The effect of unregistered drug rehabilitation services on the by olliegoblue33


									A Re- Evaluation of the Effects of Local Drug
       Rehabilitation Services Upon
           Weston - super - Mare
                   27 November 2006


1. Introduction                                                            3

2. Operation Jupiter update                                                4

3. Impact upon local services                                              9

4. Analysis of crime levels and any link to drugs rehabilitation clients   12

5. Poor management of some criminal justice clients from outside North
   Somerset                                                       14

6. Recommendations                                                         18

7. Glossary of Terms                                                       20

8. Appendices                                                              21

1.   Introduction
     In January 2005 the report “An Investigation into the Effects of Drug and
     Alcohol Services and Houses in Multiple Occupation upon WSM” was
     published. The report and the recommendations included were supported by
     the North Somerset multi-agency Responsible Authorities Group (RAG).

     From this report Operation Jupiter was developed to deliver a number of the
     recommendations through performance managed multi-agency action, co-
     ordinated by the Communities and Reducing Supply (CARS) task group of the
     North Somerset Community Safety Drug Action Team. Terms of reference
     and membership of the CARS task group are detailed in Appendix H.

     A second report ”Operation Jupiter update report September 2005” provided
     an evaluation of the initial work of Project Jupiter. The paper was able to
     demonstrate tangible success by comparing data year on year across several

     This second update provides further evaluation of Operation Jupiter in
     delivering against the original recommendations, acknowledging that those
     recommendations remain both valid and current. This report provides further
     evidence of the coordinated multi-agency work that has been both integral
     and essential to the successful outcomes of Operation Jupiter. It also
     describes the progress made to date in the three main phases of Operation
     Jupiter: quality standards enforcement, the drug and alcohol services
     accreditation scheme, and the criminal justice programmes merger.

     Although this report concentrates on the progress made in Phase 1, results
     from the ongoing work on Phase 2 to establish an accreditation scheme for all
     premises and services that are involved in the drug and alcohol rehabilitation
     sector are imminent.

     Phase 2 is critical in addressing the long-term problems caused by the drug
     and alcohol rehabilitation services in North Somerset. It is acknowledged that
     whilst Phase 1 was essential in providing a step change in policy and practice
     in relation to those services, it is important to build on this and ensure that
     individuals who legitimately come to North Somerset receive a good quality
     service with appropriate case management.

     The lack of any legislation to provide an assessment framework for some of
     these services means that the accreditation scheme is important in ensuring
     that the longer-term problems are addressed.

     In particular the project has secured a high level of co-operation between the
     agencies and the sharing of data using the CSDAT structure. This has
     facilitated intelligence to develop tactics, enhance strategic understanding and
     policy direction.

     As with many such projects, the work carried out through Operation Jupiter
     has led to further information and intelligence gathering. This information has
     enabled the Partnership to begin to quantify the impact on services of

    individuals coming to North Somerset for the original purpose of drug
    treatment and support. This latest evaluation has identified new and emergent
    issues. Further investigation through the CARS group has enabled these
    issues to be reported within this document. The CARS group, who represent
    managers and practitioners across the agencies, recommend that a number
    of areas require further concerted attention to achieve the highest standards
    of care/offender management and control over service delivery in WSM, and
    continue to drive down crime levels in support of efforts to achieve the PSA 1
    crime reduction targets.

    The aim of this report is to highlight individuals entering North Somerset to
    access drug treatment and support, but having accessed it to ensure there are
    structures and procedures in place to support them through their treatment
    episode, as well as ensuring the treatment and accommodation they are
    accessing are of a required standard, so they are given every chance to
    As a result this report proposes a set of additional recommendations to
    Among the new areas discussed are:

          Links between high levels of crime and individuals who are
           accessing drug rehabilitation services in WSM
          Extra burden being placed upon local services by clients from
           other areas who arrive for drug treatment and subsequently
          Quality of management of individuals from outside North
           Somerset subject to the criminal justice system
          Implementation of an accreditation scheme for Drug and Alcohol
           Rehabilitation Services

    Appendices are attached to enable the reader to explore certain aspects in
    more detail. Appendix A acknowledges the contributions made by the
    different partners in developing this paper.

2. Operation Jupiter update

    The original recommendations of the first Operation Jupiter report are:

2.1 It is recommended that this report be brought to the attention of National
    Bodies whose policy/legislation making ability impact upon the issues
    identified. Specifically these should include The National Treatment
    Agency, Department of Work and Pensions, National Probation Service,
    the Home Office and National Audit Office.

    Members of Parliament and Ministers have been briefed concerning issues
    relating to the Operation Jupiter. The Community Safety Drug Action Team
    (CSDAT) is in dialogue with the National Treatment Agency regarding the
    drug treatment needs of the local population, funding requirements/formula

    and the needs of those who come to North Somerset for the purpose of
    receiving drug treatment. The CSDAT is working closely with the National
    Treatment Agency on the development of a quality standards accreditation
    scheme, which the NTA is viewing with interest.

    The CSDAT has made the Home Office aware of issues of concern and has,
    through the Avon and Somerset Probation Area, made the National Probation
    Service aware of systems issues and concerns regarding specific drug and
    alcohol services in WSM used by Probation Services. Individual referring
    authorities across the United Kingdom have also been briefed.

2.2 The RAG to research, review and determine the level of drug/alcohol
    treatment and HMO facilities that it is reasonable for the WSM area to

    The research referred to in recommendation 2 has been ongoing and has
    formed an integral part of the implementation plan for Operation Jupiter. Part
    of the outcome of this additional research and intelligence gathering is the
    presentation of new and additional information contained within this update
    report, and involvement from other agencies including the Commission for
    Social Care Inspection.

    The determination of what level of drug and alcohol treatment services are
    appropriate for WSM rests on agreeing a set of criteria to determine
    appropriate provision. There is evidence to suggest that national and local
    perspectives are not aligned, and neither are national strategies.

    The National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse Capital Development
    Programme 2007/8 and 2008/9 indicates a shortfall of rehabilitation and
    detoxification bed spaces within North Somerset, which is contrary to the
    concept of over-provision, relatively speaking, within a national picture
    observed by many local commentators. However it does comment that some
    blockages to accessing treatment may be from external referrals taking up
    spaces. Equally, the Home Office report „Rebalancing the criminal justice
    system in favour of the law-abiding majority – cutting crime, reducing
    reoffending and protecting the public (July 2006)‟ states: “700 offenders a
    week are now entering treatment” and aims to “combine our prolific and
    priority offenders programme with our Drug Interventions Programme…”.

    This indicates that there is not a national policy approach to the geographic
    spread of provision of drug/alcohol rehabilitation bed spaces or services, yet
    there is a national referral process in operation. Discussion is needed
    between national and local agencies to resolve this anomaly.

2.3 The RAG to ensure that the most problematic HMOs in Weston-Super-
    Mare are rigorously targeted to ensure compliance with Housing
    Standards, Planning and Housing Benefit legislation. Any breaches will
    be prosecuted/enforced thus sending a clear message to landlords that
    sub standard premises and management is unacceptable.

    Phase 1 of Operation Jupiter has been the multi-agency targeting of combined
    enforcement activity brought against the worst 20 properties and services
    identified in the build up to the first Operation Jupiter Report. The identified
    properties are part of a rolling programme that has recently been reviewed.
    The summary of outcomes:

          16 multi-agency visits carried out to date.
          Reduction of 137 beds in poorly managed HMOs.
          31% overall reduction in calls to top 20 problematic premises.
          30 arrests made as a direct result of intelligence gained through the
           7 warrants executed on premises under Misuse of Drugs Act / Theft
          Stolen property, Class A and C drugs seized.
          Cash seized under Proceeds of Crime Act.
          £36,000 “Supporting People” funding has been withdrawn from one
           drug / alcohol rehabilitation establishment. The premises have
           subsequently closed. One provider has self terminated their contract.
           Supporting People Authorities with the local Probation services have
           agreed to survey the housing and support needs of all offenders in
           December 2006, which will lead to an agreed accommodation strategy.
          1 poor quality drug / alcohol rehabilitation establishment no longer
           allowed to accept individuals either from prison or on probation.
          7 premises sold / redeveloped or subject to “change of use” application.
          3 further premises subject of proposed sale to Registered Social
          49 Housing Standards enforcement notices served.
          Inland Revenue investigation ongoing into possible tax evasion.
          Benefit fraud investigation ongoing in relation to one landlord.
          Tax liability increased by Inland Revenue for one premises.
          Review by Rent Service resulted in reduction in housing benefit
           payable by North Somerset for 2 properties.
          Housing benefit payments now more strictly controlled.

    An unregistered drug treatment service has also invested heavily in quality
    standards and has made measurable improvements as a result.

2.4 Develop a formal accreditation scheme for all                      non-registered
    drug/alcohol services within the North Somerset area.

    The development of an accreditation scheme for drug and alcohol services
    constitutes phase 2 of Operation Jupiter and is well underway, with the
    structure now in place. Following a series of consultation events and focus
    groups, the CSDAT and the Private Rented Housing Team have developed a
    comprehensive set of service quality standards. These standards and the
    proposed monitoring framework has been positively assessed by the National
    Treatment Agency Regional Team, who are seeking to recommend its use
    both regionally across the South West and nationally following the successful
    completion of a pilot programme that is now underway.

    The comprehensive nature of this scheme, bringing together a quality
    assessment framework in the drug and alcohol treatment sector, and the
    supported and private rented housing sectors, is both innovative and

    The initial preparatory work has been completed but due to the technical
    nature and detail required to progress the scheme to the next stage, the
    Partnership is in the process of recruiting a suitably qualified and experienced

2.5 The number of individuals on DTTOs coming from outside North
    Somerset needs to be better understood and urgently addressed by the
    National Probation Service.

    Phase 3 of Operation Jupiter has been the development of coordinated
    criminal justice services aligned to drug treatment. Within North Somerset the
    Drug Intervention Programme team (DIT) and Prolific and Priority Offender
    Scheme has been merged into an integrated criminal justice team. This group
    case manages local individuals with drug problems and also individuals from
    other areas that are formally transferred to receive their drug treatment in
    North Somerset.

    As this report will later identify, there are further issues remaining in relation to
    the transfer of individuals, however the intelligence gathering and co-operation
    of local services has improved, enabling the team to be proactive in
    responding to individuals sent to North Somerset without the formal transfer
    process being followed by the area. Currently all drug treatment services in
    North Somerset notify the DIT/PPO team of individuals referred to treatment.

2.6 The RAG to investigate with the NTA the merit in creating a formal
    notification and monitoring process with regard to all referrals in and
    out of North Somerset for drug and/or alcohol treatment.

      The CSDAT has worked closely with the NTA and the National Drug
      Treatment Monitoring Service to provide training and support to all North
      Somerset based treatment services to be fully compliant with monitoring
      requirements. In addition at a regional and local level the CSDAT has worked
      with treatment services to develop case management software that will
      support the referral and monitoring process, providing evidence of outcomes
      of treatment for all those accessing treatment in North Somerset.

2.7    The RAG is recommended to evaluate policy concerning how public
      monies are spent on accommodation and treatment to ensure that funds
      are directed towards quality providers.

      The implementation of the accreditation scheme, the enforcement activity of
      Phase 1, and the powers provided by the Housing Act 2004 compliment the
      work of Supporting People in its review of services through their contractual
      arrangements. Supporting People has introduced a Quality Assessment
      Framework together with value for money assessments as part of its
      monitoring of contracts. Supporting People has withdrawn a contract from a
      service that had quality issues and has a strict monitoring process.

2.8 Accommodation facilities available to the North Somerset Housing
    Options Team are inadequate. The RAG to ensure that the quality and
    standard of the accommodation needs to be rigorously reviewed and
    improved in line with the recently agreed Housing Strategy for North
    Somerset 2004-2009.

      The standard of accommodation available to the Housing Advice Team is
      under constant review. In consideration of the multi-agency effort to improve
      standards, the Housing Advice Team no longer makes referrals to any
      accommodation identified in Phase 1. However, whilst improving standards
      this has equally reduced the accommodation available to customers of the
      Housing Advice service.

      In a further bid for improvement every property used by the Housing Advice
      Team is now inspected by the Private Rented Housing Team.
      Recent agreement has been received that across the West of England sub
      region there will be common standards for temporary accommodation.
      In addition to this the Enabling Team has secured funding to take poor quality
      accommodation out of the private sector and facilitate the development of
      good quality self-contained temporary accommodation working in partnership
      with local Registered Social Landlords.

2.9 The Police Crime Prevention Department to continue to work in
    conjunction with North Somerset Council to upgrade physical security
    and provide crime prevention advice to HMO Landlords.

     A joint initiative was completed between North Somerset Council and Police
     where funding was secured to purchase alarms/locks to update premises
     fitting a criteria (HMO). This was linked to crime prevention advice and both
     were made available to landlords of HMO properties to improve security and
     safety of their premises.

2.10 The RAG to devise, implement and monitor an action plan to deliver the
     recommendations contained within this report.

     The Communities and Reducing Supply task group developed and
     performance managed an action plan in response to these recommendations
     resulting in the progress to date described above.

     The new action plan, when agreed will be progressed and managed in the
     same way.

3.   Impact upon local services

3.1 Scale and nature of local drug/alcohol rehabilitation facilities

     Extensive enquiries and research commissioned during Operation Jupiter has
     established that the North Somerset area is host to the following facilities: -

           40 premises which are linked with drug treatment, counselling, or
            support. There are approximately 500 beds within these premises in

           13 are registered with the Commission for Social Care Inspection
            (CSCI).      There are 270 beds in the 13 registered residential
            rehabilitation facilities, which are regulated and inspected by CSCI.
            These services are generally regarded by CSCI to be good quality.

           The remaining 27 are unregistered facilities of which 12 are funded as
            supported housing and regulated under the Supporting People regime.

           There are 81 beds within the 12 Supporting People services. These
            services are supported housing for people in recovery under
            Supporting People contract and governance. 115 beds are in other
            unregistered and unregulated facilities.

           Supporting People operates to national guidelines based on local client
            needs, providing supported accommodation to those at greatest risk.
            Supporting People is government funding for housing related support
            for vulnerable people and cannot pay for drug treatment. In North
            Somerset, Supporting People funding is enabling over 2,000 people to
           remain independent. Supporting People covers a wide range of
           specific support needs, e.g. people with a learning disability, older
           people, etc. Supporting People is part of the solution for vulnerable
           people and is a way of helping people to gain life skills and become
           positive contributors to society.

          The majority of individuals are initially referred to a drug / alcohol
           rehabilitation establishment for a 12-week programme both regulated
           and unregulated

    This has created a disproportionately high geographical concentration of
    treatment centres and associated supported housing in the WSM area. Whilst
    most registered service providers have been established in this area for some
    time, there has been a noticeable growth in unregistered facilities in recent
    years, which has increased this disproportionality.

    It is estimated that up to 2000 individuals from outside North Somerset may
    be coming to the area each year for access to drug / alcohol rehabilitation
    facilities. Research has shown that a small number of these rehabilitation
    services are poorly managed and offer sub-standard treatment, counselling or

    Operation Jupiter has established that this is the case with two particular
    premises, which have been the focus of multi-agency targeting. Two multi-
    agency reports were submitted to the local probation service expressing
    concerns regarding poor treatment / management standards at the premises
    and as a result an instruction was issued that no further criminal justice
    referrals should be made to either premise.

    These premises were estimated to be attracting a total of around 200
    individuals from outside North Somerset to WSM for treatment each year.

    Enquiries are still ongoing regarding other drug rehabilitation facilities in North
    Somerset which are suspected to be poor quality and which are offering sub-
    standard services.

    Appendix F highlights examples of individuals that local services have
    difficulties with once relapsed and not supported by originating areas.

3.2 Relapse, Discharge and Offending in WSM

    There are a number of ways in which individuals accessing drug / alcohol
    rehabilitation services return to criminality. Some individuals relapse during
    their programme and are automatically discharged by their service provider.
    This is the procedure regardless of whether they are accessing registered or
    unregistered treatment. Others individuals are discharged from premises for
    breaking the conditions of residence whilst some successfully complete their
    programme but relapse thereafter.

    Once an individual is discharged from their treatment programme there is
    often little or no support available from their referring agency. A small number

      will enter supported housing projects funded by Supporting People, but the
      majority of those who stay will move into private lets, including HMOs. There
      are over 1100 HMOs in North Somerset.

      As a result of the Operation Jupiter initiative between April 2005 and March
      2006 the Housing Advice Team began keeping detailed records about the
      amount of people who approach the Council for housing assistance having
      been made homeless from various drug rehabs or „dry houses‟ in North
      Somerset. (See Appendix C for detail of the housing regulations). During this
      time there were 40 approaches from people who are not local and at some
      point in time were referred for rehab by another Authority. Out of these 7 were
      provided with temporary accommodation whilst enquiries into their
      circumstances were being carried out and only 1 was re-housed by the local

      These figures show that whilst there is an impact on the Housing Advice
      service this issue does not lead to the increased housing of ex drug/alcohol
      rehab customers. However it is evident that this does cause extra demand in
      the private rented sector and may disadvantage other people from finding
      appropriate housing.

      There is also concern about the drain on local resources such as Drug and
      Alcohol Services, Doctors, Hospitals, Non Statutory Housing, Voluntary
      Homeless Services, Police etc.

      However, the majority of applicants are not assisted directly by the council
      following their initial interview. Many end up living in less desirable flats, B&Bs
      and hostels paid for by housing benefit.

3.3 Impact on advice and counselling services

      The Addiction Recovery Agency (ARA) is a charity based in WSM set up to
      assist individuals who wish to address their drug and alcohol addiction.

      Recent research carried out has established that 28% of those individuals
      currently accessing their service were individuals from other areas who had
      originally come to WSM for treatment, 7% were from registered and 21% from
      unregistered treatment providers.

      Within the specialist service 31.5% of caseload originated from out of area.

      These figures show there is an impact on the service in North Somerset which
      impacts on the ability to service local residents in need of help.

3.4   Drug-related deaths

      Three individuals from outside North Somerset who came to WSM for access
      to drug rehabilitation services have died in the town within the last 12 months.
      Each death was as a result of drug abuse and each individual had been

    discharged from a dry-house a short time prior to their death. The
    circumstances of each death are detailed within Appendix D of this report.

    Enquiries have been made with the Coroner Officers in two other seaside
    towns similar to WSM in order to establish whether or not there have been
    any cases similar to the above. In one area there had been no similar cases in
    the last 12 months. In the other area recording systems did not provide the
    level of detail required to establish whether or not there were any such cases.

    In addition to the cases detailed in Appendix D, which all occurred within the
    last 12 months, we are aware of another death in 2004 when an individual
    from Dorset was referred into WSM by a drug agency in Poole. This individual
    died within 5 weeks of arriving in WSM. He came to an unregistered
    rehabilitation establishment in the town on 21st June and was discharged on
    15th July. He died as a result of drug misuse on 23rd July.

    These cases highlight the problems, which are encountered when individuals
    from other areas are discharged from rehabilitation establishments in the town
    without having the appropriate level of support.

4. Analysis of crime levels and any link to drugs rehabilitation
    It is clear that individuals from outside North Somerset are coming to WSM for
    access to drug / alcohol rehabilitation services. Many of these individuals
    relapse and consequently commit crime locally in order to fund their addiction.
    This is having a dramatic effect on the level of crime in the town.

    During the course of Operation Jupiter, which began in Jan 2005, North
    Somerset Police have been made aware of 108 cases of individuals who have
    come to the area for treatment but have subsequently been arrested for
    committing crime in the town. These are cases which the Police have come
    across during the course of routine enquiries for Operation Jupiter. It is not the
    total figure and it is suspected that there are many more cases of individuals
    who have come to the town for treatment and subsequently committed crime
    in the town. See Appendix B for examples.

    Operation Jupiter has afforded North Somerset Police enhanced Intelligence
    gathering opportunities, enabling in-depth analysis of data for crimes
    committed in WSM over a two-year period from January 2004 to December

          There were a total of 830 dwelling burglaries reported in WSM between
           1st January 2004 and 31st December 2005.

          22% of these offences were detected (n=180).

          57% of these detected dwelling burglaries (n=102) were offences
           committed by individuals from outside North Somerset who had come
           to town to access rehabilitation services.

      These 102 offences were committed by 19 different individuals from
       outside North Somerset who had come to WSM for access to drug /
       alcohol treatment, counselling or support.

      These 19 individuals are known to have accessed either registered or
       unregistered treatment facilities or a combination of both.

             10 are known to have accessed unregistered services.
             1 is known to have accessed a registered provider.
             2 are known to have used both registered and unregistered
             5 are known to have come to WSM for rehabilitation purposes
              but it is not known which type of facility they accessed.
             1 came to WSM seeking access to drug rehabilitation services
              but was never admitted for treatment.

The following data also illustrates the high proportion of crimes detected by
the Police that were committed by individuals from outside North Somerset
who had come to WSM to access rehabilitation facilities.

      A total of 144 commercial burglary crimes were detected, and 20%
       (n=29) of these crimes were committed by 13 individuals from outside
       North Somerset who came to WSM for access to drug / alcohol
       rehabilitation services.

      A total of 29 drug dealing crimes were detected, and 14% (n=4) of
       these crimes were committed by 4 individuals, all of whom who were
       individuals from other areas who had come to WSM to access drug /
       alcohol rehabilitation services.

The research carried out relating to the offences of dwelling burglary,
commercial burglary and drug dealing has involved detected offences only.
These statistics relate to offences, which have been committed by a total of 30
separate individuals.

Of these 30 individuals, 57% (n=17) committed crimes whilst they were
subject to probation supervision (i.e. Drug Treatment and Testing Orders,
Drug Rehabilitation Requirement, Community Rehabilitation Orders or on
licence from prison). At the time of those offences the individuals were all
living in rented housing, which was not linked to drug treatment, counselling or

The 30 individuals concerned came to WSM from the following areas:-
London (11), Midlands (7), South Wales (3), Thames Valley (3), Bristol (3),
North West (2) and Gloucester (2).

The pattern of individuals from outside North Somerset coming to WSM for
access to drug rehabilitation facilities and subsequently committing crime in
the town continues today and the Police are becoming aware of more cases
on an almost daily basis, highlighting the need to sustain the momentum
     gained by the partnership so far in this operation. This continues to have a
     major impact on the local community.

5.   Poor management of some criminal justice clients from
     outside North Somerset
5.1 Supervision of orders

     Current guidelines and policy of the National Probation Service such as
     PC52/04 require individuals receiving treatment or management of their
     sentence in another geographical area to be formally transferred. The process
     of transfer includes the assessment of „Risk of Harm‟ to the local community.

     Evidence from individuals receiving treatment in North Somerset who are de
     briefed following arrest by the local Police report that they receive minimal
     contact with case managers. Sometimes contact is made by telephone, many
     report no contact at all with their caseworkers. The treatment provider
     becomes relied upon to send reports to the Probation case manager, the
     nature and quality of which are suspected to be well below standard on many
     occasions. These concerns link directly to the rationale behind the
     development of the accreditation scheme. Specific examples of system
     failures resulting in serious consequences for local people are discussed in
     Appendix E.

     The Probation Service locally has recently established 93 cases of individuals
     who are subject to supervision orders (or on licence from prison) who have
     been residing in drug rehabilitation establishments in North Somerset from
     Jan 2005 to May 2006 (72 registered, 10 unregistered and 11 unable to
     establish). Only 3 of these cases had been transferred in the correct way.
     Many of these individuals have convictions for violence and other serious
     offences. Therefore at least 90 individuals have been sent to WSM for drug /
     alcohol treatment without the appropriate level of Probation supervision. This
     issue is currently being addressed to some degree at a local level by use of a
     Probation Service Officer one day per week who is establishing links with all
     the local treatment providers, who in turn notify the statutory agencies of
     individuals accessing their service on court orders or licences from out of
     area. Once notified the PSO will make formal contact with the Probation area
     supervising the individual and send a letter from the Assistant Chief Probation
     Officer highlighting their responsibilities with regards to correct transfer policy
     or a return to originating area. Since this role has been in place (June 2006),
     68 individuals have engaged in treatment provision under this criteria who
     were not transferred formally, with 26 still in area awaiting transfer of their
     cases to local Probation. If all outstanding individuals are transferred and not
     returned to originating area for a variety of reasons then the caseload of the
     local Probation officers increases twofold.

     The recent report into the Hanson and White case identified systems failures
     in risk assessment and supervision among the key concerns. Before a case
     transfer or referral to another area is made, the case must be subjected to a
     „Risk of Harm‟ assessment. The purpose of this assessment is to identify

    suitable cases where a community-based sentence is of benefit to the
    individual while protecting the safety of the community.

    The Hanson and White report identified that this „Risk of Harm‟ assessment
    had not been completed and that this was a major factor in the ensuing
    offences leading to the death of the victims.

    Given the number of individuals referred to WSM where the formal transfer
    does not take place there is little if any opportunity for WSM based services to
    have input into the „Risk of Harm‟ assessment.

    Such input is important to influence a risk management process for the safety
    and well being of WSM and its community.

    Attached Appendix E shows individuals on orders/licence that have not been
    transferred to the local Probation office.

5.2 Breach of Orders

    The treatment provider is likely to discharge the individual for non-compliance
    with the conditions of the treatment regime. The Probation case manager has
    the opportunity to recommend further work with the individual, or to
    recommend return to court for a breach of conditions.

    This situation is problematic for individuals in North Somerset where the case
    has not been formally transferred as previously described, since the case
    manager has to initiate the breach, which then has to be referred back to the
    sentencing court. This leads to the situation where known individuals are non
    compliant with the conditions of treatment and have been discharged and non
    compliant with the conditions of sentence order, yet remain at large in North
    Somerset free to commit crime. See case studies at Appendix E. These
    circumstances are exacerbated when local Probation and Police Officers are
    not informed of the individual‟s presence in North Somerset.

5.3 Drug Intervention Programme

    Introduced by the Home Office in 2003, the purpose of this programme is to
    provide case management of individuals within the criminal justice system.
    The programme is intended to enhance communication between criminal
    justice and drug treatment agencies.

    Recent communication came from a DIP manager from London who
    requested that North Somerset keep an individual, as they didn‟t want him
    back in London, as he would commit crime there.

    That individual subsequently remained in North Somerset and has recently
    been convicted of a criminal offence in WSM (see Appendix E, item iv).

5.4 Individuals who choose to remain in WSM

    It is difficult to estimate what percentages of individuals remain in the WSM
    area once they have either relapsed or completed their treatment programme.
    Treatment providers will supply a train ticket to clients so that they can return

    However, for many individuals there is little incentive to return to their home
    area. Furthermore, individuals in recovery are often discouraged from
    returning to their former area, as it is likely they would renew old criminal
    associations and therefore increase the risk of relapse.

    In addition to this, the reality is that the “return to origin” policy, which some
    treatment service providers claim to adhere to, cannot be enforced.

    North Somerset Supporting People have contracts with 11 providers to fund
    services for individuals in recovery from drug and alcohol misuse.

    80% (n=54) of the individuals housed in these premises originally came to
    WSM from outside the area to access drug rehab services. Most of these
    individuals will have been treated in either registered or unregistered
    residential treatment establishments before moving on to Supporting People
    funded premises.

    See Appendix I for criteria for „local connections‟ from North Somerset
    Housing and Supporting People.

    See Appendix J for sources of research re ‟local connection‟ to North

    Police research conducted in July 2006 has established the following: -

          There were 68 individuals who are known to be resident within the 12
           contracted Supporting People premises.

          80% (n=54) of the individuals in contracted Supporting People
           premises originated from outside North Somerset and had a history of
           offending in their home area or they have provided a recent address in
           that area (or both).

          Only 7% (n=5) of the residents are local individuals.

          The remaining 13% (n=9) are believed to have originated from other
           areas. Some of these have convictions in courts in other areas; others
           have previous addresses in those areas. It is therefore likely that they
           originate from that area and have come to North Somerset at some

          11 individuals are subject to current Probation supervision (either
           community orders or on licence from prison).

    The table below illustrates the area of origin of those 54 individuals from
    outside North Somerset.

                       Area of origin     Number of residents
                       London                     22
                       South Wales                 9
                       Midlands area               6
                       Oxford                      3
                       North West                  3
                       Cheltenham                  2
                       BANES                       2
                       South East                  2
                       Gloucester                  1
                       Brighton                    1
                       Bristol                     1
                       Taunton                     1
                       Swindon                     1

5.5 Lack of contact with referring Authority

    It is apparent that once these individuals relapse some have little or no
    contact with the original referring agency. These agencies, which have a
    “duty of care” to the individuals concerned, appear to have no legal or
    financial obligation towards them and in some cases no interest in returning
    the individual back to their home area.

    Relapse from or following treatment is a major issue affecting those who
    arrive in North Somerset for drug treatment. The average completion rate for
    residential drug treatment ranges 60-70%. Appropriate support is essential to
    minimise the impact of relapse on the individual and the wider community.
    The accepted practice of dry house eviction for relapse should be challenged,
    while the provision of appropriate support and accommodation for those who
    do relapse should be a priority.

    Following an approach to the Housing Advice Team the originating Authority
    may be contacted to establish if it still has any duty towards the client who it
    placed in North Somerset. This forms part of the Council‟s duty to provide
    advice and assistance and does not imply a duty to re-house in North
    Somerset. In the majority of cases the client may have vacated the
    rehabilitation establishment some time previously. They may have been
    referred straight to a „dry house‟ and have been in that accommodation for
    several months. In this scenario the original referring Authority invariably
    refuses to accept any responsibility.

6.   Recommendations

6.1 North Somerset CSDAT to work with the NTA to fund a more equitable
    distribution of drug / alcohol rehabilitation services as part of the NTA
    national plan for residential rehabilitation.

6.2 Avon and Somerset Probation Service to continue to monitor referrals
    into North Somerset with a particular emphasis on risk of harm and
    offender management and ensuring compliance with Probation Circular

6.3 Avon and Somerset Probation to lead partnership proposal to National
    Probation Service to ensure that conditions of case transfer (Probation
    Circular 52/04) are adhered to and that breaches of orders are
    responded to in a timely manner.

6.4 CSDAT and NS Adult Social Services to review the purchase and
    provision of residential rehabilitation and treatment for North Somerset
    residents within North Somerset based services.

6.5 NS Supporting People team, CSDAT and Probation Service to establish
    a system of referrals through a local panel, to review referrals with
    service providers. Referrals from out of area for people on license or
    order should be reviewed by a similar panel including the DIP/PPO
    teams. The use of these referral systems is to be included in service
    provider contracts. The referral system for criminal justice clients to be
    applied to all relevant supporting people providers.

6.6 Priority should be given to the establishment of coordinated relapse
    prevention services as part of the North Somerset Accreditation Scheme
    for drug and alcohol services. This should include the development of a
    single point of contact system to facilitate a swift response to
    individuals experiencing relapse.

6.7 Financial and staff commitment to facilitate the continued development
    and implementation of the accreditation scheme should remain a high
    priority for the partnership, and ensure implementation by April 2007.

6.8 Assess overall wraparound services to identify gaps in provision. To
    assist this process, CARS group will develop a process map for
    treatment services and additional ‘end-to-end’ services.

6.9 CARS group to monitor impact on detection targets, and monitor
    detection rates through intelligence gathered from this partnership.

6.10 Avon and Somerset Prolific Offenders Scheme to target offenders
     transferring into North Somerset from other areas for inclusion in the
     DIP/PPO Scheme locally.

6.11 Robust implementation of Housing Standards Act inspections.

6.12 Key agencies (Police, Probation, Housing, Supporting People) to
     conduct a feasibility study re shared database of drug/alcohol treatment
     and service providers, including detox/dry houses and their clients.

6.13 Partnership to ring fence resources within their respective agencies to
     continue to deliver this high priority action plan.

7. Glossary of Terms

     ABH – Actual Bodily Harm
     ACAD – Advice and Counselling on Alcohol and Drugs
     ARA – Addiction Recovery Agency
     B & B – Bed and breakfast
     CARS – Communities and Reducing Supply group
     CSCI – Commission of Social Care Inspection
     CSDAT – Community Safety and Drug Action Team
     DIP – Drug Intervention Programme
     DIT – Drug Intervention Team
     DRR – Drug Rehabilitation Requirement
     DTTO – Drug Treatment Testing Order
     GBH – Grievous Bodily Harm
     HMO – House in Multiple Occupancy
     NA – Narcotics Anonymous
     NTA – National Treatment Agency
     PO – Probation Officer
     PPO – Prolific and other Priority Offenders
     PSA – Public Service Agreement
     PSO – Probation Service Officer
     RAG – Responsible Authorities Group
     RSL – Registered Social Landlord
     SMT – Substance Misuse Team
     WSM – Weston-super-Mare

8. Appendices
Appendix A

Consultation with partners

During the course of the research for this report the following organizations
were consulted:

      North Somerset Police Intelligence Department
      North Somerset Community Safety and Drug Action Team
      North Somerset Housing Advice Team
      North Somerset Private Rented Housing Team
      North Somerset Drug and Alcohol Treatment / Rehabilitation Providers
      Avon and Somerset Probation
      North Somerset Primary Care Trust
      National Probation Service
      North Somerset Supporting People
      Addiction Recovery Agency (formerly ACAD)
      North Somerset Revenue
      North Somerset Housing Strategy and Commissioning Team
      North Somerset Drug Intervention Team

Appendix B

Examples where individuals from outside North Somerset have
relapsed either during or after their initial programme

(i) An individual who came from the London area for access to an
unregistered quasi-residential service in WSM completed his initial
programme and the moved into a privately rented flat in the town. Around 6
months later he relapsed into using drugs and subsequently committed
numerous crimes in WSM. He was later convicted of a string of dwelling

(ii) Another individual who came direct from prison to WSM was discharged
from one unregistered residential facility for breaking the conditions of
residence. He remained in WSM, quickly relapsed into drug misuse and
subsequently committed crime in town. He was eventually arrested and
charged with several offences including burglary, false imprisonment, kidnap,
wounding and GBH. He was subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment for
these offences, which had all occurred in North Somerset.

(iii) An individual from South Wales who had a significant criminal history
came to another unregistered residential facility in town. He relapsed and
subsequently committed an armed robbery. He was sent to prison for life for
this offence.

Appendix C

Housing Advice Team Information

In accordance with the Housing Act 1996, Part VII (as amended) the North
Somerset Council has a duty to provide advice and assistance to anyone who
could be considered homeless. In addition, if that person falls into one of the
defined „Priority Need‟ categories it has a duty to provide interim
accommodation before reaching a formal decision as to the exact duty that
may be owed. Therefore if a person approaches the Housing Advice Team
stating that they are homeless from a rehab/dry house etc an appointment is
always made and an interview carried out the same day. If that person is
believed to be particularly vulnerable they would be given hostel/B&B
accommodation until further enquiries can be completed (Between April 2005
and March 2006 this equated to 7 individuals given temporary accommodation
of which 1 was eventually housed).

Appendix D

Drug related deaths

(i) In February this year a male from London was convicted at a court in
London of burglary offences. He was sentenced to a 2-year supervision order
with drug rehabilitation requirement. He was under the “supervision” of a
London Probation office and was referred to an unregistered rehabilitation
facility in WSM.

Despite clear and specific national case transfer instructions, which had been
reinforced recently by Avon and Somerset Probation Service, the London
Probation area failed to transfer the supervision of this individual to WSM
Probation Office. Therefore he was allowed to remain in WSM without the
appropriate level of supervision or contact from the Probation service.

He remained at the unregistered rehabilitation facility for around 2½ months
and left this primary treatment a week early. He moved on to a dry house but
it appears the owner of the dry house was not aware that this individual was
subject to Probation supervision. This may be due a lack of communication
between the two service providers and the Probation service. In any case his
after care plan (if one existed) appears to have failed.

He was discharged from the dry house around 3 weeks later for breaking the
house rules and for suspected drug misuse. It seems the Probation service
was not aware that the individual had been discharged from the dry-house
and were unaware of his whereabouts at that stage.

Around 2 weeks later this individual died as a result of drug misuse. It is
apparent that he has never met his Probation officer. Further enquiries reveal
that there had been a serious lack of supervision and minimal contact from the
Probation service throughout the term of the court order.

It seems that the funding agency may have visited the individual on occasions
but the Probation reports which are required for regular court reviews were
compiled by relying heavily on what the care-co-ordinator or the service
providers say. This is a concern as unregistered service providers are
unregulated and management and care standards vary.

(ii) In March 2004 a 23-year-old individual was sentenced at a court in
Warwickshire to a Drug Treatment and Testing Order. He came to WSM to
access an unregistered rehabilitation facility in the town. He then lived at a
variety of different addresses in the town including a caravan park and a
hostel used by North Somerset Housing Team for homeless individuals. In the
period during which he was subject to Probation supervision he was arrested
and subsequently convicted of a theft offence.

Sometime around May / June 2005 he seems to have relapsed and was
admitted to the detoxification ward at Weston General Hospital. Whilst he

remained a patient on the ward arrangements were in place for him to move
(following his detox) to a residential rehabilitation establishment outside North
Somerset. For some reason these plans were changed and he accessed an
unregistered service in WSM. He moved to a dry house in June 2005.

This premise has a contract with North Somerset Supporting people to
provide housing-related support to individuals with drug and alcohol problems.
It is used as a dry house and the management employ support workers to
provide relapse prevention services to the tenants.

He was discharged from service after a month due to non-compliance with the
programme. Four days later he died as a result of drug abuse.

There are concerns regarding the management of these specific premises
following the Coroners inquest, which revealed that no records were retained
about the individuals care plan or support. The service remains under review
by Supporting People.

(iii) Another individual who originates from North Wales came to WSM to an
unregistered service provider. He was subsequently convicted of a number of
offences in WSM.

In February 2006 he underwent a detoxification programme at WSM Hospital.
Following this he accessed a dry house in WSM. He remained at the premises
for around 5 weeks but was discharged for breaking the house rules. Nine
days later he died as a result of drug abuse.

Appendix E

Inadequate Probation supervision by some Probation areas outside
Avon and Somerset, who are routinely referring offenders into North
Somerset without following the correct procedures as set out in
Probation Circular 52/04.

The following 12 cases are examples where Probation Officers have lost
contact with individuals who should be under their supervision. This is
often as a direct result of the Probation Officer not following correct
guidelines regarding case transfer instructions. This often causes
significant problems locally.

(i) One individual who has a long history of offending including drug supply,
dwelling burglary and violence offences was convicted of a string of burglary
offences in London. He was sentenced at a London court in August 2004 to a
3 year DTTO. He was supervised by a Probation Office in London. He came
to WSM to access registered drug treatment but his Probation Officer failed to
transfer the case to WSM Probation so he was allowed to remain in WSM
completely unsupervised. He was discharged from treatment in Feb 2005 for
failing to comply with the conditions of the programme.

The treatment provider informed the Criminal Justice Intervention team in
London that the individual had been discharged. No action was taken and the
individual remained in WSM and lived at a variety of different addresses over
subsequent months.

By July he had been charged with several offences in WSM including theft,
ABH, witness intimidation and going equipped for burglary. At this stage the
Police contacted the Probation Service in London and it was clear that they
had lost contact with the individual. It appeared that the Probation Officer had
no idea that not only was he in breach of the order but he was also regularly
offending in WSM. The individual stated that he had had no appointments, no
supervision and had not been drug tested for some considerable time.

This individual is still offending and has recently been charged with offences
including violence, burglary, excess alcohol, criminal damage and theft. He is
on bail for a number of offences and will be due in Bristol Crown Court soon.

(ii) Another individual from London was subject to an 18 month Community
Rehabilitation Order. He has convictions for robbery, firearms and false
imprisonment. He was a referred to an unregistered drug rehabilitation service
in WSM, which is deemed to be inappropriate due to poor management and
treatment standards. Again his Probation Officer failed to transfer the case to
WSM Probation so they had no idea this individual was residing in the area.
He was discharged from the premises for using drugs. The treatment provider
failed to inform the Probation Officer that the individual had relapsed and left.
Therefore his Probation Officer had no idea of his whereabouts. A few weeks
later he was arrested and subsequently convicted of burglary, theft and
aggravated vehicle taking. All these offences were committed in WSM.

(iii) An individual with a conviction for manslaughter and 14 other convictions
for 33 other offences was referred to WSM without the relevant authorities
being notified. This individual had previously been sectioned under the Mental
Health Act and was considered a high-risk violent individual with a crack
cocaine habit. He was serving a suspended sentence for dwelling burglary
and this sentence also contained a drug rehabilitation requirement. A London
Probation Service Officer (PSO) referred him to a registered quasi-residential
facility in WSM. He was “supervised” by a Probation Service Officer from
London and arrived in WSM earlier this year. It appears the only notification
the local authorities had that this high-risk violent individual was in the area
came via a fax message from the PSO in London around 3 weeks after he
had arrived in WSM. He was then made subject of the Multi-agency Risk
Conference process. His behaviour deteriorated and he was discharged from
the rehabilitation facility for failing to engage in the programme.

(iv) Another individual who was a prolific offender and has convictions for
violence, dwelling burglary and drugs was referred to an unregistered quasi-
residential service in WSM. He was subject to a community order with rehab
requirement under the supervision of a London Probation Office.

He was discharged from the premises for failing to comply with the conditions
of the programme. The service provider tried to put him on a train back to
London but he refused to go. Some time later he approached the homeless
desk at the Town Hall in WSM but they had no duty to house him. The service
provider agreed to try to get him back to London to his PO. The Police
contacted the PO in London who stated they didn‟t want him back as if he
went back to London he would re-offend. They also stated he was doing well
and was engaging with local probation. This case had not been transferred in
the correct manner so therefore local Probation was unable to take any
positive action. A few weeks after this the individual was arrested for
committing vehicle related crime in WSM. He is suspected to be actively
committing crime in WSM at present.

(v) An individual from London was given a suspended prison sentence with a
drug rehabilitation requirement. He was supervised by a Probation Service
Officer (PSO) from London. He was referred to an unregistered quasi-
residential service in WSM and a month later he moved on to second stage
accommodation in the town. He was arrested and convicted of theft and he
was discharged from the dry house a few months later. At this stage he was
testing positive for drugs. He then moved on to an unregistered facility in
WSM, which is deemed to be inappropriate. This individual claimed that he
had only spoken with his PSO once in the 5 months that he had been subject
to the order. Furthermore, he had received no structured treatment for the
previous 4 months. At that stage the Police contacted his London PSO and it
was apparent that the PSO had no idea where the individual was living. He
subsequently moved into another dry house but was discharged for using
drugs. He then moved to unsupported accommodation and has recently been
arrested for possession of drugs. WSM probation contacted the London PSO
who evidently knew very little about the recent offending behaviour of this
individual. The PSO was not aware that the individual had been providing
positive drug tests. He gave the impression that it was not his responsibility to

monitor the progress of the individual and that the responsibility for
supervision was with the service provider whose duty it should be to inform
the PSO of any problems.

(vi) Another individual who has convictions for violence was released from
prison on licence to a dry house in WSM. Apparently the prison resettlement
team did not tell the Dry House that this individual was on licence. His local
Probation Officer (PO) visited him at the dry house. He relapsed within days
and the dry house failed to inform anyone. He returned to London and then
came back to WSM to an unregistered treatment facility, which is deemed to
be inappropriate due to poor standards. He was discharged from that
premises and then went to another dry house. Despite all these changes of
address without the knowledge or approval of his PO no breach proceedings
were taken. The Police made a check on his last dry house and found he had
left there and his whereabouts were unknown. That dry house had also failed
to inform the Probation service that he had left. He was eventually arrested
and sent back to prison.

(vii) An individual was subject to an 18 month Community Rehabilitation
Order under the supervision of a London Probation Office. He was referred to
an unregistered rehabilitation hostel in WSM, which is deemed to be
inappropriate due to poor management and treatment standards. He
breached the order by failing to report to Probation on 2 occasions. He was
circulated as wanted for breaching the order.
The Police ascertained his whereabouts and arrested him and he was placed
before the courts back in London. The Police raised concerns with Probation
locally and they conveyed these concerns to London Probation with a specific
request that this person should not be allowed to remain resident at the
premises which was deemed inappropriate. He appeared in court and was
given bail with a condition to reside at the same establishment.

(viii) Another individual came to a registered residential facility on a DRR.
They stayed for a number of months and then moved onto third stage
accommodation in WSM. Since leaving the primary treatment provider they
had not been subject to any drug testing whatsoever. The third stage
accommodation provider states they did not know who was responsible for
conducting the drug tests. It is not known at present whether this individual is

(ix) An individual who was a prolific offender from London who has numerous
convictions including violence was subject to a DTTO. He initially came to
North Somerset for primary treatment and then moved onto a dry house. He
was in a dry house in WSM some considerable time before anyone realised
he was not being drug tested.

There does appear to be widespread confusion about who is responsible for
funding and carrying-out drug tests when an individual moves from primary
treatment onto second and third stage accommodation.

WSM Probation can give several examples of individuals not known to them
who are subject to orders from other areas who have turned up unannounced
at WSM Probation office seeking supervision and / or drug testing.

(x) An individual with a long history of offending including convictions for
violence, aggravated burglary, firearms and false imprisonment came out of
prison on licence and initially had contact with his Probation Officer in London.
He refused to cooperate with his PO who therefore instigated breach
proceedings. The individual told his PO that he was going to WSM but she
failed to notify local police or Probation. The breach papers were processed
but the individual was not circulated as wanted until 6 weeks later. He was
subsequently arrested in WSM.

(xi) An individual from another area was granted a community order with
supervision requirement. This included attending groups in their home area.
This person relapsed and was referred to an unregistered treatment facility in
WSM, which is deemed to be inappropriate.

The Police brought this to the attention of the Probation office that not only
had this person failed to attend these groups in their home area but also they
were now residing at premises deemed to be inappropriate. The Probation
Officer from that area asked the treatment provider to return this individual to
their home area but they refused to do so. Their residence at the unregistered
facility in WSM effectively prevented them from complying with their
supervision order. This was raised with local Probation who challenged the
probation service from the home area. The matter remains unresolved and the
individual continues to reside at the same premises.

(xii) Another individual subject to a DTTO was supervised by a London
Probation Office. This individual has convictions for robbery, GBH and violent
disorder. A London Social Services Substance Misuse team (SMT) funded the
referral to an unregistered service provider in WSM, which is deemed to be
inappropriate. Whilst resident at the premises the individual was suspected to
be dealing drugs. The Police conveyed concerns re poor standards of
treatment / counselling and management etc at the premises to the Probation
Officer (PO).

The PO informed the Social Services (SMT) but they stated that they had
carried out their own investigation and concluded that the premises were

This questions the importance social services place on the recommendation
of Probation re the suitability of premises

Appendix F

The following examples provide evidence of the practical difficulties
faced by local services in dealing with individuals who have relapsed
who are no longer supported by their originating area: -

(i) In April 2005 an out of area Drug Action Team referred a woman for detox
at a registered residential facility in North Somerset. Following this she went
for rehabilitation at an unregistered service in WSM. She was then referred to
a dry-house in the town. In November 2005 she relapsed and was discharged.
She then moved to a homeless hostel but in February 2006 she was evicted
from the hostel for non-payment of rent. She was street homeless
for a couple of days before approaching the Housing Advice Team for
assistance. During her initial interview it was felt that she was particularly
vulnerable and she was therefore provided with B&B funded by the Housing
Advice Team.

Due to the fact that several months had passed since the original referral to
North Somerset, the originating area would not accept any duty or assist with
her re-housing. The applicant had no family/friend support network in WSM.
Since being placed in WSM she had received no support whatsoever from the
originating area despite injecting heroin daily and relying on benzodiazepines
for her depression.

This client is now using local recourses for housing and for assistance with
her drug problems.

(ii) A man was originally referred almost 3 years ago to a registered treatment
provider by Social Services in London. After 4 months undergoing treatment
he was referred to a dry house in WSM. He then lived in a privately rented flat,
but he relapsed and moved to various dry houses and rehabs in the area. He
eventually approached North Somerset Council for housing assistance in
December 2005 having been evicted from a dry house. Due to the fact that
this man currently has drug and alcohol problems, suffers from depression
and has Hepatitis B & C, he was placed in interim accommodation funded by
the Housing Advice Team. The original referring Authority was contacted but
due to the length of time that had lapsed since his original placement in North
Somerset they would not accept any responsibility and said that their files
were closed. This is one example of similar cases that were placed in
temporary accommodation pending further enquiries. Of these 7 individuals, 5
were referred to their original authority of which 3 were accepted.

Initially the applicant was found to be intentionally homeless for continual
breach of the dry house rules. However on review that decision was
overturned and a full homelessness duty was accepted. This man has now
been allocated a property with a Housing Association and is living in WSM

These examples demonstrate that placing people in rehabs in North Somerset
even for a few weeks can lead to knock on consequences upon local
resources for sometime after.

Appendix G

Individuals on orders/licences engaged in Drug Treatment and / or
Rehabilitation in North Somerset not transferred to the local Probation
Office (broken down by Probation area referring).

                                               Individuals still awaiting
      Probation Areas          Individuals             transfer

          London                   43                     20

   Area not completed on           8                       1

     Devon and Cornwall            2                       0

         Cleveland                 2                       1

       Thames Valley               2                       1

          Wiltshire                1                       0

           Dorset                  1                       1

       West Midlands               2                       0

           Essex                   1                       0

       Leicestershire              1                       1

        South Wales                1                       0

            Kent                   1                       1

Appendix H

Communities and Reducing Supply Task Group
Membership and Terms of Reference


Avon and Somerset Constabulary (Chair)
Avon and Somerset Probation Service
North Somerset Council Adult Social Service and Housing Directorate
CS DAT Co-ordinator for Drugs and Alcohol
HM Customs
North Somerset Primary Care Trust
HM Prison Service
North Somerset Magistrates Court
North Somerset Youth and Community Service
Youth Offending Team
Community Forum

Terms of Reference

1. To ensure the delivery of the CSDAT Action Plan regarding prevention
   strategies, focusing on „protecting‟ communities from drug related antisocial
   and criminal behaviour and „stifling the availability of illegal drugs on our
   streets‟ in line with the aims of the Government strategy „Tackling drugs to
   Build a Better Britain‟.

2. To propose relevant initiatives to the CSDAT.

3. To identify service needs and providers.

4. To promote and coordinate service provision in North Somerset.

5. To monitor and evaluate the provision of service in North Somerset.

6. To collate statistical information relating to outcomes in partnership with the

7. To identify and promulgate best practice.

8. To endorse good quality services available in North Somerset

9. To provide drug and alcohol awareness training and policy development for
    housing providers.

10. To support a robust enforcement strategy focusing on drug dealers and
   Class „A‟ drugs.

11. To support a strategy to disrupt drug markets in North Somerset.

Appendix I

Criteria for ‘local connection’ in North Somerset

Under homelessness legislation once it has been established that a
person is unintentionally homeless and has a priority need their „local
connection‟ needs to be determined. In this instance if a local
connection with an area can be established the local authority would
have a statutory duty to assist them. A local connection can be
established through residency (6 out of the last 12 months or 3 out of
the last 5 years), through employment in the area or because of close
family associations. However for these purposes time spent in a rehab
unit would not normally count towards local connection; however, this is
currently under review and feedback from Government is pending.

Supporting People funding does not permit local connection criteria for short
term services. The first quarter statistics for 2006/7 show North Somerset
supported 42 new service users, of whom 16 had lived in the area for less
than 6 months prior to entry. In the same period12 users from North
Somerset were supported by other councils, 11 in Bristol. However, on
average, it is known that those with a drug habit take 7-8 years to become
clean, it is inevitable therefore that service users will move around the country
from treatment and a variety of accommodation to others until their situation is
stabilized. Where a service user was born is not seen as relevant.

Appendix J

Sources of Research re ‘local connection’ to North Somerset

The research about individuals accessing supporting people funded premises
has been carried out by North Somerset Police. In order to establish whether
or not an individual should be classified as local or from outside the North
Somerset area, data from North Somerset Council and Police intelligence
systems was interrogated. Police accessed several sources of data including
the Police National Computer and documentation submitted to North
Somerset Council relating to Housing benefit claims. This combined
information helped to establish the area of origin of the relevant individuals.


To top