Get documents about "SUDRG: Evaluation Report 2010
Document Sample
S UDRG - BECAUSE WE CAN -
Process and Impact Evaluation
Report from the SUDRG 2010
‘No one can
whistle a
Symphony’
PLEASE NOTE: A full version of this report is available upon request from Tim Sampey.
Please e-mail kandcsudrg@yahoo.com
Foreword:
Acknowledgements:
Tim Sampey: Service user co-ordinator for the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
and Manager of the SUDRG.
The SUDRG would like to acknowledge the help of the following individuals, without whom this
report would not have proved possible.
Aleksandra Osiniagova for her help in formulating the questions used in the two surveys.
Olivera Nikolic for her time and patience in loading and collating the data that was used
from SUDRG records outside of the two surveys.
Anna Rooke for her help in editing the qualitative statements in this report.
Abi Hotson and Vicky Holden for entering and collating the data at CNWL on our behalf.
Annette Dale-Perera for her invaluable support in helping to structure, collate and write this
report, and without whose aid I would most definitely have been out of my depth.
Jean Daintith: RBKC DAAT Chair
Process and Impact Evaluation SUDRG 2010 - “No one can whistle a symphony”
Foreword
As Chair of the Kensington and Chelsea Drug and Alcohol Partnership (DAAT) I am pleased to be
able to introduce this evaluation report. The establishment of the service users drug reference
group (SUDRG) was initially doubted by some, criticised by many, and locally recognised as a
different approach to involving service users. This evaluation provides the first quantitative and
qualitative evidence to enable us to demonstrate the effectiveness.
At a time when we, like other areas, were struggling to get service user involvement right, a small
group formed calling themselves the SUDRG. They put a small business case together and the
DAAT agreed a small investment to establish the badminton club. I had not envisaged the positive
influence this approach would have across all aspects of the Drug and Alcohol agenda within
Kensington and Chelsea. The author refers to the approach the DAAT and wider partnership took
from the outset having established a culture of equality and collaboration at all levels. It is because
of the drive and commitment from the SUDRG members and the providers working with the DAAT
that our treatment system has achieved so much. The SUDRG wanted a different kind of service
that appeared to fall outside the government priorities and was not commissioned. The SUDRG
worked with partners to develop services that offered support to individuals when services were
closed and offered a more social approach where addiction was not the only focus for the
individual. Building skills for life was their main priority. The inclusiveness of the SUDRG enabled
those, who had less positive experiences of treatment, to gain increased control over their recovery
and return to treatment services through the SUDRG’s own unique pathway to recovery and
reintegration.
This evaluation report confirmed my experiences of talking with the service users and volunteers. I
continue to be impressed by their individual achievements as members of the SUDRG. The many
voices held within the survey results do show that even the most chaotic of drug or alcohol users
2
can contribute and make a positive difference to themselves and others. In the conclusion the
author comments that, in many respects, the initiatives implemented by the SUDRG are “the
missing part of the treatment system”. I would suggest they are at the very core of what a recovery
and reintegration focused treatment system should be.
3
1: What is SUDRG?
The SUDRG manages a cluster of unique peer designed, implemented and run peer-led services
for those with drug and alcohol problems funded by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
Drug and Alcohol Action Team (RBKC DAAT).
Its name was initially an abbreviation of `service users drug reference group’ but is commonly
known as SUDRG. SUDRG was 6 years old in December 2010. In the early days of its existence
SUDRG decided to opt out of the classic model of service user involvement as advocated by the
national advisory body, the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse (NTA). Instead
SUDRG concentrated on designing and running its own services in partnership with RBKC DAAT
and other service providers in the borough. This was unusual in its ambition and is a rare example
of true partnership work between peer-led services and local commissioners and providers. The
SUDRG range of work has covered: service user involvement (service user meetings, DAAT
representation); peer advocacy and mediation; provision of a range of social, support and sports
services and activities. SUDRG are an integral part of the treatment system in Kensington and
Chelsea, and operate in partnership both with RBKC DAAT and the other service providers working
in the Borough. The model designed here is being used in Greenwich and Waltham Forest to set
up similar services. SUDRG is increasingly recognised as being a leader in the field of service user
involvement working in partnership with the treatment system.
SUDRG celebrated its sixth year of operation in December 2010. This report outlines its activities
and outcomes over the past six years. It gives SUDRG activity data, gives the results of
questionnaires of current service users and volunteers and looks at the impact being part of
SUDRG has had on people’s lives. The report also provides insights from the manager and others
to enable other local areas to support the development of their own peer-led services.
Designed to operate on two levels, SUDRG provides a service not only for those individuals who
access it, but also those who volunteer for it. Currently we average 450 contacts a month, and are
only open for 13 hours a week, including the drop in, both sports clubs and the CBT group.
The SUDRG now has thousands of contacts with substance users and helps hundreds of
vulnerable people a year. It has also built a local army of volunteers – who are trained in-house and
by Sundial. All volunteers are members of the local community who want to help others - but three
quarters of the volunteers are also ex-drug or alcohol service users and volunteering at SUDRG
has helped their recovery.
SUDRG current activities
The Social Club
Opening Times 2-5pm Saturday and Sunday
Activities and services include:
Food (sandwiches and snacks) and drinks
Film club
Assessment of substance misuse problems and referral to treatment
Advice, information and one to one support around substance misuse and other issues such
as housing
Computer Access
Needle Exchange
Music Workshop
Yoga Classes
Shiatsu and other alternative therapies and relaxation classes
4
Art Workshop
Music club with SUDRG House band
Photography Competitions
The Badminton Club
Sessions Thursday 3.30 – 5.30pm and Sunday 11.30 – 1.00pm
Venues Nuffield Health Centre W10
Activities include: Badminton
The Gym and Swim Club
Opening Times Saturday 11.00 – 2.00pm
Venues Nuffield Health Centre W10
Activities include: Assorted fitness training and Swimming
CBT Support Group
Opening Times Thursday 6.00 – 7.30pm
Service includes: Peer support group
Timetable of services
Thursday: 3.30 -5.30pm (Badminton) 6.00 – 7.30pm (CBT Support Group)
Saturday: 11.00 – 2.00pm (Gym and Swim Club) 2.00-5.00pm (Social Club)
Sunday: 11.30pm – 1.00pm (Badminton) 2.00 – 5.00pm (Social Club
The staffing of SUDRG
SUDRG had two full time paid staff and a handful of sessional paid staff.
SUDRG services are almost entirely staffed by service user volunteers, creating a unique
atmosphere. In return for their work volunteers are able to access a variety of free training
workshops, learn the skills necessary to working in a busy `drop-in service’, and work in a variety
environments that are designed to be as supportive to them as it is to the service users who access
it. Many of the volunteers are current or ex substance misuse service users and they `model’
success for SUDRG service users. Volunteers can increase their responsibility through becoming a
supervisor or team leaders. In-house training is available and many go on to participate in other
training and progress to employment in related vocations.
The Volunteer Handbook was written by the service user coordinator three years ago and is
currently approaching its third update and reprint. It was devised from the obvious need to provide
volunteers with a clear set of guidelines, roles descriptions and responsibilities and is intended to
be used as a reference manual. It is deliberately written to be as simple and reader friendly as
possible.
Summary: SUDRG offers a total of 13 hours of services each week. The network of SUDRG
services are designed to be a high support, socially based service with an ethos of both minimizing
the harm caused by substance misuse and promoting recovery and wellbeing. SUDRG services
operate at the times when other substance misuse support services are shut and they are free and
open to anyone to access. SUDRG do not try and separate drug and alcohol misuse or those who
are abstinent from those who are not abstinent (though there are rules about not using substances
on premises). It is interesting to note that the sporting elements of the operation have evolved
organically to become almost totally abstinent based, while the drop-in is accessed in the main by
individuals still dealing with substance use issues. SUDRG is run as a series of safe environments
5
with a wide variety of activities available. Its intention is to help individuals reintegrate into a normal
manner of social behaviour while dealing with the problems that are related to their substance use.
SUDRG has benefits for its service users and its volunteers. SUDRG (working with partners
including education and training projects) has been able to build a local `recovery network’ which
both supports service users in their substance misuse outcomes and also helps those many
volunteers who are ex-service users, build recovery networks and pathways to employment.
2. HOW HAS THE SUDRG BEEN SUPPORTED?
2:1 Financial Support from RBKC DAAT
The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea DAAT have made a substantial investment in the
SUDRG over the past six years. Funding has grown year on year (see Table X) as the SUDRG has
developed its services, necessitating the employment of Service User Coordinator and a Service
Provisions Manager, as well as increased funding to match the increased service provision
provided by the organization.
To date RBKC DAAT have provided the sole funding stream for the SUDRG, although this is
expected to change in the forthcoming year once the organization has become a Social Enterprise
and, having that legal status, is able to seek funding outside of the current arrangement. It is worth
noting that it the past six months the SUDRG has sold some of its in-house training to CRI and
several workshops to Brent DAAT and their service users on how to set up a weekend service.
Table 1: SUDRG funding
2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11
15,000 45,000 75,000 101,725.00 103,049.32 101,725.00
+30,000
(Mentoring)
There are other elements of DAAT support that have been of great importance.
a) From the beginning there has been a close working relationship between the commissioner for
substance misuse and the SUDRG that has been treated as an equal partnership on both sides
from the start. Historically, there has always been a monthly meeting between the
commissioner and the SUDRG management committee. The degree of careful mentoring
provided by the commissioner to the individuals who have developed this organization, along
with the advice, information and support that has been freely given upon request, have had an
positive impact on the rapid development of the organization, and it is hard to overstate the
importance of this.
b) There has also been a strongly supportive attitude toward the SUDRG by the Chair of RBKC
DAAT, which encouraged other members of the partnership to treat the organization in a similar
fashion. Regarding the SUDRG as an equal member of the partnership, and supporting and
encouraging its key individuals in a variety of public forums, has played an important part in the
creation of the unique and highly successful partnership between the SUDRG and every major
service provider in Kensington and Chelsea.
6
2:2 Premises and Support from Blenheim/CDP
From the launch of the Badminton Club through the design, development and implementation of the
Social Club, the SUDRG have always had a close and effective partnership with Blenheim/CDP.
The SUDRG rents the Portobello Project at the weekend to run the Social Club, and uses the
premises one evening a week to run a CBT support group. This is cost effective for the SUDRG,
and means that the Portobello Project is open seven days a week offering two different, and
complimentary services to local service users. Blenheim/CDP have acted as the bankers for the
SUDRG to date, enabling the SUDRG to learn the intricacies of financial management at their own
pace, as well as providing support with the payroll and the details of some financial record keeping
necessary for proper financial accountability to RBKC DAAT. SUDRG have had an excellent
working relationship with the last three service managers of the Portobello Project, which has
supported the growth of the Social Club while allowing the SUDRG to remain entirely independent
of Blenheim/CDP. This was demonstrated in the support provided to the service users who initially
developed the social club and its satellite enterprises by the manager and some staff of the
Portobello Project; our attendance at the Portobello Project bi-monthly team meetings; and the
willingness of Blenheim/CDP to provide information and advice to the Service User Coordinator
upon request. It is fair to say that this attitude has been reflected across most of the organization.
The fact that the relationship between the two organizations has been so successful encouraged
other service providers to form similar links with the SUDRG. It is not unreasonable to suggest that
the partnership between the SUDRG and Blenheim/CDP was unique, and a first between a service
user group and a service provider.
2:3 Links to other Services
a) Education, training and employment
From the very early days of the Social Club the SUDRG has a strong working relationship with an
education, training and employment project (ETE) which also operated from the Portobello Project.
Within six months of the Social Club being launched training workshops for the SUDRG volunteers
were discussed and the SUNDIAL course was developed. SUDRG volunteers have undertaken the
LOCN L2 qualification on every SUNDIAL course run to date and it has proved of great benefit on
both a personal and professional level.
It should be noted that our experiences in the development and testing of the original SUNDIAL
workshops, along with the clear benefits of that learning on the operations of the SUDRG,
encouraged the writing and development of our own in-house training workshops (4.5c) which are
regularly presented to our volunteers at the weekend.
b) CRI: On undertaking the DIP operations in Kensington and Chelsea, CRI offered the SUDRG
free office space in the DIP building. This has allowed the SUDRG a presence in the south of the
borough, and has enabled us to negotiate the rental of a second office from which to run the
SUDRG Mentoring Programme in 2011.
d) CNWL: CNWL provide supervision for the Service User Coordinator, and have helped in the
data generation and support required for the production of this report.
e) CMT: The care management team provides supervision for the SUDRG Provisions Manager and
has enabled us to establish a fast and highly effective pathway for dealing with volunteer relapses
within the SUDRG. (See below 5.3)
7
2.4 Future SUDRG developments
In 2010/11 SUDRG is intending to open:
Set up a borough wide peer-mentoring programme, designed to help service user’s deal
with the multitude of problems (benefits, housing, and the legal system) often encountered
on their treatment journeys.
2.5 SUDRG headline statistics
a) Paid employees
SUDRG had two full-time paid employees: service user co-ordinator/manager and one service
provisions manager. It also employs a handful of sessional workers.
b) Volunteers
SUDRG, in its six years of operation, has had a total of 228 volunteers. The current volunteer list is
72, including therapists.
c) SUDRG service user’s activity
SUDRG has 4 component parts:
Badminton club
The Social Club
Gym and Swim club
Peer-led Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) group
As shown in Table 2 below, SUDRG has total contact data for two full years: 2009 and 2010. In this
time SUDRG services had:
a total of 5,198 contacts in 2009,
this increased to 5,306 in 2010.
Increased contacts were seen in: the social club (2,240 contacts in 2009 to 2,977 in 2010);
Badminton (1,074 contacts in 2009 to 1,349 in 2010); and the Gym & Swim (541 contacts in 2009
and 576 in 2010). The CBTgroup has slightly fewer contacts (402 in 2009 and 343 in 2010).
8
Table 2: Total SUDRG contacts
Total SUDRG contacts 2009 & 2010
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
2009
0
gym & swim 2009 2010
CBT
badminton
Social Club
Total contacts
The activity data for all aspects of SUDRG is provided in Appendix 1 in multiple tables. The
data is provided by contacts, gender and ethnicity
b) Social Club
Table 3 below shows an increase in social club contacts between 2009 to 2010 with around 2,200
male contacts and 750 contacts for women in 2010.
Table 3: Social club contacts 2009 to 10
c) Badminton
In 2010 the increase in badminton attendance continues and by the end of the year the attendance
higher than the attendance of the previous years. Female client’s attendance reached 25.3% and it
has been consistent throughout the year. Also, there is consistency in terms of clients from BME
service users. Although slightly lower than the previous year, attendance of 42.6% still shows that
the badminton club is significantly attended by the BME service users.
9
d) CBT
Table 4 below shows an increase in CBT contacts to over 260 male and 140 females in 2010. A
drop in BME service users is noted over this time.
Table 4: CBT contacts 2008-2010
e) Gym and Swim
Table 5 shows a year on year increase in gym and swim attendance culminating in almost 450
male contacts in 2010 and 140 female contacts,
Table 5: Gym & Swin contacts 2008-2010
Summary of Activity data
The information for the four areas of the SUDRG recorded show a clear and substantial growth in
attendance on a year by year basis. The service manager attributes this growth to the continual
improvement in the services SUDRG offer and their growing expertise over that period of time.
Number of individuals accessing the SUDRG in 2010 Our data collection methods makes it
difficult to produce an exact figure for the number of individuals accessing the SUDRG in 2010. We
can state with confidence however, that the minimum of individuals accessing our collective
services in 2010 is 350.
10
3. SUDRG Service users 2010
3.1 Methods
A survey was conducted of 87 SUDRG service users during September and October 2010. A semi-
structured interview questionnaire was constructed by the staff and volunteers. The questionnaire
was quality assured by CNWL. Questionnaires were completed with service users by volunteers
and psychology students. The quantative data was put in an excel spreadsheet and frequency data
generated by CNWL staff. Qualitative data was extracted into word documents and themes and
quotes extracted.
3.2 Service user profiles
a) Gender
Three quarters (75%) of service users were male and 25% were women.
b) Age
Most service users (66%) were 45 or under: 6% were under 25; 22% were 26-35 years old; 38%
were 36-45 years old; 29% were 46-55 years old; and, 6% were 56+ years old.
Table 6: Service users age range
Service users age range
40
35
30
25
20 %
15
10
5
0
0-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65
c) Crime
Over half (55%) reported they had engaged in criminal activity to fund their drug use. Almost half
(48%) had been in prison and only a fifth (21%) said that prison had helped them deal with their
substance misuse. Comments with regard to treatment received in Prison were generally positive
and included the following: “It saved my life”; “If I was not in I would died as I was forced into
treatment”; “Yes - by doing 12 step program plus drug related courses, NN meetings”; “To a degree
it doesn’t take away the desire, but when you are clean for that period of time makes you know that
it is possible to get clean”; and “Yes. They gave me methadone in prison”.
d) Ethnicity
Just over two thirds (68%) of service users were White. Of these 53% were White British, 5% were
White Irish, 5% were White European and 5% were White Other. One in six (17%) were Black with
11
most of these being Black British (14%) and some Black Caribbean (3%). Eight per cent were
mixed race and 7% were Asian.
Table 7: Service user ethnicity
Service user ethnicity
80
70
60
50
40 %
30
20
10
0
Whit e Mixed Black Asian
e) Health issues
Over half (54%) reported that they took medication for health problems. Problems listed included
physical health problems including: arthritis; constrictive pulmonary disease; broken foot; HIV;
asthma; high blood pressure; deep vein thrombosis; dental pain; epilepsy and thiamine deficiency.
Mental health problems were also listed including: manic depression; bipolar affective disorder;
schizoid affective disorder; anxiety; depression; schizophrenia and psychosis.
Over a third, (37%) said they were accessing mental health services and 41% of people reported
being on medication for mental health problems.
Service users reported being prescribed a range of medication including: Depixol Benzodiazepine;
Sodium Valporate; Amisulpride; Propanol; Citalopram; Haldol Decanoate Injection; Fluoxetine;
Asthma inhalator; Tramadol; Sertraline; Respiradol; Depixol; Citalopram; Diazepam; Mirtrazapin;
Kivexa; Nevirapine;Valium; Ventolin; Anti-swelling painkillers; Prozac; Clopixal; Zopiclon;
Mirtazapine; Alazopram; Viagra; Carbamazepine; Insulin; Warafin; Suboxone; Olanzapine; Sodium
Valproate; Paroxine; Neproxin; buscompan; and Subtonal. There was also a range of asthma
medication being prescribed, often described as ‘pumps’.
f) Biggest problem
The biggest problems reported by service users were: Drugs or alcohol (14); mental health
problems (12) e.g. “mood disorder – severe lows and manic highs”; self e.g. “me” or self confidence
(8); employment problems (6); poverty or “lack of money” (4); housing (3); relationships (3)
boredom (2); environment (1) and gambling (1). Many people cited two or three reasons.
g) Relationship status
Almost all (92%) were single (71%) or divorced or separated (21%). A small minority (7%) were
either married (2%) or cohabiting (5%).
12
h) Children
Under half (40%) of service users reported they were parents. Of these, just under a third (29%)
reported having children under 16, almost a third (31%) had children over 16 and almost a third
(31%) had children under and over 16.
i) Where they live
Over three quarters of service users (78%) were resident in RBKC, 22% were from elsewhere
3.2 Substance use
a) Current substance misuse
Table 8: Category of substances currently misused
Current substance m isuse
60
50
40
30 %
20
10
0
Alcohol Drugs Tobacco None
Table 8 above shows that over three quarters (78%) of SUDRG service users were currently using
drugs or alcohol and 22% were currently abstinent. Half (51%) were also tobacco smokers. Over
half (51%) reported they had a drug problem, almost a third (31%) had an alcohol problem and
27% reported they didn’t have a substance misuse problem.
Service user reported using a wide range of substances. Of those 43 who reported using alcohol –
a third drank daily. Of the 45 who reported having a drug problem, a wide range of drugs were
reported as being used:
Table 9: Substances currently misused
Substance % who used % reporting addiction
Heroin 38% 59%
Methadone 33% 40%
Morphine 9% 0%
Codeine 20% 22%
Diconal 2% 0%
Cocaine 29% 39%
Crack 64% 59%
Amphetamine 9% 0%
Dexedrine 11% 0%
Methamphetamine 7% 0%
13
Poppers 4% 0%
Hashish 51% 17%
Skunk 40% 17%
Grass 40% 17%
Valium 24% 9%
Temazepam 11% 0%
Ketamine 7% 33%
LSD 11% 0%
Magic Mushrooms 9% 0%
When asked which drugs were you addicted to – unsurprisingly the highest % said heroin and
crack (59% each); 40% reported addiction to methadone or cocaine, almost a quarter (22%)
reported addiction to codeine; and almost a fifth reported addiction to each form of cannabis (hash,
skunk or grass). Smaller percentages reported addiction to Dexedrine, Temazepam; LSD (11%
each) or other drugs.
b) Smoking
The vast majority of service users (85%) reported smoking tobacco, with one in six (17% reported
smoking over 20 a day.
c) How was drug use funded
Service user reported multiple ways of funding their drug use – with the most common being
benefits (52%) then crime (17%). Other funding sources included full or part-time work (10%),
family (9%), other (9%) which included “begging”, “sugar daddy” and “partner” (3%).
Table 10: Drug use funding
How w as drug us e funde d
60
50
40
30 %
20
10
0
Part time Full time Benef its Crime Family Partner Other
w ork w ork
d) Why did service users start using drugs?
When service user were asked why they started using drugs, a range of responses were given as
shown in Table 11 below. Most common responses were: offered drugs by friends (26%); for fun
(20%) and curiosity (14%). Some said it was because family was using (8%) and some due to
trauma: 4% because they lost a job and 11% due to a relationship break up. Other responses
included: The “other” responses included: “I went off the rails when my mum died”; “I lost my job
and had nothing else to lose”; “due to being a victim of domestic violence”; “sexual abuse”;
“because I was ill”; “part of a club scene” and “abusive home life while growing up”
14
Table 11: Reasons for starting to use drugs
Why started using drugs
30
25
20
15 %
10
5
0
s
up
er
er
s
n
ty
ob
nd
Fu
ug
si
sw
th
j
k
e
io
dr
st
O
ea
fr i
an
ur
Lo
g
br
by
C
in
o
tt
p
us
s
hi
an
ug
ns
e
tw
er
dr
io
w
no
at
d
re
ily
el
o
ffe
R
m
D
Fa
O
e) Did service users think they could get addicted?
When asked whether they knew they could get addicted to drugs, service users gave a variety of
responses outlined in Table 12. Almost a quarter (23%) said they knew they could get addicted and
almost a quarter (22%) said they thought they could control it. Around one in six (17% said they
didn’t know they could get addicted; 12 % said they didn’t care and 6% did not want to know.
Table 12:
Did you know you could get addicted?
25
20
15
%
10
5
0
Did not care I knew Did not Did not Would not Thought I Other
know want to happen to could
know me control it
15
f) Did service users want to stop taking drugs?
Table 13 below gives service users responses when asked whether they wanted to stop taking
drugs. 48 services users responded to this question and of these, three quarters (75%) said yes,
15% said no and 10 % were unsure.
Table 13: Desire to stop taking drugs
Do you want to stop taking drugs?
Yes
No
Not sure
g) Did services users feel they could manage their addiction?
Table 14 below shows responses when service users were asked whether they could manage their
addiction on their own (62 services users responded). Of these, one in five (19%) said they could
manage their addiction, 56% said they could not and a quarter (24%) said they used to be able to
but not any more.
Table 14: Ability to manage addiction
Can you manage your addiction on your own?
Yes
No
I used to
16
h) Why did service users want to stop using drugs?
Table 15 below gives service user responses when asked why they wanted to stop taking drugs,
they gave a range responses including: to lead a normal life (24%), self respect (22%), because of
my relationships (20%), to gain employment (16%), because of my children (13%), and other
reasons (8%). Other reasons included: “To prove that I can do it”; “Because I don’t like it and it is a
waste of money” and “Health reasons”.
Table 15: Reasons to stop using drugs
Why do you want to stop using drugs
120
100
80
60 Series1
40
20
0
Self respect Normal life Employment Children Relationship Other
i) Service user’s thoughts on the best ways to stop using drugs
Table 16 below gives service users responses when asked the best way to stop taking drugs. Half
(49%) said by “using external help and I know where to get it”, and 13% said “with external help but
I don’t know where to get it”. 11% said “on my own”. One in five (20%) said other ways, which
included: “Going ‘cold turkey’”; “AA”; “NA”; “Detox and rehab” and “Prison”.
Table 16: Ways to stop using drugs
Best way to stop using drugs
Never will stop
External help, don't know where
External help, know where
On my own
Other
17
j) Why do people they think they are addicted to drugs
Service users responded with a range of answers to the question why they thought they were
addicted to drugs. Some responses related to enjoyment e.g. “Because I like it”; “searching for a
high, excitement, and as much of a lifestyle associated with the club scene”. Many more responses
related to sadness, boredom, inability to cope and things going `wrong’ in lives e.g. “I think I can’t
deal with reality at the moment and manage my emotions”; “Because I have a problem relating to
other people”; “Because I have nothing useful in my life”; “If I get close to anyone they die. I keep
myself to myself”; “Boredom; unemployment; no money; no future; no prospects”; “Because I can’t
cope with lots of stuff. When I use I can cope”; “Abundant, and desperately needed to fill the hole”;
“To deal with my pain, that warm feeling”; and “To destruct myself”. Others spoke about
dependency, need or withdrawals “Due to psychological dependency”; “Because I get the shakes
and sweats, and can’t control myself when not using”; and “I take them all the time. I like it. Without
them I feel sad”. Other reasons given included: “Cause I’ve been out since I was seventeen years
old”; “Relationship break up, social circle”;
k) Descriptions of being addicted
When ask to describe being addicted, service users gave a range of answers, many of which
graphically described loss of control and powerlessness over their addiction. For example: “I can’t
stop it once I have it. If I don’t have it I feel very low”; “I would say that the above (drugs) to me is
needed to the point of social exclusion”; “Thinking about a substance and almost selling yourself for
it”; “Crippling”; “Controlled by a mistress”; “I am a slave and I am not living my life, but just existing”;
“Cos when I use I don’t stop and don’t care who I hurt as long as I get what I want”
3.4 Service user’s use of SUDRG
a) How long using SUDRG
Service users were asked how long they had been using SUDRG. Chart 18 below shows that 12%
had been attending a month or less, a third (33%) more than a month but less than a year and 56%
had been attending more than one year.
Table 18: Length of time attending SUDRG
Le ngth of tim e atte nding SUDRG
Month or less
Over a month, less than a
year
Over a year
18
b) Frequency of attendance
When asked how frequently people attended: just under half (45%) attended more than once a
week; a quarter (25%) attended weekly; 18% a few times a month; 7% once a month and 6%
rarely. The vast majority (70%) were regular and frequent attendees.
Table 19: Frequency of social club attendance
Frequency of attendence of SUDRG Social Club
More than once a w eek
Once a w eek
Few times a month
Once a month
Rarely
3.5 Why did people visit the SUDRG Social Club?
Service users gave a variety of reasons for visiting the SUDRG social club – these are presented in
Table 20. The most frequently given reasons were related to socializing and making friends; getting
food and drink; helping recovery; feeling safe and then use of facilities. Under one in ten (8%) said
they used the SUDRG needle exchange.
Table 20: Reasons for visiting SUDRG social club
Reasons people visit the SUDRG Social Club
80
70
60
50
%
40
30
20
10
0
referral to services
Advice on K&C
makes me feel safe
Movies
Helps recovery
To socialise
to make friends
Other
Yoga
Shiatsu
Badminton
Support around
Contraception
Art workshop
play games with
Needle exchange
Employment/training
Gym
Swimming pool
Emotional Support
Food and drink
Music workshops
Allows me to relax
reasons
19
A variety of other reasons were given for attending. Over twenty references to SUDRG were about
it being non- judgmental, friendly and welcoming; for example:“Good friendly service, kind to me”;
“Made up of people who have been there (ex-addicts), different type of recovery, perspectives.
Refreshing….all this as well as being treated as a human being, not a number on a list”; “There are
lot of addicts out there wanting help, but who end up being pushed around from one place to the
next, like a piece of human rubbish. SUDRG is different”; “Because it’s at weekends and its
welcoming”; “One of a kind, food, safe atmosphere, good volunteers”; “Because of the relaxed
atmosphere, the food, music workshop, volunteers, friends, emotional sense of belonging”.
3.6 SUDRG as a referral point to other services
Over half of service users (53%) said they would use SUDRG as a referral point to other services,
39% said they maybe would do this and 9% reported they would not use SUDRG as a referral
point. Three quarters (75% said that it was a good idea if SUDRG referred them to other services –
the remainder had no opinion on this.
3.7 Satisfaction with SUDRG
a) General satisfaction
Service users were ask to rate their satisfaction with aspects of SUDRG services. Overall
satisfaction levels were very high, with an average rating of 9 out of 10 overall and ratings of 9 out
of 10 when asked whether the SUDRG services were Safe, Supportive, and Friendly – see Table
21 below.
Table 21: Satisfaction with SUDRG overall
Satisfaction ratings of SUDRG
45
40
35
30
25
Overall satisfaction
20
How safe
15 How supportive
10 How friendly
5
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Rating 1= least satisfied, 10 = extremely satisfised
b) Satisfaction with volunteers
When asked to rate the volunteers on a scale of 1 to 10 of how helpful and supportive they were
SUDRG services users gave an overall rating of 9. Table 22 below shows the very positive
feedback on volunteers.
20
Table 22: Helpfulness of volunteers
How helpful & supportive are the volunteers
40
35
30
25
% 20
15
10
5
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1= not helpful, 10 = very helpful
c) Satisfaction with information from SUDRG
Service users were asked to rate the information they received from SUDRG. Results are
presented in Table 23 below. The vast majority of people rated information as good (47%) or
extremely good (30%). Almost a quarter (22%) said it was satisfactory and 1% said there was not
enough. No one said it was unsatisfactory.
Table 23: Satisfaction with quality of information from SUDRG
Rating of information provided
Extremely good
Good
Satisfactory
Not enough information
Unsatisfactory
e) What would you change about SUDRG?
When asked what they would change about SUDRG services, service users answered were
around the themes of more e.g.: ”Nothing just add to it”; “Evening services”; “Creating more
independence for service users in cooking, decorating, reading etc”.
21
f) Would you recommend SUDRG?
A striking 98% of service users said that they would recommend SUDRG services to others.
3.8 Impact of SUDRG on service users
a) Impact of SUDRG on drug use
When asked whether attending the social club affects drug use
48% said it helped them take less drugs,
no one said they took more drugs because they attended and
52% said it make no difference (this last group included those who were not active
drug users).
More than half (52%) said they used less drugs on the days they attended.
b) Impact of SUDRG on feelings
When asked to rate whether they felt better when leaving SUDRG on a scale of 1-10 with 1 being
no difference and 10 being extremely satisfied, the average rating was 9.
When asked how long these positive feelings lasted over a third (36%) said a few hours, 10% said
half a day, almost a third (34%) said a day, 10% several days and 10% a week. This is reported
below in Table 24
Table 24: Length of positive feeling time after leaving SUDRG
How long do positive feelings last after leaving SUDRG
Hours
Half a day
1 day
Several days
A week
c) Other comments
When asked to give other comments service users many positive comments were made
including: “Boredom is one of the biggest causes of relapse and SUDRG helps keep me busy”;
“The gym-swim-club has filed a gap in my life since I stopped using. It has given me a social life
and given me something to look forward to. There has been moment in the past two years that
without it I don’t know if I could have made it”; “Changed my life in a better way, now I mix with
lots of people, before I isolated”; “This service has really helped me, especially in generating a
new life after drugs’
22
4: SUDRG volunteers
4.1 Volunteer database information
Information was kept on 212 volunteers in terms of employment status, substance use status and
training uptake. This information is presented in the next three tables.
a) Volunteer employment status
Table 25 shows the employment status of all volunteers of SUDRG from December 2005 to
December 2010. Of 212 volunteers: a third were unemployed (32%); 17% were in work prior to and
unrelated to SUDRG; 18% were in work and obtaining this work was related to volunteering at
SUDRG; 3% were retired or home makers and 10% were students. Employment status was
unknown on 20% of current or previous volunteers.
Table 25: volunteer employment status
Volunteer employment status
unemployed
work unrelated
work due to SUDRG
unknown
retired
homemaker
student
b) Volunteer uptake of training
Table 26 shows the volunteer training update from records. Many of the volunteers had more than
one category recorded. Sixty per cent of volunteers had done in-house SUDRG training; almost a
quarter(24%) were offered training but were not interested; 13% had SUNDIAL training; 8% had
received other training – as a result of SUDRG volunteering (including NVQs); training was
unavailable for 12% of volunteers (as it was the early days of the project) and was unknown on 1%.
Table 26: Volunteer training uptake
Volunteer training uptake
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
in-house SUDRG
SUNDIAL
other aided by
S1
volunteering
not interested
non available
unknown
23
c) The substance use status
SUDRG recorded the substance using status of volunteers: four categories were used. Over two-
thirds of volunteers were ex-substance misuse service users (68%); 8% were recreational users;
19% had no history of substance use and status was unknown in 1%.
Table 27: Substance use status
substance misuse status of volunteers
ex service user
recreational user
no misuse
unknown
4.2 Volunteer survey data
A survey was conducted on Volunteer in Autumn 2010. 61 current SUDRG volunteers completed
questionnaires. The results of from the 2010 cohort of service users are presented next
Volunteer Profiles
a) Gender
Just over half (53%) of volunteers were male and 48% were women.
b) Age
Volunteers were slightly older than service users on average. Table 28 below shows: 2% were
under 25; 13% were 26-35 years old; 34% were 36-45 years old; 44% were 46-55 years old; and,
7% were 56+ years old.
Table 28: Age of Volunteers
Age of volunteers
0-25
26-35
36-45
46-55
56-65
24
c) Ethnicity
Table 29: Volunteer Ethnicity
volunteer ethnicity
White
Mixed
Asian
Black
Other
Just over two thirds (66%) of service users were White. Of these 50% were White British, 7% were
White Irish, 10% were White European. Ten per cent (10%) were Black of which most were Black
Caribbean (7%). One in six (12%) were mixed race and 5% were Asian.
d) Area of residence
Although a substantial number of volunteers are resident and Kensington and Chelsea, there are
many who live in other boroughs, including: Westminster; Folkstone (Kent); Camden; Harrow;
Hillingdon; Lambeth: Hounslow: Croydon; Islington; Brent; Harringay; Hackney and Lewisham.
e) Marital Status
Most volunteers were single (69%), in addition, around a quarter (26%) reported they were
separated or divorced and 5% were married.
f) Children
Just over half of volunteers left blank questions on whether they had children. 29 individuals
answered this question and of these 23 reported they had children (35% had children under 16,
39% had children over 16 and 26% had children over and under 16).
g) Did volunteers have any special needs?
Almost a third (30%) of volunteers reported they had special needs. When asked what, 22% had
mental health problems; 28% dyslexia; 33% physical special needs and 17% had other needs.
When asked whether their special needs were met, a third (67%) said they were and 17% said they
were not being met.
4.2 Volunteers in recovery
Almost three quarters of SUDRG volunteers reported that they were “in recovery”.
a) Recovering from what substance misuse
A third (33%) of SUDRG volunteers said they were in recovery from drug problems, 38% were in
recovery from both drug and alcohol problems, 3% were in recovery from an alcohol problem and
2% from other problems.
25
Table 30: Volunteer recovery status
b) What substances were problems?
Of the three quarters of volunteers who reported substance misuse problems, Table 31 shows that
volunteers reported that they had taken a wide of substances. 60% of volunteers reported they had
some substances they had problems with and also took other substances and did not regard
themselves as having problems with these. Just over a third (36%) reported all substances they
used became problems.
The substances reported as problems were: cocaine and crack 64%; heroin 47%; alcohol 43%;
cannabis 21%; benzodiazepines 19%; amphetamines 11%; methadone 9%; and hallucinogens 9%.
Table 31: Problem and non problematic substances
Of the two thirds of volunteers who had substance misuse issues who reported some non
problematic substance misuse, the following were reported as non problematic: cannabis 61%,
amphetamines 46%, alcohol 32%, hallucinogens 29%; cocaine and crack 29%, benzodiazepines
14%; heroin 11% methadone 4%.
26
It was clear from this question that poly drug use was not understood by a great many volunteers
before entering treatment. Below are two examples.
Service User (x) Problematic: Heroin, Methadone, Dexedrine
Non-problematic: Morphine, Cocaine, Crack Cocaine, Amphetamine Sulphate,
Cannabis, Valium, LSD, Codeine
Service User (y) Problematic: Heroin
Non-problematic: Cocaine, Crack Cocaine, Amphetamine Sulphate, Ecstasy,
Dihydracodeine, Cannabis, Valium, Tramadol, Mushrooms
Subutex, Methadone, Alcohol
c) How long had substance misuse problems
Of those who had substance misuse problems, just over half (51%) said they had substance
misuse problems for 11-20 years; a quarter (26%) had problems for more than 21 years; 15% had
problems 6-10 years and 4% reported they had substance misuse problems for 1 to 5 years.
Table 32: Length of substance misuse problem
d) How long in recovery
When asked how long they were in recovery, 11% of volunteers in recovery said 0-12 months; 62%
one to five years; 11% 11 to 20 years and 4% more than 21 years.
Table 33: Years using / recovering
27
b. What recovery type do you use
11% MI, 47% 12 step, 28% CBT, 21% eclectic, 17% other 9% did not answer
f) Abstinent or still using
60% of volunteers in recovery reported being abstinent from all substances, 36% were not.
h) If still using impact of SUDRG on use
Just over half of most two thirds of volunteers in recovery (60%) reported their substance misuse
had changed whilst volunteering at SUDRG. Nine volunteers reported using less, 4 reported using
more and 8 had reported other changes.
i) Impact of SUDRG on recovery
Volunteers were asked whether SUDRG had a positive impact on peoples personal recovery and
98% reported that it did (2% did not respond).
When asked ‘Has volunteering motivated you in you recovery?’ answers included: “Has improved
my general well being and has encouraged me to interact with community”; ”Being involved in
SUDRG has given me back hope”; “Awakened old drug free interests”; “It makes me feel that there
is hope for people like me”; “It gives me self worth and a family type group, and support and help
re-integrating back into work”
j) Impact of Volunteering on lives
Table 35: SUDRG impact
k) Do they access SUDRG when not volunteering and why?
Table 35 above shows that half (49%) reported that volunteering at SUDRG had changed their life
`a great deal’; 26% said it had `positively changed their life’ and 17% said it had positively changed
their life a little. No one reported that volunteering at SUDRG had made life worse
28
4.3 Volunteering in SUDRG
a) Why people choose to volunteer
When asked why they volunteer for SUDRG, volunteers gave a range of responses as shown in
Table 36 below. Almost three quarters wanted to “give something back” ; two thirds (66%) thought it
would help with employment prospects; 60% said it was because “the drop-in model works”; 52%
said it was part of their recovery; 39% said it was to “support the local community”; and 18% gave
other reasons.
Table 36: Motivation for volunteers
b) Length of volunteering at SUDRG
The 61 volunteers who completed the questionnaires had been volunteering for SUDRG for a
range of time. Almost a third (30%) had been volunteering for less than a year; a quarter (25%) had
volunteered for 1 to 5 years; 30% had been volunteering at SUDRG and elsewhere for 6 to 10
years and 16% between 11 and 20 years.
c) Volunteering roles: current and aspirations
Of those interviewed, 15% (9) were team leaders and a further 35 said they would like to be.
Also, 13% (8) interviewed said they were supervisors and a further 34 said they would like to be.
4.4 Impact of volunteering
a) What do volunteers get out of volunteering?
Table 37: Volunteer outcomes
29
Table 37 above shows what volunteers reported they get out of volunteering. Three quarters (75%)
reported both “supporting others” and “increase in confidence”; 74% said “a sense of belonging”;
two thirds (66%) said it increased self esteem; half (49%) said it supported them; 38% said it was
“being part of a family”; and 18% gave other reasons.
b) If are a leader or supervisor what impact on life
All those who were team leaders or supervisors all said this had made a positive difference to their
lives: 92% said it helped them take responsibility; 77% said it increased self confidence and 39%
said it helped with employment prospects.
d) Changes in lives reported by volunteers
When asked whether they felt you’re their lives had changed since they started to volunteer,
volunteers generally reported a host of positives. Answers included:
Has made me more reliable and responsible given me a sense of purpose and direction.
Has made me believe in myself.
I now feel useful rather than useless.
It has given me confidence, a sense of achievement and a sense of self esteem.
e) Did volunteering change people
When asked ‘Do you feel that volunteering has changed you as an individual?’ the answers were
very positive and spoke of growth, development and being part of something. Answers included:
I’ve been more open-minded and less judgemental.
I have something to offer other addicts.
Being a constructive part of society.
It made me grow as a person..
I have more tolerance and understanding with people and I have learned to stay calm.
It helped me to grow into the adult I never was and gave me a role in the world.
It’s improved my confidence which needed fixing after being at home looking after kids for
two years.
Made me more aware of personal boundaries.
Feel more responsible, feel employable now.
f) Favourite aspects of volunteering
When asked ‘What is your favourite thing about volunteering with the SUDRG?’ answers included
the following: “Sense of purpose, direction and motivation. “I actually enjoy working for free”;
“Feeling like a useful person”; “The team, the feeling I get at the end of the day”; “Helping others
and being part of a recovery organisation”; “People are smiling when they see me”; “I have met
some really special people who I volunteer with”; “Sharing – being part of a community of people”;
h) What volunteers would be doing if not volunteering
When asked ‘What would you be doing if not volunteering for the SUDRG?’ answers included the
following: “Not a lot”; “Be at home asleep or getting up to all sorts!”; “God knows”; “Probably at
“Nothing or something stupid”; “Bugger all” “Sleeping, getting more stressed” “Relaxing – or
working somewhere else for more money!” and “Be at home bored and sitting in a bit of self pity”.
30
i) What skills had been acquired through volunteering
Volunteers were asked what skills they had acquired through volunteering. Table 38 below shows
that 80% reported a greater understanding of substance misuse; over 70% reported improved
communication skills and over 70% improved self confidence. Almost 50% reported improved
social skills and 45% had gained skills in assessment of substance misuse and other issues and a
fifth (21%) had improved kitchen skills. Other included “dealing with conflict”; and “music skills”.
Table 38: Acquired skills
j) Most valuable aspects of SUDRG
Table 39, shows responses given by volunteers when they were asked what aspects of the social
club they valued the most. Over 80% valued helping others most; 75% valued the training they
received; 63% valued check- ins (and 55% valued check-outs). Supervision was valued by just
under half (47%); the support network was named by 41%; and social aspects by almost a quarter
(23%). Other aspects were mentioned by 4%.
Table 39: Most valued aspects of the social club
31
4.5 Usefulness of SUDRG volunteer support mechanisms
a) When asked ‘Do you find check-ins useful?’ answers included:
It allows clarity around roles, practice and personal issues can be addressed.
Its important to know how the people you work with are feeling, especially if somebody is
feeling more sensitive (including me).
Fosters a sense of honesty and community.
b) When asked ‘Do you find Checkouts useful?’ answers included:
To reflect on the day and helps with any difficult service users I have had to deal with.
It is very important for people not to take any unresolved issues home with them.
Allows me to say how happy I feel.
Let off steam, relax and bond as individuals away from the working role.
c) In-house Training
When asked what ‘In-House’ training workshops were valued, volunteers answered all were – the
list is as follows:
“Health & Safety”; “Poly-drug use and Harm Minimisation”; “Drugs Awareness”; “Alcohol
Awareness”; “Crack Awareness”; “Communication Skills including 1-1 Support”; “Dealing with
Aggressive and Intimidating Behaviour”; “Boundaries and Confidentiality”; “POVA and Child
Protection”; “Needle Exchange 1 & 2”; “Needle Exchange Practical Assessment Test”; “Referrals
and Assessments”; and “Referrals and Assessments Practical Test”. Two are under development
“The Importance of Creativity in Recovery” and “Multiple Roads to Recovery”.
d) ‘Has volunteering helped you to get outside training?’
Volunteers thought that volunteering at SUDRG had helped them get a range of training, answers
included:
“Through the DAAT”; “NVQ”; “NVQ L2”; “NVQ 3”; “Sundial/rugby house/F66”; “CNWL Courses”;
“Not yet”; “I now do IT classes”; “INSPIRIT”; “Helped me get onto a counselling course”; “It was my
first placement when I qualified”; “Mentoring”; “MSC Behavioural Therapy/NVQ L3/ LOCN L2”; and
“Supporting people training seven different councils”.
e) When asked ‘Has volunteering helped you to get employment?’ answers included:
“Not yet, but will do”; “Addaction”; “My knowledge gained from volunteering helped me to meet the
requirements needed to gain Pulse Agency employment”; “Psychologist at Foundation 66”;
“Substance misuse practitioner”; “SUDRG for K&C”; “Good for my CV”; “Private rehab”; “It was my
first placement when I qualified”; “Increased confidence as a dance teacher”; “Job as Provisions
Manager for the SUDRG”; and “As evidence for course applications”.
f) When asked ‘How would you describe the support being provided to you by the
SUDRG?’ answers included:
Second to none – brilliant with empathy
Someone always available and willing to support whenever I’ve needed it
Multifaceted and efficient support network
Brilliant
Fantastic – no one else I know of provides anything like this
Very supportive, much appreciated
Anytime I’ve had a problem I’ve had support
I seem to get supervision when I need it.
32
i) When asked ‘How do you feel conflict is managed at the SUDRG?’ the responses were as
follows:
Instantly by co-ordinators with understanding, depth and clarity.
Very good as team leader will deal with it professionally..
Well in checkout and supervision.
I haven’t seen much at all, but it has always been dealt with very well.
Very well managed – mediated.
4.7 What makes SUDRG WORK?
a) When asked what they through the differences were between the SUDRG and
mainstream services, answers included:
There is no them and us.
At SUDRG people can get front line support from ex-recovering addicts.
SUDRG is unfortunately unique in my experience. It’s well run, easily accessed and no
nonsense in every sense of the phrase.
A lot of mainstream services are too rigid for chaotic people.
No other service provides this at a weekend on this level.
Its more hand on heart.
d) When asked if they had any other comments to make about the SUDRG the volunteer’s
answers included:
I simply think all wonderful things about the SUDRG in every respect.
Volunteering here and given me responsibility which I take extremely seriously. This has
had a positive impact on my son’s fear of me never getting back to full time employment.
Since becoming a volunteer, I have seen a different way of dealing with addiction
recovery and it works!
To the outsider or 12 step person it might seem scary, mad, unorganised – but it serves
a much needed gap. It is allowed to be slightly maverick and crazy at times but always
seems to work in a safe way no matter what is happening, and the volunteers seem to
really create a family feeling. Above all I feel it is totally honest and accepting of the
clients and volunteers, and has a flexibility about it that is missing from other services.
I have loved being a volunteer at the SUDRG. It has given me back my life and really
aided me in my recovery..
SUDRG changed my life and I will always be a part of it.
33
5. CONCLUSIONS
5:1 Key points from the Service User Survey
The greater majority of service users attending the SUDRG weekend service are 35 and above and
single, divorced or separated, although 40% are parents. Half have been in prison, and more than
half had health problems other than their substance use issues. There are a high percentage of
service users (41%) on medication for mental health issues, and breathing difficulties also rated
highly as a persistent health problem. 78% were using drugs and alcohol and 22% were abstinent.
Drug use was wide ranging and alcohol use was also high. Cocaine and Crack use was more
prevalent than Heroin and Methadone use, and the use of a range of Cannaboids was also high.
Codeine use was unexpectedly high. Unsurprisingly a wide range of substances were being used,
and it is worth noting that Ketamine and Hashish were reported as being substances individuals
were addicted to.
Although not included in this survey, previous work has shown that with rare exceptions, almost
every service user with a substance use issue is a poly drug user. Half of all service users were
also tobacco smokers. Outside of substance use issues, housing, unemployment and social
isolation appeared to be the most frequent issues raised that were considered problematic.
It is worth noting that although 62% had been in structured treatment, exactly the same amount had
dropped out of structured treatment.
70% of service users were regular attendees, and half had attended for more than a year. Food, a
safe place to socialise and a variety of support were the most frequent reasons for attending. The
satisfaction rating for the service; the satisfaction rating for the volunteers, and the rating of the
service as being safe supportive and friendly were all extremely high, each being rated 9/10. 98%
of service users said they would recommend the service to another.
48% said the service helped them to use less drugs, and 52% said they used less drugs on the
days they attended. The satisfaction rating on feeling better upon leaving the Social Club was 9/10.
It is clearly demonstrated in this survey that for many in this cohort of individuals, a high percentage
of whom of whom have a long and complex substance use history, the less structured and socially
based nature of the SUDRG rated as far more effective as a support mechanism than the current
treatment system.
A loosely structured and safe environment, based around family and social interaction, with a
variety of activities that can be undertaken or ignored at will, rather than an environment based
around therapeutic intervention, appears an effective means of encouraging some individuals to
address their substance use issues. It is also worth noting that the service user driven nature of the
social club offers an entirely different means of engaging individuals who struggle with the more
formal nature of the current treatment system.
5:2 Key points from the Volunteer Survey
The volunteers are almost a 50/50 split between men and women and in general are slightly older
than the service users. They are resident in across a wide area of London and many travel a great
distance to volunteer. As with the service users, 95% are single, divorced or separated. 30%
reported having special needs, whether physical or psychological, and 75% were in recovery from
substance use. A large number had been poly substance users in the past, and almost all of them
had not regarded this as a problem at the time. On seeking treatment, many had focused on
specific substances, regarding many others as irrelevant or non-problematic. 77% of those
volunteers in recovery had had a substance use issue for more than 10 years. 62% of them had
been in recovery for between 1-5 years, although unfortunately it was not possible to break this
figure down further. Half had been in rehab and half had accessed NA/AA during their recovery.
Interestingly, 32% of the SUDRG volunteers were ex-SUDRG service users.
34
98% of the volunteers said that the SUDRG had had a positive impact on their recovery, and 75%
said volunteering at the SUDRG had either changed their life or changed it a great deal.75% said
they volunteered to ‘give something back’; 66% because it improved their employment prospects,
and 52% as part of their recovery. More than half of the volunteers showed a desire for promotion,
team leader being an example.
It was clear that check in/out was an important part of the operational process, and that in-house
training was highly valued. A noticeable cohort were inspired to seek outside training, and for (18%)
volunteering played a substantial part of a route into employment.
It was clear that the strong family ethos within the SUDRG allowed the volunteers to feel supported
and valued, both as individuals and team members. This support extended to their individual
recovery from substance use, and played a clear part in boosting self esteem. Conflict in the
SUDRG between volunteers did not appear to be a problem, (interesting considering the sheer
diversity of the team) and when it arose was handled well. It is worth noting that the addition of the
music workshop to the Social Club had a noticeable impact on the volunteers, as well as the
service users. The volunteers wanted to expand both the hours that the SUDRG operated and
increase the services it provided, and a wide range of ideas were suggested.
It is clear from the volunteer survey that the structure and operational model of the SUDRG
provides ‘interactive’ aftercare for the service user volunteers. Not only is there a noticeable effect
on an individual’s recovery with regard to support, advice and information, but the family ethos of
the SUDRG provides a feeling of ownership for those involved and clearly inspires individuals to
move forward in their lives. There is an enormous sense of passion demonstrated by those
involved, shown it their clearly demonstrated ability to run a very busy and demanding drop-in. A
unique form of service user involvement, it cannot be denied that volunteering for the SUDRG
provides a substantial benefit on a great many personal levels to those involved.
5.3 Summary of conclusions
This survey unequivocally demonstrates that service user’s can design and run services that are
highly effective on many levels; from the number of individuals accessing the service (350 in 2010)
and their contact rate (5306 in 2010) which demonstrates a very high retention rate, through the
excellent value for money (101,725.00 for 2010) the service clearly displays, and the undoubted
impact it makes on the lives of all of the individuals involved, both service users and volunteers.
Service user involvement on this level can make a substantial difference to local treatments
systems and provide an alternative form of recovery for individuals, who for whatever reason, the
current system struggles to deal with effectively. Operating with the simplest ethos, ‘We are service
users, we are family’, it demonstrates that community action, when supported properly by the
partnership and DAAT, has a clear and positive impact on individual’s recovery and reintegration
into the community. In a great many respects, it is the missing part of the treatment system.
5:4 Key learning points for operating peer run weekend services
Developing the service
In order to survive, peer run services need to start very small and grow at their own speed. While
roles, supervision and training can be built into a model at the beginning, in order to be effective it
needs to be understood that the service user volunteers will need considerable support and time in
order to undertake these roles effectively. The SUDRG took four years of continual development to
reach its current stage. It also needs to be accepted that for those individuals hoping to create and
run such services, the commitment in time and effort in the first two to three years will be enormous
and cannot be avoided if the service is to become sustainable.
35
Individuals in positions of authority need to be able to demonstrate passion, commitment and
flexibility in their working practice. Such roles may be regarded as vocational first and foremost. For
service users undertaking such roles, it is essential that training around boundaries, self
awareness, models of addiction and recovery are available. The ability to separate personal
feelings and beliefs from professional boundaries, and the learning of unconditional positive regard
is vital if service user volunteers are to succeed in running their own services. The passion and
commitment often demonstrated by service user volunteers must be balanced against the
weaknesses often demonstrated by individuals in early recovery, and this will need to be constantly
and carefully addressed by the individuals in charge of any peer run service.
The nature of individual services offered should be based entirely on local service user need and
choice, and it should be accepted that this often changes with time. It also needs to be understood
that services can only be offered with the right service user volunteers in place. For example, you
cannot run an open access music workshop without volunteers who can play instruments, one of
whom needs some skill at group facilitation.
Lapse and relapse
Lapses and relapses are an inevitable part of peer run services when most volunteers have had
serious substance use issues, and many are in the early stages of their recovery. Therefore a
flexible approach needs to be taken to this with regard to volunteering, support and services. The
SUDRG assesses its own volunteers when such issues arise, and take these assessments directly
to the head of the Care Management Team, where the appropriate treatment is discussed and high
speed referrals are made. This has proved extremely effective and has allowed the SUDRG to
demonstrate a clear duty of care towards it volunteers. Where possible these volunteers should be
allowed to continue in their roles, and should it be necessary to suspend them from duty for a
period, then access to the social club and the peer support it provides should be actively
encouraged. It is vital that non judgmental support is a core part of operational policy for everyone
involved in the organization, and those lapses and relapses are not treated as a personal or
professional failure.
Volunteer relationships
With eighty to ninety volunteers at any one time, it is also inevitable that relationships will take place
among volunteers. It has always been policy within the SUDRG that its paid employees should not
have relationships with volunteers, simply because of the potentially destabilizing effect on the
organization, and that should this arise, it must be discussed with the Management Committee.
Volunteers, while free to have relationships with each other, and must tell the Service User
Coordinator and the Service Provisions Manager in order to ensure that they do not volunteer on
the same day. Designed to operate as a family, it is important that the service does not fall into the
trap of leaving this issue unmanaged. With so many female volunteers, often vulnerable, it is vital
that everyone feels safe, respected and untroubled with regard to their sexuality. Accepting that
relationships are a normal part of human behaviour makes a great deal of sense, but this must
always be balanced, ensuring that it does not cross the line into sexual harassment.
Partnership
In order to become an integral part of a local treatment system, such organizations need to be able
to work closely as partners with both their DAAT and the local service providers. This requires a
degree of tolerance on both sides. The SUDRG only works because it is independent of every other
organization, remaining autonomous and self empowering. Micro management does not work. This
requires the SUDRG to be open and honest with its partners as problems arise, seeking advice and
support as and when required. Transparency is vital in maintaining trust, as is the acceptance that
there are times when outside help will be needed. In return, the DAAT and service providers
needed to allow the SUDRG to operate by its own rules even if they clash with the ‘industry
standard’ (disclosure of a substance use background being an example). The importance of
partnership working cannot be overstated; neither can the importance of independence.
36
Training
Running a busy drop-in requires a degree of training for the volunteers involved. The in-house
training workshops provided to the volunteers by the SUDRG have proved popular, and enabled us
to undertake the running of a needle exchange and peer to peer assessments into Tier ¾ services.
Such workshops need to be simple, specific and tailored to the volunteers. It is important to
remember that we are not training drugs workers, but service user volunteers, and the training
needs to be appropriate. Such training allows for a greater sense of security among the volunteers
with regard to their roles, and helps the organization to ensure that not only do we all ‘sing from the
same hymn sheet’, but that we also maintain a safe environment for both volunteers and service
users. In-house training also played a part in helping the 18% of service user volunteers who went
onto employment in the drug and alcohol treatment field.
Handbook
While the SUDRG has never seen the necessity for complex terms of reference or codes of
conduct, clear role definitions and guidelines have proved of enormous benefit, and the Volunteer
Handbook has been written with this in mind. The SUDRG current has a variety of roles: Volunteer;
Team Leader; Group Facilitator (Music, Art, Sport, and Photography) Supervisor and Service
Manager. This allows the volunteers a degree of ambition, provides promotional pathways, and
allows for individuals to be placed in areas where they are most comfortable. A clear understanding
of ground rules, expectations and operational policy has proved beneficial and allows for the
running of a safe and complex service.
Ethos
The SUDRG is designed to operate as much like a family as is possible, providing a safe and
supportive environment for all of its volunteers. The nature of peer run services provides two clear
challenges that must be addressed. Such services must be designed to provide high support for its
volunteers. Not only does this include check-ins and checkouts and regular supervision, it also
means that it will be inevitable that such support will need to be provided outside of normal working
hours on occasion. The management of such an organization will therefore need to be extremely
flexible, and must operate on individual need rather than organizational policy in order to be
successful. It is a mistake to try and operate in the same manner as other service providers. The
greatest strength of this organization is its service user volunteers. This is a double edged sword
however, and brings with it a host of potential weaknesses that must be dealt with in softer, and
more person centered fashion.
Models of Addiction
The SUDRG has determinedly refused to adopt any model of addiction above another, nor has it
supported one method of recovery over another. The organization has always operated an open
access policy for both service users and volunteers. Among the volunteers this creates a potential
for conflict, with abstinent based twelve step beliefs clashing with those volunteers who do not
believe in abstinence, the drinking of alcohol being an example. We have discovered that it is
possible to create and run a highly diverse team that encompasses all of these viewpoints and
associated behaviour. This requires careful management and a great deal of patience, along with
excellent conflict resolution skills. Handled with care, it allows us to provide a service that is
extremely broad in the advice and information it can offer, and encourages volunteers to accept
diversity of belief and practice as a normal part of human existence. It also gives us a team of
volunteers who have exceptional strength and breadth in their working practice, and discourages
exclusivity among the team since there is room for all individual beliefs and practices.
Large Volunteer Teams
It is important to remember that the individuals helping you to provide a service are not only
volunteers but are also in recovery from substance use. Large volunteer teams serve several
purposes. It contributes to the maintenance of a safe and well managed environment for the service
users accessing the weekend service; it ensures that the workload for the volunteers is not so high
37
that they becomes stressed and therefore potentially vulnerable, and it helps in the creation of a
family feeling among the team itself, since there are always other volunteers around with who an
individual feels comfortable and at ease with.
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
It is clear from this report that the SUDRG have created an out of hours service that not only
provides a different method from the current industry standard for individuals to successfully
address their substance use issues, but which also simultaneously provides a highly supportive
form of interactive aftercare than not only has a substantial impact on the service user volunteer’s
recovery, but also acts as a pathway for a significant percentage of those service user volunteers to
later move into employment. With extremely high access figures for both service users and service
user volunteers, this is cost effective in the extreme and its two tier function is unique.
We therefore have the following recommendations, drawn from the report.
Option 1
The SUDRG continue to operate along its current lines, but seek outside funding to create several
more posts. This would enable us to effectively run a second social club in the south of the
borough, and look at a variety of means and activities for a range of evening services. We would
therefore be seeking to simply increase weekend and evening provision for service users across
the borough based on our current model.
Option 2
The DAAT and SUDRG look at the viability of running an evidence based experiment with the
SUDRG as a socially based weekend ‘day programme’, which will necessitate both assessments
(which we already do) and a care plan for selected service users. It will also require a different level
of training for selected volunteers, in order for them to undertake the above tasks. With the move to
the new Blenheim/CDP premises, there is a clear opportunity to expand the services we provide.
This will also necessitate reporting to NTDMS. However, such an undertaking could be seen as a
preparatory step for option three.
Option 3
However, we would like to suggest that the Kensington and Chelsea DAAT and its partners
consider supporting the SUDRG to create the following service.
We intend to use the model for our current service as the basis for the first peer-run day
programme in the country, running Monday to Friday, and bolted on to our current provision,
allowing us to provide a seven day a week peer run service. This service will be socially based, with
strong ETE and life skills elements, but a minimal therapeutic presence. Staffed in the majority by
those individuals who have completed the day programme, the entire service will be modeled
around intensive support, family, social skills and reintegration into society.
In essence we hope to provide the first successful aftercare programme that will allow individuals
to access the service for a year, firstly as clients, then as volunteers, and finally moving out of the
service and on into employment, while being supported by a strong and consistent family
organization throughout their individual journeys. We would suggest this is run with an evidence
based service from the beginning.
It is our proposal that the SUDRG, supported by the Kensington and Chelsea DAAT and the
partnership currently working together in the borough, should use this model of service
user involvement/provision to create a service that provides the two elements that have
38
been consistently missing from the treatment system; namely effective, wrap around
aftercare and weekend and evening services.
It is our contention that such a service, working in partnership with the DAAT and current
service providers, would allow Kensington and Chelsea to offer the first comprehensive and
fully integrated treatment system anywhere in the country.
Tim Sampey
Service User Coordinator
Kensington and Chelsea
39
