately It Works: How
and Why was approved nearly unanimously at the 1993 World Service Conference,
after a decade of work on the book.
Contrary to NA’s apocryphal history, each of NA’s books has had a radically different
review process and timeline, none of which has been ideal. It Works: How and Why was
sent out in overlapping stages for six-month review periods. Just for Today did not have a
general review open to everyone. The text was sent out for a 60-day review to four
30  2010 CAR
different “review panels.” Each review panel received a quarter of the pieces. The NA
Step Working Guides were sent out in three stages, each of which was around 60 days.
Literature Development Timelines for NA Books
Review and Input
Process Input Received Approval Period Approved
Basic Text None None 90 days 1982
Just for Today
60-day review; four
review panels
reviewed 90 entries
each.
168 pieces from
review panel; no
open fellowship
review.
90 days 1992
It Works: How and Why
(current version;
prior draft failed at
WSC 1987)
Four R&I batches,
6 months each:
Steps 1-6 & 7-12;
Trads 1-6 & 7-12.
(Step and Tradition
periods ran
concurrently.)
582 pieces total
received for four
separate R&I
batches.
First half mailed
Sept 1992
(6 months),
2nd half Dec 1992
(<150 days).
1993
Step Working Guides
Three 60-day review
periods, each
covering material on
four steps.
Records not
available. 90 days 1998
Sponsorship
Outline and first
chapter sent out for
90-day review.
98 pieces
Policy mandated
150 days; actual
approval period:
approx. 9 months.
2004
Sixth Edition
Basic Text
6 months 350 pieces
Policy mandated
150 days; actual
approval period:
approx. 6 months.
2008
In short, there was never really a time when NA literature development was fully
communal and cooperative with longer periods of time to develop and input pieces.
Although we say that our system of literature development is still flawed, we do believe
we have come a long way in opening up the process to members who want to
participate. With the technological advances that have been made in the last two
decades, we have gained the ability to communicate and collaborate much more
quickly and effectively. Still, for how time-consuming and labor-intensive our current
review and input process is, it doesn’t seem to involve most people, even those who
have an interest in literature development. There are nearly 55,000 NA meetings
2010 CAR 31
worldwide each week, but during the Basic Text Project, we distributed over 7,500
copies of the review and input draft (2,009 downloads and 4,493 paper copies), and
we received only 350 pieces of input.
The figures are even more dismal for the Self-Support, In Times of Illness, and “Living
Clean” Projects: For In Times of Illness we distributed 1,421 copies (364 paper and
1,057 downloads) and received 93 pieces of input. For Self-Support we distributed
808 copies of Funding NA Services (364 paper and 644 downloads) and 796 copies
of Money Matters (364 paper and 432 downloads) and received 69 pieces of input.
For “Living Clean” we distributed over 1,100 copies (397 paper and 830 downloads)
of the first review and input packet and received 103 pieces of input. In all of these
cases, we established the R&I schedules and communicated these dates well in
advance so members could prepare. For Self-Support and In Times of Illness, we were
able to release ahead of schedule, meaning that the review period was longer than the
required ninety days, which didn’t seem to affect input levels.
Even when we do get input, it rarely seems substantive. Most members, when
presented with a draft, are inclined to give input about word choices or how something
is phrased (or even how punctuation is used) rather than giving conceptual input about
the content of the text. The real goal of review and input is to gather broader ideas
about what needs to be included in a piece, and how the ideas might be organized in
order to be most effective. But it is very difficult for most people to think in those terms
when presented with a completed draft. This challenge is not one that is likely to be
addressed by changing the length of review periods; instead it will require a shift in the
way members view and approach review and input.
Another attempt to improve the literature development process came in 2006 when
the conference considered a motion to extend the approval period for book-length
pieces and opted to lengthen it to a year. This effort sprang from a desire to increase
involvement, and yet it seems to have been misguided in the sense that the approval
period is the least effective place to add time to the development process. By the time
a piece is in approval form, fellowship involvement is reduced to giving a “yea” or “nay”
on the piece. We have no evidence there is a substantial increase in the number of
people who read a piece if it is out longer.
Our real goal for our literature development process is to find ways to increase
meaningful participation and genuine fellowship involvement. As we have seen with
“Living Clean,” one way to accomplish this may be through online surveys, discussion
boards, and other methods to involve members earlier in the process. As far as review
and input goes, the challenge seems to be much less about length of the R&I periods
than about adequate communication and planning. In this cycle that is coming to a
close, for example, we gave six months of warning time before the beginning of R&I
periods for Self-Support and In Times of Illness, and yet many (most?) areas and
regions either were not aware that review drafts would be coming or did not start
planning for workshops or other methods of gathering input until they received the
drafts. As evidenced by some of the communities that were prepared in advance,
when workshops are planned before the R&I period starts, ninety days is not
unreasonable to read and give input about a text, whether individually or as a group or
committee.
We have taken small steps to increase general awareness of upcoming dates and
important deadlines, such as adding a single-page list of highlights at the beginning of
32  2010 CAR
NAWS News to draw attention to project updates. As with all communication-related
challenges, seemingly, we know we have a ways to go, as a fellowship, to improve. Our
hope is that discussions at this conference may lead to other innovations to help
improve our literature development process, particularly by giving delegates a chance
to share ideas and best practices related to keeping local members informed and
aware of what’s ahead. One thing is clear: We need to have an open and frank
discussion about our process of literature development, rather than continue to make
minor and major changes to the existing system, which hasn’t been discussed by the
conference in over a decade.
As it stands, our policies seem to hinder us at least as much as they help us. We are
unable, for instance, to make necessary updates to fellowship-approved literature
without involving the entire conference and fellowship through the CAR. The Loner IP,
for example, references a periodical, Meeting by Mail, that we have discontinued, yet
we have no way to fix this outdated reference without including a draft of the piece in
the CAR. We need a mechanism to make a housekeeping change so that we don’t
need to send every such correction or update out for review and input and approval in
the CAR. Similarly, the Additional Needs IP makes a reference to “cassette tapes,” that
would be better changed to “recordings” or “CDs.” The fellowship as a whole doesn’t
seem to care if we correct this sort of thing as part of our ongoing production process,
but we are bound by our policy to put these items in the CAR. We bring this up to begin
a conversation. We have no plans to bring any motions in new business regarding
literature development, but we would like to start a conversation.
We hope you will have a chance to talk over these issues with your local communities
and bring your ideas to the conference. We look forward to talking further there.
2010 CAR 33
Issue Discussion Topics
The three Issue Discussion Topics for the 2008–2010 cycle were Leadership;
Communication; and the theme for the conference cycle, Our Freedom, Our
Responsibility. All of these topics build on subjects we have been discussing during
conference cycles prior to this one, yet somehow our success with these IDTs was
minimal compared to topics such as Building Strong Home Groups in 2006–2008 or
Our Public Image in 2004–2006, to name just two topics. Perhaps these topics didn’t
generate real enthusiasm in the fellowship this cycle because they had been
discussed for so long and we didn’t offer a new enough approach. Perhaps the fact
that we didn’t have a topic focused on group-level concerns made IDTs in general less
popular this cycle.
In any case, we will not be offering questions about the IDTs in this CAR as we have
since 2004. In previous cycles, the results of our Issue Discussion Topics have led to
the Building Strong Home Groups Worksheet, service pamphlets, and leadership
modules. At this point, however, we have no logical next steps for two of the three
IDTs—Communication and Our Freedom, Our Responsibility—and it seems like
including questions would be close to “busy work” for delegates, who are busy enough
already. We hate busy work!
Leadership
Leadership has been a focus and ongoing topic for us since it was an IDT in 2004–
2006. One of the conclusions we came to from our earlier discussions on leadership
qualities was that we could benefit from a fellowshipwide discussion on leadership
principles. It was hard to talk about leadership identification and cultivation without a
broadly understood foundation.
And so, at the 2008 WSC, we had a session devoted to leadership, and after the
conference we broke that workshop outline into two simpler sessions and distributed
them for use throughout the fellowship. The workshops focused on some of the
principles of the program, related those principles to leadership, and discussed how
they are applied in leadership roles. Even after simplifying the sessions, we still have
heard that they are fairly complicated, but we know they have been used throughout
the fellowship and we are ready in this upcoming cycle to take the next steps with this
topic.
We don’t need to ask questions on the topic here to know that the fellowship needs
new tools related to leadership. We hope in this upcoming cycle to develop some new
leadership orientation materials for use at all levels of the service structure. We’ve
seen benefits from our ongoing emphasis in this area and we hope to continue it.
Communication
Communication is another area that we prioritize for attention regularly but in which
we don’t always seem to know how to make progress. This cycle we talked about what
is working and what needs improvement in our communication chain. While there is a
lot that is working well in our workshops, service meetings, and online
communications, our communications still break down at every level of our service
system.
34  2010 CAR
Our trusted servants are expected to synthesize and report large amounts of
information without any real tools to make that task easier. We are beginning to
imagine alternatives for service delivery in the
Service System Project. For instance, can we take
some of the burden off of our delegates and
representatives and make more of an effort to
have information available, especially online, to
whoever wants to access it? Trusted servants
may not always know what salient points to
report, but perhaps online standardization of
information delivery could obviate some of the
need for them to do all of the reporting. No
matter how we’ve imagined new systems,
structures, and tools, however, there is still a
huge responsibility for delegates, RCMs, and GSRs to communicate much information.
The new tools we hope to develop related to leadership over the course of the 2010–
2012 cycle should help. The quality of the trusted servant combined with good training
and better tools should make for improved communication. We aren’t there yet, but we
know that’s where we need to be.
Our Freedom, Our Responsibility
Just for Today tells us that “The more responsibility we assume, the more freedom
we’ll gain” (March 22). The third discussion topic for the cycle, Our Freedom, Our
Responsibility, which was also the theme of the conference, used that premise as a
jumping-off point for questions about exercising our own sense of responsibility in NA
and inspiring others to share that responsibility. This was one of the less popular IDTs
in recent years, but to the degree that it was discussed, members talked a lot about
their personal actions and motivations. That’s to be expected since we are trained, to
some degree, in NA to focus on ourselves and think of responsibility in terms of our
individual action, and since the Issue Discussion Topic questions themselves
encouraged members to think about personal responsibility. But the question about
how we can jointly exercise more responsibility remains largely unanswered. What we
know is that we need to do more. Our resources are stretched thinner than ever
before. It is our joint responsibility to see that Narcotics Anonymous has “universal
recognition and respect” and that addicts everywhere have access to the freedom
from active addiction that we, as members of NA, have. We need to do more to realize
Our Vision, Our Future.
Looking Ahead
As always, the CAR marks the end of one conference cycle and the beginning of the
next. And so we have been preparing approval drafts for this conference and writing
progress reports summarizing our work over the past two years, but at the same time
we have been looking forward and thinking about the road ahead. Perhaps most
notably, we have a couple of ongoing projects—“Living Clean” and Service System.
There are two more review periods for “Living Clean,” one of which should be
underway when the conference takes place. The approval draft of the book will be
published in April 2011.
Concept Eight:
Our service structure
depends on the integrity
and effectiveness of our
communications.
2010 CAR 35
The discussions we will begin with delegates at WSC 2010 about alternative options
for service delivery and possible models for WSC seating will continue throughout the
conference cycle. As much as any work we have undertaken in the past decade, this
project will need to be understood and supported by the fellowship as a whole.
Depending on the results of our discussions at the conference, you can expect to hear
much more about the Service System Project in the cycle ahead.
The Conference Approval Track material focuses more exclusively on the cycle ahead,
containing, as it does, the budget and project plans for the years ahead. Among the
additional projects we are hoping to undertake this cycle are public relations
roundtables with medical professionals and the development of leadership orientation
materials, and we hope to begin work on an up-to-date events handbook. NA
conventions use so many of our human and financial resources and we have no
handbook to guide local communities and help them be prudent and responsible. This
is one of many service tools that are long overdue.
We also hope to have tools in this cycle (perhaps as soon as this conference) to help
you in planning and carrying the message on a local level. We would like to simplify
both the Building Strong Home Groups Worksheet and the Area Planning Tool. We
have heard from many that these tools are wonderful in theory but difficult in practice
to use on a group or area level. In addition, we would like to develop a tool to help with
an “environmental scan” on a local level, a part of our planning practice that collects
information about factors in and outside of NA that might affect our ability to carry the
message. We know that the more we can take on a culture of planning on a local level,
the more successful we will be in our service efforts throughout NA.
36  2010 CAR
Regional Motions
We are trying something a little different this year with the regional motions in the
Conference Agenda Report: We are grouping the motions by similar topic. So, for
instance, the three motions related to production are together and the literature
development process motions are together. In line with that, we have combined some
of our responses to these motions. We think this will make it easier for you in reading
and workshopping the CAR.
Sadly, it has become a convention for us to preface this section of the CAR with a
paragraph or two explaining that we don’t think regional motions are the ideal way to
have a discussion or make a decision about most issues. This is what we said in the
2008 CAR:
“We urge regions to try to talk through things with us before resorting to a motion.
Sometimes it’s relatively easy to come to a joint solution without needing to ask groups
around the world to discuss the issue in the form of a motion. In the case of legal
matters or details of production, we wish that there were another way that felt
acceptable and fruitful to work through issues rather than by including a motion in the
CAR. The CAR is perhaps our primary vehicle for building a fellowship-wide conscience.
Shouldn’t it ideally be focused on how to carry the message more effectively? How can
we get closer to that ideal? We don’t pretend to have all of the answers, but let’s keep
talking about it and see if we can make some more progress together.”
Here we are, two years later, looking at a CAR with two and half times the number of
regional motions (ten; the 2008 CAR had four). It seems we have not made any
progress and may, in fact, have gone backward. We continue to encourage you to
discuss things with the board before determining to make a motion in the CAR. While
it’s true that sometimes we cannot come to a solution that satisfies all, often we can.
This year, many of these motions came as surprises to us. There was no effort on the
part of the region to bring up the subject in a call, an email, or face-to-face at a
workshop or zonal forum before sending in a draft motion. We would hope that a
motion would be a last resort after a region had attempted to discuss the issues with
the board. Let us know how we can we improve our communication and resolve more
of these issues outside of the CAR.

Motion 5: Direct NAWS to produce and add to inventory a purple decades clean
and granite decade clean key tag in English only.
Intent: To add two items for longer milestones of recovery to the keytags available from NAWS.
Maker: Show Me Region
Financial Impact: The dye costs for a new keytag are minimal. The cost to NAWS comes from
producing the items in bulk, warehousing the item in four locations, and managing
the inventory.
Policy Affected: None
Rationale by Region: Our region supports the production of additional keytags as it will give
those addicts with longer term recovery, either a decade, or decades clean, another
2010 CAR 37
tangible item marking that milestone. By having them produced by NAWS, the
impropriety of a “rogue” novelty item is removed, and at the same time, will provide
revenue from the sale of this item to our fellowship. As the last fellowship survey
indicated, the decade(s) clean milestone to be primarily an English speaking
milestone, we thought it prudent to start production of this item in English only.
World Board: See the explanation for Motion 6.

Motion 6: To add purple key tags for multiple decades of clean time to the NAWS
inventory.
Intent: To give recognition to addicts celebrating decades of clean time; at this time there is
no key tag to reflect multiple decades of clean time.
Maker: New Jersey Region
Financial Impact: None
Policy Affected: The dye costs for a new keytag are minimal. The cost to NAWS comes from
producing the items in bulk, warehousing the item in four locations, and managing
the inventory.
Rationale by Region: We are growing as a Fellowship, and now have many members with
multiple decades of clean time. Celebrating that through the giving of a key tag would
serve as an inspiration to everyone.
World Board: Over the years, we have received many ideas for keytags and medallions
including medallions for less cleantime, keytags for decades and multiple decades
clean, for being a GSR or trusted servant, for leadership, and a keytag stand or tree.
It is hard for us to know where to draw the line or what items represent a significant
desire on the part of the fellowship. At times, we have tried to satisfy requests for
inventory items in order to prevent regional motions, and then found those items we
produced in response to not be very popular. We still have examples of this sitting in
our warehouses. Besides the production costs associated with creating these items
in bulk, we also have costs to keep these items in our limited warehouse spaces in
multiple branches and keep track of the inventory each quarter. This does not seem
to be a prudent use of resources if there is no real fellowship demand. In this case,
we wonder whether the need or desire for a decades or multiple decades-clean
keytag may be sated given the large number in distribution already.
Of course, if there is a need in the fellowship, we can produce these items. What we
would like, however, is not to deal with this in the form of a motion but for the
fellowship to let us know what inventory items they wish us to carry for keytags. The
conference has repeatedly reaffirmed the idea that production issues related to
literature, keytags, and medallions should not be decided through the CAR. We would
prefer these types of issues be sent directly to the World Board, but we also know
that we do not have a good mechanism to assess fellowship desire. We welcome
your ideas on how we can improve this part of our communication process.
We would rather not take a piece-at-a-time approach to production of keytags, but
talk together about how to best satisfy the needs of the fellowship. The issue of
language, for instance, plays a part in these sorts of decisions. We produce keytags
38  2010 CAR
in forty-four languages and this number is increasing all the time. A decades-clean
keytag, or even a decade-clean keytag, would be unfair to language groups other
than English because they would most likely be unable to commit to a minimum
order amount that would be required for us to produce them.
We are not opposed to carrying any recovery-related items that the fellowship
actually wants. We hope those of you reviewing the CAR will share your ideas with
your delegate and that that delegates will be given the latitude to bring these ideas to
the WSC. We believe that together, through discussion, we can arrive at a decision
that will best serve our diverse fellowship.

Motion 7: To add a Spanish (Castilian) Line Numbered Large Print Basic Text, in
the current edition, to NAWS inventory.
Intent: To have a Spanish (Castilian) version of the Basic Text line numbered in large print
available.
Maker: Southern California Region
Financial Impact: The production costs for a different format of an existing translation are
low. The cost to NAWS comes from producing the item in bulk, warehousing the item
in four locations, and managing the inventory.
Policy Affected: None
Rationale by Region: To have a Spanish Version of the Line Numbered Basic Text will motivate
the primary purpose of carrying the message and promote unity through the study of the
spiritual principles of the Basic Text. This book format serves for the study of the steps at
a group level. When a chapter is chosen by the group conscience and each member
reads a numbered line until the chapter is finished, each member can focus on the
solution, taking notes of the numbers that they feel they most identify with just for that
day, and at the end commenting why they identify with those numbers. The principles of
the program contained on each line of the Basic Text are brought to life with the shared
experience of each member. This dynamic format is similar to the Basic Text manuscript
that helped to choose the original principles.
World Board: Our recommendation is not to adopt. The Spanish Basic Text is currently being
revised, and so this is not a logical time to think about producing the currently
published edition in any other formats or versions. The priorities for Spanish
translations are determined by the delegates of the Latin American Zonal Forum
when they meet at the conference every two years. At WSC 2008, these Spanishspeaking
delegates prioritized the Sixth Edition Basic Text for the Spanish translation
priority for this conference cycle. When this work is completed and approved, it will
be the first time the Spanish Basic Text will include personal stories. The work this
cycle will also correct items in the first ten chapters that were originally translated in
the early 1990s. Until this project is completed, it would not make sense to produce
an alternative version of a text that is currently under revision. It has taken many
years to arrive at a process that is both productive and acceptable to the majority of
Spanish-speaking NA communities which number more than twenty outside of North
America. The practice of the Spanish-speaking delegates at the WSC setting priorities
2010 CAR 39
and the LAZF establishing the review and approval body for Spanish-language
translations seems to be working. We simply ask that they retain the ability to set
priorities for the next pieces of literature to be translated or produced in Spanish and
that all requests and ideas be channeled through them.

Motion 8: The World Board is directed to develop a project plan for presentation to
WSC 2012 for a Traditions Working Guide.
Intent: The intent of this motion is to give the conference the ability to consider prioritizing
this guide as a future literature project.
Maker: California Mid-State Region
Financial Impact: There is minimal cost in creating a project plan. The cost to NAWS would
be in the project itself if the plan were adopted by the WSC.
Policy Affected: None
Rationale by Region: The purpose of this motion is to make a Narcotics Anonymous
Conference Approved written guidebook available following the style of our existing
Step Working Guide and as a companion piece to It Works that our members can use
when they work the Traditions of Narcotics Anonymous with their sponsor. A growing
number of members seem to have a desire to “work the Traditions” after they have
written their Twelve Steps.
World Board: Our recommendation is not to adopt. We have not surveyed the fellowship
about literature needs in more than five years (not since 2002), so the results of our
last survey may no longer be accurate. That said, the top responses then were
literature about relationships, something about spirituality, and something focusing
on recovery in day-to-day life, a topic that the “Living Clean” Project addresses. We do
not see a Traditions workbook as a priority at this time.
We hope to have some discussion about the literature development process at the
conference. Any ideas about our next priorities for literature creation or revision after
“Living Clean” would probably be best discussed in the broader context of a holistic
discussion about literature and our literature needs.

Motion 9: To direct the World Board to develop a project plan, for presentation to
WSC 2012, to revise Just for Today: Daily Meditations for Recovering Addicts by
replacing the thirteen quotes (and meditation passages if necessary) that were taken
from the Fifth Edition Basic Text and Youth and Recovery with current fellowship
approved NA literature.
Intent: To allow WSC 2012 to consider prioritization of this recovery literature project.
Maker: The Iowa Region
Financial Impact: There is minimal cost in creating a project plan. The cost to NAWS would
be in the project itself if the plan were adopted by the WSC.
40  2010 CAR
Policy Affected: This motion would amend the following section of the 2008 A Guide to World
Services in NA, page 43: Significant WSC Actions – 2008 WSC Old Business:
Unanimously adopted approving the removal of the specific source citations in Just for Today
for versions of literature no longer in print and to include, at the beginning of the book, an
explanation that quotes without a citation are from previous versions of NA literature. Also to
approve the use of a footnote in the foreword to Just for Today to update the reference to the
Fifth Edition of the Basic Text.
Rationale by Region: The Iowa Region believes that the Just for Today meditation book
should only include current fellowship approved literature for the daily passages. We
understand the rationale of Motion 4 that was passed at WSC 2008, however, we
believe that with the approval of our Sixth Edition Basic Text we will not be amending
that piece of literature in the near future, and, since the Just For Today is widely used
by our fellowship, we feel that it would be a benefit to be able to reference all of the
quotations that are in the Just for Today to current fellowship approved literature.
World Board: Our recommendation is not to adopt. The 2008 conference unanimously
adopted a motion that seems like the most practical approach to this issue. The
conference unanimously decided by a motion in the CAR to remove source citations
from the quotations in the Just for Today book that come from literature no longer in
print. Just for Today contains quotations from nine different pieces of NA literature, the
Basic Text and eight IPs. The book was impacted in 2004 when the Sponsorship IP
was revised and again in 2008 when the Sixth Edition Basic Text was approved. Given
that so many pieces of literature are quoted within the book, it is not inconceivable that
it might be affected again in the near future. We currently produce Just for Today in
eleven (11) languages and still have one language version that has the old cover and
does not contain the revisions to the book that were made in 2004. The constant
revision of existing literature is not something that we can keep up with in literature
produced in thirty-nine (39) languages which is the primary reason why the conference
decided to eliminate the practice with this book.
Further, a project to revise even part of the Just for Today book would take resources
away from other possible literature projects, and this revision does not seem like a high
enough priority to justify that use of resources. If the ideas and input we have received
are any indication of the fellowship’s desire, it seems that a new daily meditation book
would be a higher priority than this revision.

Motion 10: The World Board will post on the NAWS Website the motions that
pertain to the Conference Approval Track at the same time the Conference
Approval Track is sent out to Conference Participants.
Intent: To provide Pre-WSC awareness to our Elected Trusted Servants well in advance about
the World Board’s upcoming agenda.
Maker: South Florida Region
Financial Impact: The cost of posting additional information on our website would be low.
Policy Affected: This motion would amend the following section of the 2008 A Guide to World
Services in NA, page 35, Approval Processes for NA Material, by adding the language
shown as underlined:
2010 CAR 41
Conference Approved
NA Handbooks and service booklets are Conference Approved. This means they may or may not
have been sent out for review and input according to the specifics of the project plan presented to
the WSC and are always included in the Conference Approval Track material for approval at the
upcoming WSC. These pieces tend to convey NA’s fundamental ideas about certain areas of service.
Both Conference Approved and World Board Approved material is intended to show how to
implement or put into practice the principles established by core NA philosophy and Fellowship
Approved material. The World Board may decide that some change in Conference Approved service
material is so significant that it should be included in the Conference Agenda Report but the piece
will still be designated as Conference Approved. This has happened in the past with both A Guide to
World Services in NA, The Group Booklet, and A Guide to Local Services in NA.
Adopted at WSC 2000, this designation came about partly as the result of years of input from
members and groups regarding the types of issues they were being asked to review in the CAR.
Establishing Conference Approved material as a separate approval track means that materials
intended for committees and boards, such as handbooks or service manuals, are distributed
directly to conference participants 90 days before the WSC allowing time for the regional
delegates to workshop it in a manner that fits within their local community. The wording for all
motions pertaining to the Conference Approval Track material is also posted on na.org at the
same time. Each local community can determine for itself how the material will be reviewed
and how to direct their regional delegate. As the 2000 CAR explains,“This frees up our
members and groups to devote their attention to holding meetings and carrying the message of
recovery, without having to ratify every decision made on their behalf at every level of service.”
Rationale by Region: A Discussion-Based Conference is directly dependent on the quality of
discussions that have taken place between the Delegates and the Fellowship prior to
attending the Conference. At the WSC Delegates are bombarded with a tremendous
amount of information and are expected to make snap decisions, without having
time to consider the far-reaching implications. The 6th Concept reminds us that our
members bring the spiritual awakening of our 12 Steps directly to the resolution of
issues affecting NA. Inclusion of the motions may stimulate discussions that might
not have taken place, thus enabling delegates to collect the conscience of those
members that have been elected to serve on our Boards and Service committees.
World Board: Our recommendation is not to adopt. At the last conference, a similar motion
was made, “to direct the World Board to include in the CAT the actual language of all
motions they plan to make relative to the material contained in the CAT.” The motion
failed, but it did have some level of support, and we have discussed the idea as a
board and tried to engage delegates with this idea beginning with the January 2009
NAWS News. We aren’t sure whether posting motions about the Conference Approval
Track material will be helpful or not. The Conference Approval Track material already
includes a simple-to-copy cover that briefly summarizes all items, and conceptually that
cover is perhaps not that far from what this motion is asking for. In fact, us putting this
motion into practice simply means turning the bulleted list of items contained in the
cover sheet to the CAT into actual motion language which is typically as simple as: “to
adopt ____.” Putting the ideas on the summary sheet into motion form may actually
reduce the amount of information. The strategic plan, for instance, doesn’t require a
motion and so would not be included in a motion summary, and the description of the
items currently contained in the summary would also be lost. We have tried to limit the
length of this cover page so that delegates can easily copy and distribute it.
Another downside of this approach is that it seems to put the emphasis on the
motions themselves rather than on the ideas that need to be discussed at the time
the CAT material is released. The conference has been moving increasingly toward
42  2010 CAR
consensus-based decision making, and this seems like a possible step backward in
that regard. Throughout the course of CAR workshops and the conference week
itself, we discuss this material together, and sometimes our thinking evolves as we
share ideas. We do not want to implement a policy that hinders that evolution. Nor
would we want for groups to feel obligated to take a conscience on the CAT material.
The Conference Approval Track mailing was created because groups felt the CAR had
so much material beyond their interest, it was hard to get members to be interested
and to discuss and vote on the material. (See page 5 for more information on the
CAT.) We do not want to take a step backward in that regard, either. We still plan to
try this in January as we have previously reported, however, and to ask delegates at
WSC 2010 if this is something that helped them.

Motion 11: The World Board will post on na.org all recovery literature workgroup
meeting records in English within 30 days of any workgroup meeting. The World
Board will also link these postings to any project resources: such as the projects
discussion board, or similar resource. This post will include the project’s timeline
and a schedule of workgroup meetings. The WB will also post their meeting
schedule & have the discretion to post an overview of the literature development
process or any other additional information.
Intent: To provide additional communication and information about recovery literature
projects to the fellowship.
Maker: Greater New York Region
Financial Impact: Because this issue is so complex, we are unable to determine financial
impact at this time.
Policy Affected: This motion would amend the following section of the 2008 A Guide to World
Services in NA, page 13, World Service Conference Publications, by adding the
language of the motion to this section:
World Service Conference Publications
NA World Services produces several different publications in an effort to provide frequent and
regular written communications. While each of these publications has a specific distribution
list, copies are always available to any member by contacting the World Service Office and often
also on the website, www.na.org.
NAWS News
NAWS News is a short, easily translatable report that is published several times each year. It
was created to allow the World Board to regularly report, particularly after its meetings. It is
distributed to areas, regions, and conference participants in multiple languages.
Rationale by Region: Having the literature workgroups records online with a link to a
discussion board monitored by the World Board will give the fellowship an
opportunity to input earlier in the decision-making process. E-blasts are another
resource so that RDs can quickly pass information along to their literature
committees, etc. This additional transparency will create more unity between the
workgroups, World Board and Fellowship. This would be a tremendous help in
effectively bringing the interested parties of the fellowship together. An overview of
the development process included with the records would allow members and
2010 CAR 43
committees to better understand how the records are used, helping to communicate
more effectively through the discussion boards. We hope, one day these records will
be available in other languages, translatable similar to NAWS News and The NA Way.
World Board: Our recommendation is not to adopt. This is one of those that may sound like a
good idea but in fact is more likely to lead to misinformation and confusion.
Workgroups are a delegated body of the board. The board oversees and has authority
for all of the projects. We do this by presenting the project idea to the conference,
seeking the conference’s concurrence, creating the workgroups, providing them with
the scope of their task, and then receiving regular progress updates and reports.
NAWS workgroups do not set deadlines or make final decisions about their work.
These sorts of decisions and timelines come from the World Board when we meet and
consider the needs and timelines of all of the current projects and reporting needed.
Currently, meeting records are written to capture discussions in progress and are not a
record of decisions and are not worded in a way that would mean much to those not in
attendance. The WB does not ask for or receive workgroup records because they are
simply a summary of details for the workgroup in their attempts to create some written
piece of work. We do not want the workgroups to focus on making their records
understandable to others, but prefer that they focus solely on the task they were
assigned and on preparing the best possible piece for fellowship review. Even reading
the WB minutes would not lead to the ideal that is expressed in this motion.
The relevant information related to deadlines and timelines is already published.
NAWS goes to great expense to produce a quarterly update of all NAWS activity
following each board meeting. This is contained in NAWS News, which is produced in
English, French, Portuguese, German, Spanish, and Swedish. All official decisions,
deadlines, project updates, the NAWS calendar, and other news are contained in this
publication so that as many people as possible understand the same reporting of
NAWS activity at the same time. Our challenges do not seem to arise from too little
information but rather from challenges in communicating. NAWS News began to
announce the review and input dates of March to May 2009 for the review of Self-
Support and In Times of Illness in the November 2008 NAWS News. This was when
the work of several workgroups had progressed to the point where we were certain
we could actually be prepared to release this material for review. This information
would not have been accurately conveyed in any workgroup records.
Increasing the volume of information—and including along with it much
misinformation—would not alleviate the most frequent challenge we hear about from
members, including delegates: that they have too much information to process. On
the contrary, this seems like a resource-intensive way to make that problem worse.
As we discuss further below, we continue to try new things to improve engagement
and communication. We hope to have a holistic discussion about literature
development and how to improve our processes and move forward together.

Motion 12: To add language to the end of the Approval Process for Recovery
Material section of GWSNA, page 36, that says, “No more than two informational
pamphlets or one booklet or one book-length piece will be out for Fellowship review
and input at the same time.”
44  2010 CAR
Intent: To limit the number of pieces of recovery literature out for Review and Input at the
same time.
Maker: FreeState Region
Financial Impact: Since there are so many variables for the impact of this motion, we are
unable to determine financial impact at this time.
Policy Affected: This motion would amend the following section of the 2008 A Guide to World
Services in NA, page 36, Approval Processes for Recovery Material, by adding the
language of the motion to the end of #1 under Review Form Literature, as shown as
underlined:
Approval Process for Recovery Literature
Note: Policies regarding recovery literature are also contained in the Fellowship Intellectual
Property Trust (FIPT).
A. Review-form Literature
1. Literature developed by the World Board is sent out for a review period before the
development of an approval-form draft. The time and method of this review, considering
translations, is determined by the World Board based on the needs of the fellowship and the
piece in development. No more than two informational pamphlets or one booklet or one booklength
piece will be out for Fellowship review and input at the same time
2. Review-form literature is not for use or display in NA meetings.
Rationale by Region: This motion allows literature projects the individual focus and attention
they need to result in quality pieces of approved literature. Releasing more pieces of
literature for Review and Input than allowed in the motion can cause literature
projects to compete with one another (ie: in 2009, in a single 90-day period we
reviewed "Giving It Away" (2 pages), "In Times of Illness" (25 pages) and "Keeping It"
(7 pages).
World Board: Our recommendation is not to adopt. This motion and the two that follow are
part of a much bigger discussion and set of issues about literature development and
how to best improve the processes we use to create, communicate about, and
approve literature.
The challenge that we have to discuss is how to create literature that allows the
fellowship’s voice to be reflected and is also something that can be practically developed
in the conference cycle system we have. Currently we plan one conference cycle for the
creation of an IP or booklet and two conference cycles for a book-length piece. To require
two conference cycles and the resultant cost for an IP and at least three conference
cycles for any longer piece of literature is not something we believe can be sustained or
that really serves the fellowship. We are not trying to sacrifice quality for speed or cost,
but the longer time frames have not seemed to result in greater fellowship participation.
We would like to discuss what is a reasonable time period for the development of
recovery literature and then talk about how to get fellowship participation and how long
we need for both review and input and approval.
For this past cycle, the overlap of the review and input period was purposeful. It
seemed to be a reasonable approach to try to focus people on one time period rather
than overlapping periods with different deadlines. We purposely did not send out any
portions of “Living Clean” until the review period for In Times of Illness and Self-
Support were finished. Regardless of how many pieces were out for review and input at
2010 CAR 45
the same time this cycle or the length of the review, we received approximately 100
responses. No matter what we do, the response is low. There seems to be no value in
extending the review period. Our challenge as a fellowship seems to be getting the
word out with adequate time before the beginning of a review period, not necessarily
that there is inadequate time during that period. With advance planning, ninety days
seems like plenty of time to read fewer than 35 pages of material and give input. We
welcome any thoughts about how to improve communication so that communities and
members can plan ahead for review material.
At the same time, the online survey that we tried for “Living Clean” resulted in 947
responses, 59 of those in Spanish. And the online discussion board for “Living Clean”
has, as of 1 October, 480 registered members. Similarly, more than twice as many
people submitted stories for the Basic Text project as participated during the review
and input period. So perhaps this response tells us we need to find ways to engage our
members earlier in the process, where the possible impact on a piece of literature is
even greater, rather than focusing everything around review and input or approval,
where participation is limited to commenting or voting on an already developed draft.
We are not certain, but it gives us more information and ideas to discuss together at
WSC 2010.
In a two-year conference cycle, the actual time to develop a piece of literature is tighter
than you might think. The World Board does not approve the new workgroups and
charges for their work until at least ninety days after the conference. Then there is a
six-month approval window at the end of the project (one year for book-length pieces),
which leaves a little over one year to have a new group come together and create a
draft, for the board to oversee that work and its revision, to send the material out for a
90-day review period, and then factor in fellowship input and create an approval draft.
The longer the review period, the shorter the time we can devote to development.
We would much prefer to have the conference discuss what our fellowship needs and
desires to have for the entire literature development and approval process. Taking a
piecemeal approach means we are trying to deal with a system through motions that
affect only details of that system. Any one of the ideas contained in these regional
motions may seem like something we want, but unless we discuss the entire
development and approval system and move forward together, we will not be
creating the most responsive and effective process we can to serve our fellowship in
the future. Like most things in NA, it is not just one perspective, ours on the board or
any single region’s, that will ultimately lead us to the best solution we can find. It is
from our collective ideas that we can best move forward.

Motion 13: To add language to the end of the Approval Process for Recovery
Material section of GWSNA, page 36, that says, “Review and Input periods will be at
least six months for informational pamphlets and booklets and at least one year for
book-length pieces of literature.”
Intent: To establish a new minimum timeframe for Review and Input of recovery literature.
Maker: FreeState Region
46  2010 CAR
Financial Impact: Since there are so many variables for the impact of this motion, we are
unable to determine financial impact at this time.
Policy Affected: This motion would amend the following section of the 2008 A Guide to World
Services in NA, page 36, Approval Processes for Recovery Material, by adding the
language of the motion to the end of #1 under Review Form Literature, as shown as
underlined:
Approval Process for Recovery Literature
Note: Policies regarding recovery literature are also contained in the Fellowship Intellectual
Property Trust (FIPT).
A. Review-form Literature
1. Literature developed by the World Board is sent out for a review period before the
development of an approval-form draft. The time and method of this review, considering
translations, is determined by the World Board based on the needs of the fellowship and the
piece in development. Review and Input periods will be at least six months for informational
pamphlets and booklets and at least one year for book-length pieces of literature.
2. Review-form literature is not for use or display in NA meetings.
Rationale by Region: This motion provides a more realistic timeframe for the Fellowship to
communicate about literature projects, organize stable Review and Input groups,
build enthusiasm about participation, and include more members. Although
information for upcoming literature projects is available in advance, increasing the
timeframe allows for the realistic delay in communication and organization that often
occurs within our service structure. Extra time allows the process to focus on
literature, rather than the timeline itself. This motion increases total project timelines
to several conference cycles, but we currently have plenty of viable literature to
support our Fellowship. We can better serve our members by creating quality, welldeveloped
literature, allowing for multiple opportunities to participate in the same
project, and being more inclusive of newer members to become familiar with the
process. It also allows a greater cushion for rearranging scheduled workshops in case
deadlines are moved up unexpectedly (ie: “Living Clean” survey, 2009).
World Board: Our recommendation is not to adopt. See the explanation for Motion 12.

Motion 14: To require a 180-day review and input period for Fellowship Approved,
Conference Approved, or World Board Approved material.
Intent: To create a new review and input requirement for Conference Approved material and
World Board Approved Service tools, PR material, bulletins, and other material and to
extend the existing review and input period for Fellowship Approved material and
World Board Approved Service Pamphlets.
Maker: New Jersey Region
Financial Impact: Since there are so many variables for the impact of this motion, we are
unable to determine financial impact at this time.
Policy Affected: This motion would amend the following section of the 2008 A Guide to World
Services in NA, page 35, Approval Processes for NA Material, and page 36, Approval
Processes for Recovery Material, as shown as underlined:
2010 CAR 47
Approval Processes for NA Material
There are three types of approval processes for NA World Services and they are noted on each
piece when it is published. Those three processes are called Fellowship Approved, Conference
Approved, and World Board Approved. The conference typically establishes the approval
process to be used when it approves the project plan at the WSC.
Fellowship Approved
As covered in the following section on the approval process for recovery literature, all NA recovery
material is Fellowship Approved. This means that it is developed by NA World Services, sent out to
the fellowship for review and input, and ultimately sent out for approval by the fellowship in the
Conference Agenda Report. The specifics for each piece of Fellowship Approved recovery literature
are covered in the project plan for each piece that is presented and approved by the World Service
Conference before work is begun. This applies to all recovery books, recovery booklets, and recovery
pamphlets as well as material that establishes or changes philosophical position or NA principles.
NA Fellowship Approved recovery material is typically the only thing that is read in NA meetings.
Conference Approved
NA Handbooks and service booklets are Conference Approved. This means they have been sent
out for a 180-day review and input period This means they may or may not have been sent out for
review and input according to the specifics of the project plan presented to the WSC and are
always included in the Conference Approval Track material for approval at the upcoming WSC.
These pieces tend to convey NA’s fundamental ideas about certain areas of service. Both
Conference Approved and World Board Approved material is intended to show how to implement
or put into practice the principles established by core NA philosophy and Fellowship Approved
material. The World Board may decide that some change in Conference Approved service material
is so significant that it should be included in the Conference Agenda Report but the piece will still
be designated as Conference Approved. This has happened in the past with both A Guide to World
Services in NA, The Group Booklet, and A Guide to Local Services in NA.
Adopted at WSC 2000, this designation came about partly as the result of years of input from
members and groups regarding the types of issues they were being asked to review in the CAR.
Establishing Conference Approved material as a separate approval track means that materials
intended for committees and boards, such as handbooks or service manuals, are distributed
directly to conference participants 90 days before the WSC allowing time for the regional
delegates to workshop it in a manner that fits within their local community. Each local
community can determine for itself how the material will be reviewed and how to direct their
regional delegate. As the 2000 CAR explains, “This frees up our members and groups to devote
their attention to holding meetings and carrying the message of recovery, without having to
ratify every decision made on their behalf at every level of service.”
World Board Approved
At WSC 2006, the conference decided that the World Board could approve and publish a
number of informational pieces. This included revisions to Chapters 10-13 of the PR Handbook
and the Area Planning Tool, as well as development and approval of service related
informational pamphlets and tools. At WSC 2008, Chapters 5-9 of the PR Handbook were also
made adaptable by the World Board. These service related informational pamphlets and tools
contain practical experience gathered from the fellowship about how to apply some of the
principles contained in NA Fellowship and Conference Approved material. They are usually the
result of the Fellowship Issue Discussions or contain a compilation of material already being
distributed to the fellowship upon request, which was the case with the Area Planning Tool.
All service related informational pamphlets, whether Conference Approved or World Board
Approved, are easily distinguishable from recovery pamphlets by their appearance and should
be used by members, groups, and service committees as a resource rather than being read in
an NA Meeting. Before approval and distribution, Service Pamphlets will be sent out to
conference participants for a 180-day 90 day review and input. Service tools, PR material,
bulletins, and other material will continue to be developed and approved by the World Board.
The World Board has long been able to approve bulletins but these bulletins only had limited
distribution to those who knew that they were available. The advantage of this approval process
for informational pamphlets is that material is made readily available, and can be easily
changed or pulled from inventory if there are concerns.
48  2010 CAR
Approval Process for Recovery Literature
Note: Policies regarding recovery literature are also contained in the Fellowship Intellectual
Property Trust (FIPT).
A. Review-form Literature
1. Literature developed by the World Board is sent out for a 180-day 90 day review period
before the development of an approval-form draft. The time and method of this review,
considering translations, is determined by the World Board based on the needs of the
fellowship and the piece in development.
2. Review-form literature is not for use or display in NA meetings.
Rationale by Region: The amount of time currently allotted is not adequate for the amount of
literature being produced. Our fellowship is growing in leaps and bounds. In order to
reach enough of our members so our worldwide experience, strength and hope can
be tapped and utilized, we need more time to carry the message. We can not afford
to be mass-producing literature at such a high rate of speed. After all it is the viability
of our literature and the passion that goes into its construction that encourages
those and saves addicts’ lives.
World Board: Our recommendation is not to adopt. Currently there are three different
development processes for NA literature and service material, Fellowship Approved,
Conference Approved, and Board Approved. All NA recovery material is Fellowship
Approved. Handbooks and service manuals are Conference Approved, and Board
Approved materials are service-related items that contain practical experience about
how to apply some of the principles established in Fellowship and Conference Approved
material. Typically, the conference establishes the type of approval process when they
approve a project. These distinctions were created for a reason. These are different
types of materials and they should not all be subject to the same development or
approval process. In the case of Board Approved material, for instance, often these tools
or pamphlets simply contain information already distributed by world services upon
request. It does not seem beneficial to subject them to the same lengthy review period
as a piece of recovery literature. The idea with this material is that it can easily be
changed and modified based on experience and fellowship input which can be
submitted at any time. Much of the practice with Conference approved material has
evolved over the last ten years and varies greatly depending on the project. The PR
Handbook, for example, was sent out for fellowship review in three stages. The original
motivation with the Conference Approval Track seemed to be to get much of the
conference’s policies out of the CAR. This approval process has evolved over time with
most, if not all, of the actions to expand this process coming from regions and delegates
rather than NAWS. The conference policy that created these three categories was
discussed at the conference, sent out to delegates for review, and ultimately amended
on the floor of the conference after discussion. This type of flexibility is something that
the conference has chosen to increase over the years rather than to restrict. The World
Board spent four years trying to capture the distinctions among these different
development tracks after lengthy discussions with delegates, and the new policy was
overwhelmingly adopted at the last conference. This motion seeks to erase these
distinctions without making it clear what the real problem is or what is really motivating
this change. Again, we would like to have a discussion about what is working and what
can be improved that serves us all rather than attempting to tweak pieces of this
process.
2010 CAR 49
WSC 2010 Summary Sheet:
Motions and Other Issues to Be Discussed
World Board Motions
Motion 1: To approve “A Vision for NA Service” stated below to replace the existing “NA World
Services Vision Statement.”
Maker: World Board, page 13
Motion 2: To approve the draft contained in Addendum A, Money Matters: Self-Support in NA, to
replace the existing IPs #24 “Hey! What’s the Basket For?” and #25 Self-Support: Principle & Practice.
Maker: World Board, page 24
Motion 3: To approve the draft contained in Addendum B, Funding NA Services, as a Conference
Approved pamphlet.
Maker: World Board, page 24
Motion 4: To approve the revisions to In Times of Illness contained in Addendum C.
Maker: World Board, page 25
Regional Motions
Motion 5: Direct NAWS to produce and add to inventory a purple decades clean and granite decade
clean key tag in English only.
Maker: Show Me Region, page 36
Motion 6: To add purple key tags for multiple decades of clean time to the NAWS inventory
Maker: New Jersey Region, page 37
Motion 7: To add a Spanish (Castilian) Line Numbered Large Print Basic Text, in the current edition,
to NAWS inventory.
Maker: Southern California Region, page 38
Motion 8: The World Board is directed to develop a project plan for presentation to WSC 2012 for a
Traditions Working Guide.
Maker: California Mid-State Region, page 39
Motion 9: To direct the World Board to develop a project plan, for presentation to WSC 2012, to
revise Just for Today: Daily Meditations for Recovering Addicts by replacing the thirteen quotes (and
meditation passages if necessary) that were taken from the Fifth Edition Basic Text and Youth and
Recovery with current fellowship approved NA literature.
Maker: The Iowa Region, page 39
Motion 10: The World Board will post on the NAWS Website the motions that pertain to the
Conference Approval Track at the same time the Conference Approval Track is sent out to
Conference Participants.
Maker: South Florida Region, page 40
Motion 11: The World Board will post on na.org all recovery literature workgroup meeting records in
English within 30 days of any workgroup meeting. The World Board will also link these postings to
any project resources: such as the projects discussion board, or similar resource. This post will
include the project’s timeline and a schedule of workgroup meetings. The WB will also post their
50  2010 CAR
meeting schedule & have the discretion to post an overview of the literature development process or
any other additional information.
Maker: Greater New York Region, page 42
Motion 12: To add language to the end of the Approval Process for Recovery Material section of
GWSNA, page 36, that says, “No more than two informational pamphlets or one booklet or one booklength
piece will be out for Fellowship review and input at the same time.”
Maker: FreeState Region, page 43
Motion 13: To add language to the end of the Approval Process for Recovery Material section of
GWSNA, page 36, that says, “Review and Input periods will be at least six months for informational
pamphlets and booklets and at least one year for book-length pieces of literature.”
Maker: FreeState Region, page 45
Motion 14: To require a 180-day review and input period for Fellowship Approved, Conference
Approved, or World Board Approved material.
Maker: New Jersey Region, page 46
Other Issues that Will Be Discussed at WSC 2010
Those of you who read and discuss the CAR every two years will remember that the past several
CARs have contained discussion questions, usually about the Issue Discussion Topics. This year, we
don’t have any particular questions to ask about the IDTs, but we are trying something new here on
this summary page in briefly mentioning some of the other issues that we know will be discussed at
the conference. We encourage you to read the related essays in this CAR.
Service System (page 8)
At WSC 2010, we will be discussing options for improved service delivery throughout all
components of our service system: structure, process, people, and resources. We want to forward
these discussions through the 2010–2012 cycle. We encourage everyone to read the essay on
page 8 to gain all of the background information and share your ideas with your delegate so that
we can have fruitful discussions at the conference and beyond.
NAWS Resources (page 17)
We have all been affected by the economic downturn, some of us more directly than others. In this CAR
we discuss NAWS resources, and the Annual Report provides more detailed information. We are
continuing to seek ways to cut costs at world services while reducing the impact on service delivery as
much as possible. One of the items we will discuss with conference participants is The NA Way
Magazine. We understand there is some benefit from this magazine to our members and to NAWS, yet
we are aware of the waste that comes from automatic distribution of paper copies to all registered NA
groups. We would like to discuss possible solutions with conference participants and to try changes in
distribution before making any changes to policy. Please read the essay on page 17 and help your
delegate come ready to discuss our NA Way distribution practices.
Literature Development (page 28)
Several of the regional motions in this CAR focus on some aspect of the literature development
process. We hope to have a more holistic discussion at the conference about the literature
development process, including how to more effectively involve interested members. How realistic
is our current review and input process with our worldwide membership, and does this process
positively affect our literature? Does a lengthy approval process make sense when approval is
simply a “yes” or “no” for a completed work? What literature processes would serve us best today
and in the future? We look forward to discussing all of these issues at the conference. Please read
the essay on page 28 and share your thoughts with your delegate.
This form can also be completed or updated online at www.na.org (June 2009)
World Pool Information Form
Thank you for your interest in entering the World Pool. Please provide us with the following information.
If at some point you are considered for service, you may be asked for additional information.
Please type or print legibly and return to:
Human Resource Panel, NA World Services, Inc., 19737 Nordhoff Place, Chatsworth, CA 91311 USA,
or Fax to: (818) 700-0700.
Today's Date:
Month _______ Day ______ Year _______ Is this your:  First Submission or  Update
General Service Interest - Mark your preference based on your interest, skills, and background. You may
choose one or both options. Those selecting only NA World Service Projects will not be considered for HRP
nominations to the World Service Conference (WSC).
 World Board, Human Resource Panel, or WSC Cofacilitator  NA World Service Projects
Contact Information
Name: ______________________________________ Clean Date: ___________/__________/__________
Month Day Year
Address: ___________________________________________________________________________________
City:________________________________________State/Province: __________________________________
Postal/Zip Code: ______________________________Country: _______________________________________
Home Phone: ________________________________Fax: ___________________________________________
Email Address: ______________________________________________________________________________
Your Region: _______________________________________________________________________________
Relevant Education, Occupation, and Life Experiences - Please provide information
regarding any relevant educational background, occupational skills, or life experiences.
Education:
Occupation:
Life Experience:
This form can also be completed or updated online at www.na.org (June 2009)
Language - For each language, please indicate your skill level as FLUENT, AVERAGE, or MINIMUM by
marking the appropriate boxes. Include all languages that apply.
Language This is my 1st
Language Can Write Can Read Can Speak
 Yes  No  Fluent  Average
 Minimum
 Fluent  Average
 Minimum
 Fluent  Average
 Minimum
 Yes  No  Fluent  Average
 Minimum
 Fluent  Average
 Minimum
 Fluent  Average
 Minimum
 Yes  No  Fluent  Average
 Minimum
 Fluent  Average
 Minimum
 Fluent  Average
 Minimum
Service History - Please write the total number of years of service at each level of service in the “Total
Years Served” box below. Please check mark the boxes next to the positions served.
World Service
Total Years Served
Experience at that level:
(Check all boxes that apply)
Ad Hoc/Focus
Group/Workgroup
Human Resource Panel
NAWS Development Travel
NAWS Public Relations
Resource
Pre-1998 WSC Committees
or Boards
Regional Delegate/ Alternate
Delegate
Special Worker
World Board
WSC Cofacilitator
Zonal Service
Total Years Served
Experience at that level:
(Check all boxes that apply)
Fellowship Development
Other Zonal Service
Translations
Website
Zonal Forum Admin
Convention / Corporation /
Service Office
Total Years Served
Experience at that level:
(Check all boxes that apply)
Board of Directors (BOD)
Committee Member
Executive Committee
Special Worker
Volunteer
Area/Regional Service
Total Years Served
Experience at that level:
(Check all boxes that apply)
ASC/RSC Admin
Events/Activities
Fellowship Development
Group Service
Representative
Hospitals & Institutions
Literature
Outreach
Phone/Helpline
Public Information
Public Relations
Policy
Regional Committee Member
Translations
Website
Service Preferences - Please list the top two most fulfilling service positions/responsibilities from above.
Service Position / Responsibility:
Why was it fulfilling?
Service Position / Responsibility:
Why was it fulfilling?
2010 CAR 53
Glossary
Biennial
Occurring every two years.
Candidate Profile Reports (CPRs)
A packet containing information (individual reports) on each candidate nominated by
the Human Resource Panel for consideration for election by the WSC. These reports
are intended to assist conference participants in their evaluations of candidates.
Conference Agenda Report (CAR)
A publication that consists of business and issues that will be considered during the
biennial WSC meeting. The CAR is released a minimum of 150 days prior to the
opening of the conference, with translated versions released a minimum of 120 days
prior. The front portion of the CAR, in all the languages in which it is published, is
available at no charge on the Web at http://www.na.org.conference.
Conference Approval Track (CAT)
A term used to describe items sent to conference participants ninety (90) days prior to
the World Service Conference. Included are any proposals for seating of regions, the
draft budget and project plans for the upcoming conference cycle, and any material
being presented for consideration under the service-material approval process.
Conference Approved
NA handbooks and service booklets that tend to convey NA’s fundamental ideas about
certain areas of service. These pieces may or may not have been sent out for review
and input according to the specifics of the project plan presented to the WSC, and are
always included in the Conference Approval Track material for approval at the
upcoming WSC. Both Conference Approved and World Board Approved material is
intended to show how to implement or put into practice the principles established by
core NA philosophy and Fellowship Approved.
Conference Cycle
The two years between conferences. For the current conference cycle, that refers to
the two fiscal years running from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2010.
Conference Participants
For the purposes of decision making, conference participants are defined as regional
delegates and World Board members. Only delegates vote on old business items that
have appeared in the Conference Agenda Report.
Conference Report
The full report of all world service activities sent to WSC participants; delegates and
regions may also have reports published. Mailed to conference participants and
subscribers and also posted at www.na.org. March issue customarily contains board,
HRP, and regional reports.
Environmental Scan
An environmental scan is part of a strategic planning process. In NAWS every two
years, preliminary to the creation of our strategic plan, we look at internal and external
54  2010 CAR
factors that might influence the work we are able to accomplish or that we wish to take
on or prioritize.
Fellowship Approved
As explained in GWSNA: “All NA recovery material is Fellowship Approved. This means
that it is developed by NA World Services, sent out to the fellowship for review and
input, and ultimately sent out for approval by the fellowship in the Conference Agenda
Report.... This applies to all recovery books, recovery booklets, and recovery pamphlets
as well as material that establishes or changes philosophical position or NA principles.”
Fellowship Development:
We engage in a large variety of activities that are directed to members and/or
designed to help NA communities in their efforts to carry the message and to further
our primary purpose and vision. This includes, but is certainly not limited to,
publications like The NA Way and Reaching Out, fellowship workshops, public relations
activities, answering emails and calls with questions from members, and free or
reduced-cost literature. We refer to all of this activity as fellowship development since
that is the purpose.
Fellowship Intellectual Property Trust (FIPT)
A legal trust that serves as custodian for NA's recovery literature and logos
(trademarks). The document creating the FIPT is called a trust instrument; it explains
how NA’s literature and trademarks are managed and protected for the benefit of the
fellowship as a whole. Approved by the fellowship in April 1993.
Guide to Local Services in Narcotics Anonymous, A (GLS)
A service handbook, approved in 1997, intended to serve as a resource for NA groups,
areas, regions, and their subcommittees in establishing and providing local services.
Guide to World Services in NA, A (GWSNA)
A compilation of policy decisions that have been approved by the World Service
Conference, including WSC guidelines. The name was changed from A Temporary
Working Guide to Our World Service Structure (TWGWSS) in 2002. TWGSS, its
precursor, was first published in 1983 as the temporary successor to the NA Service
Manual (a.k.a. The NA Tree), which in turn was first published in 1976.
Human Resource Panel (HRP)
Provides the World Service Conference with a list of qualified candidates for election to
the World Board, the Human Resource Panel, and the WSC Cofacilitator positions. Is
also responsible to administer the World Pool. Consists of four individuals elected by
the WSC.
IP
Acronym for informational pamphlet.
Issue Discussion Topics
Specific topics selected by the WSC that concern the fellowship as a whole, to be
discussed by the fellowship during the next conference cycle.
2010 CAR 55
“Living Clean”
This is an ongoing literature project that is working on a book-length piece about our
daily lives as recovering addicts with topics ranging from “our physical selves” to “living
spiritually.” The approval draft will be published in April 2011.
NA Way Magazine, The
Published quarterly, The NA Way Magazine currently offers articles about service,
recovery-oriented stories, and entertainment, as well as a calendar of international NA
events. Available by request in English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, and German, and
posted at www.na.org.
NAWS
Refers to Narcotics Anonymous World Services, the legal name for world services.
NAWS News
A newsletter sent out by the World Board after each board meeting reporting on their
current activities. Published in English, French, German, Portuguese, and Spanish.
Sent to all conference participants, registered areas, and regions and posted at
www.na.org.
Project Plan
Developed by the World Board for all prospective, non-routine world service projects.
Includes the proposed scope of the project, budget, and timeline. Included in the
Conference Approval Track material as part of the budget.
Public Relations
Creating and maintaining relationships with members, professionals, families, and
loved ones in an effort to more effectively carry the message of recovery.
RBZs
Candidates for world service positions who have been put forward to the Human
Resource Panel for their consideration by regions, the World Board, or zones. These
potential candidates are interviewed by the HRP separate from and after any initial
blind screening process.
Regional Assembly
A gathering of group service representatives (GSRs) and regional committee members
(RCMs), conducted by the RSC, to discuss issues affecting NA worldwide, usually in
preparation for the biennial WSC meeting. The regional delegate is sometimes elected
at the assembly.
Regional Delegate (RD)
Attends the WSC as a voting delegate from an NA region (or equivalent service body).
Is responsible to help communicate between the region and world services throughout
the conference cycle.
Regional Service Committee (RSC)
A body that draws together the combined service experience of a number of adjoining
areas for the mutual support of those areas. Composed of RCMs, the regional
delegate, alternate delegate, and others as needed.
56  2010 CAR
Service System
The service system in NA consists of four main components: people, processes,
resources, and structure. One of our current projects is focused on creating and
framing a discussion about alternatives or improvements to our current service
system.
Service Pamphlets
A pamphlet intended for use as a resource for groups and service bodies covering
some topic related to service in NA. These pamphlets are developed and approved by
the World Board, who can also revise them at any time. They are the board’s best
attempt at collecting some of the more successful practices in our fellowship in
dealing with sensitive or difficult topics.
Strategic Plan
A long-term strategy for world services to provide new or improved services and
support that facilitates the continuation and growth of Narcotics Anonymous
worldwide. The project plans stem from the objectives in the strategic plan.
Twelve Concepts for NA Service
Fundamental NA principles guiding our groups, boards, and committees in service
affairs. WSC-approved in 1992; published with essays and study questions as a selftitled
booklet.
Workgroups
Small working bodies of the World Board created for a specific purpose.
World Board
The World Board is the service board of the World Service Conference. The board
provides support to the Fellowship of Narcotics Anonymous in the fellowship’s effort to
carry the message of NA. Oversees the activities of NA World Services, including our
primary service center, the World Service Office. The board also holds in trust for the
NA Fellowship the rights for all its physical and intellectual properties (which includes
literature, logos, trademarks, and copyrights) in accordance with the will of the
fellowship as expressed through the WSC.
World Board Approved
Service-related informational pamphlets and tools approved and published by the
World Board. This material contains practical experience gathered from the fellowship
about how to apply some of the principles contained in NA Fellowship and Conference
Approved material.
World Pool
A pool of members’ service resumes (World Pool Information Forms) demonstrating a
variety of recovery- and service-related experience as well as any skills necessary for
the successful completion of world-level assignments. All NA members with over five
years clean are eligible and encouraged to complete the information form.
World Service Conference (WSC)
Unlike all other service bodies of NA service, the conference is not an entity; it is an
event—the coming together of the NA Fellowship from around the globe. Every two
2010 CAR 57
years regional delegates, the members of the World Board, and the executive director
of the World Service Office meet to discuss questions of significance to the Fellowship
of Narcotics Anonymous. The World Service Conference is the one point in our
structure where the voice of NA as a whole can be heard regarding issues and
concerns affecting our worldwide fellowship. The conference is a vehicle for fellowship
communication and unity: a forum where our common welfare is itself the business of
the meeting.
World Service Office (WSO)
The name of the physical location of the primary worldwide service center for NA World
Services. The headquarters is located in Chatsworth (Los Angeles), California, USA,
with branch facilities in Mississauga, Ontario, Canada; Brussels, Belgium; and Tehran,
Iran. The WSO prints, stocks, and sells NA Fellowship- and conference-approved
literature, service handbooks, and other materials. Provides support for new NA groups
and developing NA communities. Serves as a clearinghouse for information about NA.
WSC Cofacilitator(s)
Two individuals who preside over the business meeting of the World Service
Conference. Elected by the World Service Conference.
Zonal Forums
Locally organized, service-oriented sharing sessions that provide means by which NA
communities can communicate, cooperate, and grow with one another. Involves
participants from neighboring regions.
58  2010 CAR
Addendum A
IP #24, Money Matters:
Self-Support in NA
Approval Draft
60  2010 CAR
IP #24, Money Matters: Self-Support in NA Approval Draft @ WSC 2010
2010 CAR – Addendum A 61
IP #24, Money Matters: Self-Support in NA Approval Draft @ WSC 2010
IP #24: Money Matters
Self‐Support in NA
“...Through Our Own Contributions...” – Seventh Tradition
A story has been told about the early days of Narcotics Anonymous, when one of our
founding members was seen going through the trash outside the NA service office. When asked
what he was doing, he answered that he was looking for bottles to return for deposit so he
could afford postage to respond to a letter from an NA member in Alaska. Every NA service
committee has surely faced this simple truth at some point: The individual efforts of our
members can go a long way, but willingness alone will not get a letter from California to
Alaska, Brussels to St. Petersburg, or Tehran to Dubai.
This story illustrates two kinds of contributions as described by our Seventh Tradition. On
one hand, we contribute our time and energy: showing up to meetings regularly, participating,
and sharing with newcomers whenever we can. Our hopes and intentions are important, but it’s
what we do that matters. We get involved in sponsorship and service. We give of ourselves
freely without the expectation of receiving anything in return. Putting our gratitude into action
by supporting Narcotics Anonymous gives real meaning to our belief that “we keep what we
have only by giving it away.”
On the other hand, we give money to help pay for the services that keep NA alive and
growing. Both of these types of contributions are important—in fact, most members contribute
time, energy, and money—but in this pamphlet we are concerned primarily with voluntary
financial contributions. Our groups pass a basket, hat, box, or tray at some point during each
meeting so members can give money.1 The money we put in the basket allows our groups to keep
the doors open, and to create a welcoming atmosphere of recovery for that shaky newcomer in
the parking lot debating whether or not to come into the meeting. The money that reaches our
service system helps support services that let other addicts, in our own communities and around
the world, know that hope is available. Just as the cost of our own personal expenses—rent, food,
and so on—go up from year to year, the amount of money needed to fund these basic services
rises continually, especially as NA grows and as we seek additional ways to reach addicts.
We may notice some members giving a little more or a little less than others and wonder
whether we’re giving the “right” amount. Giving our fair share doesn’t mean that everyone
donates the same amount; it means each of us gives what we can based on what we have. When
our lives improve as a result of our recovery, we often find that we can afford to give more.
Maybe we feel uncomfortable when we realize that the beverage or snack we bought on our
way to the meeting cost two or three times the amount we put in the basket. After considering
what is most valuable to us, we usually decide to put more in the basket when we can. Whether
we have a lot or a little, giving to our service system is an act of faith that helps us let go of some
of our fears. Doing so can remind us that so long as our spiritual needs are taken care of, living
problems are reduced to a point of comfort. We have faith that a power greater than ourselves
will be expressed through our collective conscience.
1 In this IP, we will use the term “basket” to refer to any method a group