Sponsorship in Recovery

23 March 2022

Given the recent success, of within-group communication in the two SMART Recovery groups I know, I have begun research on the efficacy of sponsorship.  Sponsorship is typically a one-to-one relationship, with someone well into recovery making herself available to a newly sober person struggling with her new reality.  The research is older, non-SMART based, but provides a start to learning more about this type of relationship.

In 1999, (published 2002) Crape et al. did a one-year study, within inner-city Baltimore, to discover factors aiding abstinence from injection drug use with an opening sample size of 500 participants.  What they found was that having a sponsor “...was not associated with any improvement in 1-year sustained abstinence rates... [but that] being a sponsor...was strongly associated with substantial improvements in sustained abstinence rates for the sponsors” (Crape et al., 2002, p. 291, italics added).  A corollary finding was that engagement with community groups, particularly church activities (volunteers were from 12-step Narcotics Anonymous (NA) or Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) groups) was also correlated with successful sobriety. 

Some interesting sidebars emerged from this study, beginning with the fact that the number of meetings attended per week was not correlated with successful sobriety while regular attendance at recovery meetings was associated with success.  The most interesting explanation provided by the researchers was that,

Regardless of whether the NA/AA is perceived as a treatment environment or an identity shaping community, the receiving of direction and support from a sponsor or providing this direction and support as a sponsor is widely believed to be important in sustaining abstinence (Roberts et al., 1999; Humphreys and Rappaport, 1994; Rappaport, 1993 in Crape et al., 2002, italics original, bold added).

The second study was undertaken by Subbaraman et al., (2011) and involved just over 500 participants from NA, AA, and Cocaine Anonymous (CA).  (The intervention explored was a refined 12-step facilitation known as Making Alcoholics Anonymous Easier (MAAEZ)).  That intervention was aimed at “those with high psychiatric severity, and with high prior involvement in AA, NA, and CA and was used in front-line treatment centres.  The findings were that those who “did service” (helpful community involvement) at the six-month point and afterward, had better odds of attaining one year of sobriety (Subbaraman et al., 2011, p. 122).

Although the findings were weak, there was a unique level of success in the test group with sponsorship, leading the authors to state that, amongst NA/AA/CA attendees, with high prior attendance, sponsorship appeared to make a difference in finding sobriety.

Jane Witbrodt et al., (2012) who also leant a hand to Subbaraman et al., found yet more encouraging results.  “Being a sponsor is even more important, with sustained sponsorship the best predictor of 10-year abstinence in severe individuals” (p. 302, original italics). The Witbrodt et al. study was also concerned exclusively with 12-step programs. 

Another finding was that while life-long attendance is not necessary for all those suffering from addictive behaviours, high levels of attendance during early sobriety was essential for sustained success. It may also be significant that 80% of the sample of 495 persons self-identified as religious or spiritual (Witbrodt, et al., 2012, p. 303) with the caution that their findings were correlational rather than necessarily causal (p. 308). Her bottom line: attendance and sponsorship both helped.

So, what do we take from these findings?  While statistically, being a sponsor was much more highly associated with success than being sponsored, the authors noted that it is only by being sponsored that most folks recovering from addiction become sponsors.  A question I would like answered is, does being a sponsor give you a sense of communal obligation that fosters the social connection now thought to be the opposite of addiction? 

The distinction between recovery meetings being viewed as treatment environments and/or identity-shaping communities is interesting.  My experience indicates that SMART Recovery meetings serve as treatment environments for all attendees and identity-shaping communities for those who become regulars.  This doesn’t (sadly) mean that becoming a regular is a guarantee of sobriety and recovery.  What it may mean is that those comfortable in that treatment environment see more similarities in each other than differences, and bonds begin to develop.  Social bonds are connections and connections to communities seems an almost indisputable condition of recovery. I will wager that Subbaraman et al.’s (2011) finding that the providing of publicly useful service also increased a sense of connection and that that sense of connection changed the way those folks saw themselves and their relationship to life.

The same argument can be read into the finding that more meetings early in sobriety is an indicator of success.  And I believe SMART Recovery’s big-tent philosophy of welcoming people still using, test-driving sobriety, or with a 100+ days under their belts is the right one.  The more welcome newcomers feel, the greater the chance they’ll want to come back.  And coming back—to a community of one or many—is looking like a winning formula for a balanced life.

Dan Chalykoff is working toward an M.Ed. in Counselling Psychology and accreditation in Professional Addiction Studies.  He writes these blogs to increase (and share) his own evolving understandings of ideas.  Since 2017, he has facilitated two voluntary weekly group meetings of SMART Recovery.

References

Crape, B. L., Latkin, C. A., Laris, A. S., Knowlton, A. R. (2002). The effects of sponsorship in 12-step treatment of injection drug users.  Drug and Alcohol Dependence 65, 291-301.

Subbaraman, M. S., Kaskutas, L. A., & Zemore, S. (2011). Sponsorship and service as mediators of the effects of Making Alcoholics Anonymous Easier (MAAEZ), a 12-step facilitation intervention.  Drug and Alcohol Dependence 116, 117-124.

Witbrodt, J., Kaskutas, L, Bond, J., & Delucchi, K. (2012). Does sponsorship improve outcomes above Alcoholics Anonymous attendance.  A latent class growth curve analysis.  Addiction 107, 301-311.