Voice from the Streets: Voice of Change

Dr David Turner Voice from the streets

VOICE FROM THE STREETS: VOICE OF CHANGE

Dr David Turner

Tracey Bessant

June 2011

CONTENTS Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 3

FOREWORD 4

1.0  INTRODUCTION 5

2.0  RESEARCH METHOD 6

2.1  INTRODUCING THE PARTICIPANTS 6

3.0  INTERVIEW FINDINGS 11

3.1  THE GOOD THE BAD AND THE UGLY 11

3.2  WHEN IT’S GOOD IT’S VERY, VERY GOOD 13

3.3  EMPATHY, EMPATHY THEY’VE GOT NO EMPATHY 14

3.3.1  Inflexible management arrangements 14

3.3.2  Belief and a rapport with the service provider 15

3.4  WINDOWS OF OPPORTUNITY 15

3.5  BUILDING ON THE GOOD AND MOVING ON 15

3.5.1  Flexibility 16

3.5.2  Patience and Trust 17

3.5.3  Activity led support 18

3.5.4  Respect, Passion and Belief 18

3.5.5  Engaging in positive support - firm but fair 19

3.6  REASONS TO BE OPTIMISTIC 20

4.0  CONCLUSION 21

5.0  RECOMMENDATIONS 21

5.1  Voice of Change Recommendations 24

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report traces the story of seven participants in a small scale research project. These participants are all recovering from drugs misuse, some would call them addicts, others addicts in recovery, still others as clients, but for the purposes of this report they will be referred to as the participants. They voluntarily and freely talked about their experiences on the streets and in the periods when they encountered the support services designed to help such individuals in their moments of need. They have all been housed or worked with Stonham (part of the larger Home Group) and all have revealed their unique experiences of life on the journey from the streets to self-sufficiency and the various interventionist mechanisms afforded to drugs misuse and criminal behaviour.

The main findings from the research indicate that the support services for offenders with drugs issues are what make the difference. It can be a positive difference helping the individual on the path to a different life journey or a negative experience hastening the use of drugs and or engagement in criminal activity. Most of the cohort interviewed had experienced both positive and negative service support.

If the lessons can be taken forward from this report then other such individuals may be more likely to experience a positive rather than a negative encounter. This will benefit such clients, the organisations working with them and the community in which they live.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research could not have taken place without the determination, honesty and genuine willingness to help others provided by the members of the Voice of Change. To Ryan, Mike, Fiona, Clive, Rachel, Joe and Trevor – you know who you are and this research is down to you. Your experiences explored in this research should inspire and drive the changes to service provision that you wish to see make a difference. Thank you.

It should not be forgotten that this research would not have taken place without Home Office funding and the support of Clinks who invested in this drive for change. There is no doubt that the research which underpins this report will ensure that the service providers in Gloucestershire can respond in an informed way to the issues raised by the Voice of Change group.

Finally to those service providers who have demonstrated a willingness to change the way they do things. Stonham are leading the way and in particular Jude Parkin has with the help of Nick Day started something important – I wish them all the success in supporting all the service providers’ to improve their service provision.

Foreword

As part of the process of developing the Offender Housing Strategy for Gloucestershire Probation Trust, I ran a focus group with 10 male offenders at HMP Gloucester in June 2009. Part of my brief was to better understand the needs of offenders with ongoing housing problems and to find more effective solutions to break the endless cycle of homelessness – crime - prison – inadequate housing on release – homelessness – crime…and so the cycle continues, mixed with a cocktail of drugs, health and employment issues.

I was introduced by a person from the prison service with the statement that the prison get 80% of all prisoners into accommodation on release and the probation service gets 80% of all offenders under supervision into more settled and secure accommodation by the end of supervision. One prisoner joked that they in the focus group were obviously the other 20%! This started a conversation with them in which they made clear that no one listens to them to learn what would work, so professionals kept repeating past mistakes.

For example, they said that much of the immediate accommodation either in supported housing or the private sector felt unsafe in a variety of ways (bullying and intimidation), and it was often so easy to get drugs…so however well-intentioned you were when you left prison, it was so hard to keep to these good intentions. It wasn’t the right sort of support.

We ran a lot of focus groups with service users and frontline staff that summer. It is one thing my Company is very committed to: listening to the voice of the service user. For us they are the authentic ‘voice of change’. We are passionate advocates for public sector initiatives that promote personalisation and self-directed support.

The focus groups generated six strategic themes that were endorsed at a County Conference, which included service users, at Bowden Hall in September 2009. This same Conference then generated 26 ‘delivery objectives’: that is, 26 very specific ideas to put these themes into practice. One of these was about setting up a client reference group to help start defining with commissioners the way services should be shaped for them.

This piece of research directly flows from this objective, and is part of keeping the Offender Housing Strategy ‘alive’. It continues in the same vein as the original focus groups in the summer of 2009 by generating powerful and direct messages to challenge commissioners and service providers in the way they specify, procure and manage public services for the most socially excluded in our communities.

In their 1999 Demos report: Implementing Holistic Government: Joined-Up Action on the Ground, David Wilkinson and Elaine Appelbee suggest the public sector needs to get back in touch with the public (my emphasis). Service users must be allowed to influence how and why services are delivered. This is crucial if society is to flourish with active citizens who have broken free from the chains of marginalisation, humiliation and exclusion.

Nick Day, Director, Nicholas Day Associates

1.0 INTRODUCTION

In August 2010 a partnership forum within Gloucestershire secured funding from the Home Office (administered by CLINKS), to invest in the improvement of Voluntary Community Sector (VCS) involvement in Integrated Offender Management (IOM) arrangements. As one of these partners Stonham (part of Home Group) received funding to establish a Client Reference Group (CRG) to develop client participation which would help influence policy, strategic thinking and the future of service provision. Stonham also took the opportunity to work with the University of Gloucestershire, engaging participants in a research enquiry enabling their voice to be heard. This research report represents the outcome of that research.

Participants came together as part of two focus groups assembled by Stonham, one in Gloucester and one in Cheltenham, to develop a support network that would help Stonham and the other service providers (statutory and non-statutory) deliver improved services to such a client group. Attendance at these two focus groups introduced the researcher to the groups and identified the members who were willing to participate. Out of these identified individuals interviews were conducted with seven group members. These were all recorded and transcribed.

Their reflections were collected at the behest of Stonham who wanted all providers to revisit their approach to service delivery by taking a bottom-up approach that empowered clients to take control of their service needs. To support this they wanted to find out from clients just what had been the failings they had experienced, what could be done to redesign a support service that addressed these and how could this in effect help support these individuals on their road to recovery. The outcomes of these interviews are discussed in the rest of this report. It reflects the shared patterns and experiences, it identifies the support failings and some successes but mostly it demonstrates that with the right balance of support and service provision the services who work with such clients can make a difference.

To many, the findings of this report may sound familiar. This research does not attempt to rationalise or problematise the narratives provided. Instead it focuses on assimilating the key messages provided by the group into coherent themes that may or may not resonate with the service providers and considers how they may build on these messages. The research does not attempt to locate the findings in the wider academic literature on criminological, psychological or medical treatments and policy directions. It simply tells the experiences of seven individuals and their understanding of what helped them, their accounts of where they were mistreated or misunderstood and the barriers they faced in accessing those agencies tasked with helping. The aim of the research was to identify what worked, for whom and in which circumstances. The findings below attempt to identify these aspects.

2.0 RESEARCH METHOD

To introduce the researcher and the purpose of the research to the participants the researcher attended two “Client Reference Group” meetings formed by Stonham. This group early on decided that they wanted to be called the “Voice of Change” from here on in this group will be referred to on this basis. Each group was asked if they would be willing to participate in the research, this resulted in the participation of seven members from the two groups (three from Cheltenham and four from Gloucester).

The interviews were conducted using open-ended questions – allowing the participants to explore their experiences from the streets and encounters with support services. Each interview was recorded and the interviewer was able to address the participants without any preconceived ideas on what was provided, what should be provided, or treatments that might have helped. Because there was no informed research agenda, the interviewer was simply able to tap into the voice of the participants, resulting in data that is a mixture of both life experiences and memories that portrays their individual life journeys. It is a warts and all account that contains important messages for many service providers.

Stonham wanted the research to be conducted to ensure clients had a voice regarding their concerns about services provision and this is what was generated – this meant tapping into their recollections of those services/agencies that had failed them in the past as well as exploring what had helped them to overcome their drugs and/or alcohol issues and reduce their offending.

These interviews were frank, detailed and honest. The participants represented the view from the street as they had experienced it and they did not hold back. Some of the commentary is pretty harrowing but out of this it was evident that all the participants possessed a genuine willingness to help service providers move in the right direction building a change-scenario in which they themselves played a part, thereby helping service users who will follow - to avoid the misery and agonies they had faced.

There were insights into just how bad the service provision can be, there were accounts of genuine support and turnaround interactions, but this report only really scratches the surface. Much of the feedback in this report is aimed at the Probation Service, Offender Managers and all point-of-service organisations; the message must be acknowledged by all these agencies if genuine change is to be achieved.

2.1 INTRODUCING THE PARTICIPANTS

Virtually every client interviewed had come from a troubled, violent or unstable background. For some the issue was abuse or neglect, for others it was a traumatic “significant event” that stimulated entry into a drug or alcohol dominated existence.

These backgrounds became so difficult or undermining that those clients sought solace in other quarters – namely alcohol and drugs.

“I found Cannabis and the moment I found Cannabis, hey, it was great. You know, I didn’t see the problem. The people that were around me were doing it.”(Ryan)

“I actually got myself into trouble to get locked up. I really needed to get away from what I was doing and the people I was doing it with. I just really needed to get away from them and I was, it got to a point where I was getting bullied every day, getting beaten up and robbed every day and I just didn’t want it any more. As I say the only way I knew out of it and to be able to get off the drugs as well is go to prison. So I committed a crime to do that” (Clive).

To demonstrate how complicated and difficult these experiences have been Table 1 attempts to summarise the key moments and factors that explains why the participant ended up as part of this research project. The fact that four out of the seven disclosed (others may have chosen not to) a past suicide attempt demonstrating the damaging nature of their past lives.

2

Dr David Turner Voice from the streets

Table 1. Participant Profiles

Annotated Name / Background / Life Experiences / Drug History / Crime History / Recovery Record / Other Issues
Ryan (35) / · Mixed race family.
· Adopted.
· Separated from blood sister / · Ran away from home.
· Identity crisis.
· Joined RAF at 16
· Twice attempted suicide in prison cell.
· Consistently suffered racism and bullying at school
· Racism / · Cannabis at 17.
· 17-22 tried everything.
· Heroin 1994-95 / · Petty crime.
· Theft.
· Shop-lifting.
· Served seven prison sentences / · Medical ward in prison 2002
· Drug Treatment and Testing Order (DTTO) was a positive experience
· Clean since 2006
· Attended every course going.