Fuzzy Family Math

from Lauren - Tuesday, October 04, 2005
accessed 1528 times

This article is dedicated to 17-year-old Julia Kelley and all other baby Family young people currently defending the group.

"Approximately half the young people born into the Family continue to be members and tell a very different story than that being aired by a handful of former members. " – Claire Borowick www.myconclusion.com, retrieved 10-04-2005


According to the Family's own statistics, nearly 13,400 children were born into the group between 1971 and 2001. Considering this is now 2005 it is fairly safe to assume that 13,600 children have been born into the Family during the past 34 years.

According to the Family's own statistics, in October of 2004 there were 6,424 second and third generation members still remaining in the group. This number is comprised of all ages (babies to mid 30's) and all levels of membership.

Using the above numbers, it is safe to say that, yes, over half of the young people born into the Family during its history continue to remain in the Family in some form or other.

On the surface, it actually sounds like they are thriving.

In October of 2004, there were in fact only 5,657 members total in the DO/CM/FD circle, including the children. That has got to be an all-time low.




Whether or not the half of Family-born that continue to remain in the Family are "tell[ing] a very different story" is really another matter. Mainly because most of those left are far too young to tell any story at all.

First a small digression: I am using the Family's statistics for 2002, made available on www.xfamily.org. 2002 is the last year comprehensive statistics were made available by the Family, whereby this information could actually be extrapolated.

Interestingly enough, for a number of years, the Family's statistics have been quite dodgy in quoting actual numbers of how many Family born adult members actually remain and that is what I am attempting to show now.

In 2002, The Family had a total of 11,297 members, of which 8,048 of them were DO/CM/FD

In 2004, The Family had a total of 10,231 of which a total of 5,657 were DO/CM/FD.

I point this out to show how many members the group lost from its inner circle over a two-year period. I have no statistics for 2005, but as the Family has consistently lost membership for the past several years, it's safe to assume that the numbers for 2005 are even more dismal than those quoted above.

To the uninformed: DO CM and FD are labels The Family prescribes to its hardcore, inner-circle membership. FM and MM are labels prescribed to those in outer circles who do not live within the Family's core membership or homes.




In 2002, there were 7,609 second and third generation members in the Family's combined CM/FM membership.

However a good portion of those were children under the age of 16. By subtracting the 2002 numbers provided for Family born children through age 15, we come to a total of 2,412 in its combined Family membership between the ages of 16 and 39.

I personally find it difficult to include 16 and 17 year olds in membership numbers as they are still technically and legally children. Unfortunately the Family does not break down the age groups beyond 16-20, so I am forced to work with the age bracket of 21 years and older.

If we were to subtract from 2,412 those in the Family in who in 2002 were under the age of 21, the numbers drop drastically to only 943.

At this point, there are two important factors to keep in mind: 1) In 2002, most Family born young people under the age of 21 had been spared the brunt of the abuses, and 2) In 2002, there were only 943 Family born disciples between the ages of 21 and 39 in the COMBINED CM and FM membership.

As I understand it, FM statistics can be unreliable. FM members are allowed to live with non-Family members and the reporting requirements are much more lenient. For example: A couple has left the CM family. The mother wants to continue on as part of the group, the father and children prefer to get on with their lives. The mother continues to report to WS each month, sending in her money. If she so chooses, she can list her husband and all of her children as "members" whether they have anything to do with the Family or not.

However, for a person to be regarded as a CM member, they must be physically present in a CM home and abiding by all of the Family's rules and regulations.

Thus, there is a very good reason for wanting to separate CM from FM statistics.

In 2002, the ratio of CM to FM members was roughly 70% CM to 30% FM.

In 2004, the ration of dropped to 55% CM to 45% MM/FM

As we are working with 2002 numbers, we will use the 2002 ratio. Going on a LARGE and unsubstantiated assumption that the ratio of ages between CM and FM remain consistent to the demographic split, we assume that in 2002 there were closer to 660 Family born young people over the age of 21 remaining in The Family.

Breaking that down further, we assume that there are fewer still in 2005.

When one stops to compare the rough number of 660 Family born over the age of 21 still remaining in the group to the number of registered users on, for example, the movingon.org website (even after subtracting 1,000 members on account of FGAs, interested visitors, duplicate names and those under 21), it still becomes blatantly obvious where the "small handful" really is.



As a footnote: I do realize that I am biased when it comes to these numbers. I personally do not like to be referred to as a "small handful" As my husband will tell you, I can actually be a large handful.

The above math is also a little fuzzy as there are assumptions involved. I am also notoriously bad at math. For both of these issues I sarcastically thank the Family. If Claire Borowick would be kind enough to provide actual numbers of how many Family born young people over the age of 21 remain in the Family in 2005, I'm sure I will be proven wrong. – But I doubt by much. I would also appreciate it if she would offer to pay for my remedial math courses.