WHAT SHOULD WE TAKE AWAY FROM THIS?
WHAT SHOULD WE TAKE AWAY FROM THIS?
The starting point in all drugs policy development must be clarity as to aims and objectives. The policy should be shaped by the type of provision and who it aims to work with.
Policy and practice should be developed in conjunction with commissioners and reflect existing best practice. It should be reviewed regularly. There should be no contradiction between policy and practice.
Housing staff are not necessarily drugs specialists but if working with acute needs, staff training is essential – not just on policy and practice but in harm reduction, overdose prevention and so key workers can develop and implement effective care planning.
Joint working with drug services including peripatetic outreach workers in the building. If residents weren’ t able to talk to staff about their use they could have engaged with outreach workers, at the very least for harm-reduction interventions.
The voices of people using the services, their families and friends must be heard and appropriate responses put in place where concerns are raised.
A NEW MODEL For me, it was the start of a piece of work that has carried on now for almost three decades – working with housing providers to form drugs policy and practice which is lawful, as safe as possible, and fit for purpose. It has seen the emergence of a model which has been adopted by Shelter and Homeless Link, and Martin Powell at Transform worked extensively with a range of agencies to expand take up. Housing providers from Cornwall to Scotland have adopted and adapted the models developed 30 years ago to provide inclusive housing where the needs of residents are properly addressed and appropriate.
Based on Hattenstone’ s article about the death of Joe Black, and stressing that I don’ t know the provider involved and had no input into their policy or practice, it stood out as a startling throwback to the problems we have seen numerous times in supported housing – a catastrophic mismatch between policy and provision.
There is a need for a wide spectrum of housing provision. Drug-free housing is essential for some people looking to sustain abstinence. Hightolerance housing is equally essential for people using – especially in ways that may be hazardous – to provide an environment which is safer, can provide stability and offer the start of a journey which may include change.
IMPOSSIBLE SITUATIONS Where it goes wrong is where the policy of one is applied to the other. This creates two impossible situations. One is where people who believe they are moving into drug-free housing are exposed to unacceptable risk, as the practice doesn’ t ensure the housing is in fact drug free. The other outcome is where people who are known to have ongoing substance-related support needs are housed in a service
‘ All the tools needed to shape good, lawful, progressive and safer provision are available for use and have been implemented for years by a variety of organisations.’
where the policy doesn’ t acknowledge or respond to those needs, again leading to unacceptable risks.
In the case of Holmes Road, about which Hattenstone writes, the policy starting points were all the tropes of a classic‘ zero tolerance policy’:
‘ Residents had to promise not to take drugs on the premises – and, ideally, not at all’ and‘ Holmes Road management said any drug dealing on the premises was immediately reported to the police.’
The problem is – and has always been – that such policy and practice is unworkable and unsafe, where the provision is working with people who still use. At best it displaces the activity.
The mismatch creates all the ambiguity and confusion that Hattenstone’ s piece illustrates, and is best summarised by this statement in the article, quoting the service manager for adult safeguarding in Camden:
‘ It is noted that people may continue to use both legal and illicit substances during their stay. In light of this, staff extend advice and support, striving to mitigate potential risks and helping those who wish to cut down or quit entirely. Staff are also conscious that for some, drug use may be a means of coping, often due to past traumas or ongoing personal struggles. It’ s crucial to mention that any illegal activities identified within the hostel are immediately reported to the police and could result in eviction.’
Therein sits the contradiction and the failure. On the one hand the recognition of the need for a harm-reduction approach while simultaneously clinging on to a zero-tolerance‘ illegal activities will be reported to the police.’
LEARNING POINTS Looking at the list of‘ key learning points’( see box), these aren’ t new and it’ s deeply depressing that they even need to be restated. But the evidence from Hattenstone’ s article is they must be restated.
All the tools needed to shape good, lawful, progressive and safer provision are available for use and have been implemented for years by a variety of organisations, including those in the London Borough of Camden.
The piece was a salutary reminder that amongst the shining examples of good practice that do exist in the UK, there are others that do not – and their failures lead to fatalities.
Kevin Flemen runs KFx which has offered training and resources on drugs and related issues since 2003. Email kevin @ kfx. org. uk
WWW. DRINKANDDRUGSNEWS. COM APRIL 2025 • DRINK AND DRUGS NEWS • 11