1.2 Origins and development of Super Strength Free in Byker. P.10 .... manageable data using framework analysis (Ritchie
Evaluation of the Super Strength Free Scheme in East Newcastle upon Tyne Dr Christopher Hartworth and Joanne Hartworth, Barefoot Research and Evaluation March 2016
Comments about the Super Strength Free scheme It's a small part of a big problem. Community Support Officer You’ll go to any lengths and distance to get alcohol if you really want it. Street drinker It's hard to stop it because drinking is part of the fabric of the local area. Community Safety Officer It's definitely less, there’s not so many [people] drinking. Recovery service user The CSOs are here all the time, they are brilliant. Hostel worker The harder we make it, the better. Hostel manager
They [CSOs] take it off you once, then twice and then that’s it, I can’t afford it, so I’m going somewhere else. Street drinker There is no easy fix for stopping alcohol. Recovery service user There is an assumption that all the problems are caused by our residents and that is simply not true, if there is trouble it is often because of people who come from other areas. Hostel manager
1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are a number of people we would like to thank for their contributions to the evaluation. Firstly, the street drinkers and homeless people we interviewed at the Joseph Cowen Health Centre. Secondly, the members of the service user forum who spoke openly and honestly with us, including the Service User Development Officer. We would also like to recognise the work and thank the analysts at Safe Newcastle at Newcastle City Council who provided us with invaluable Police statistics. Thank you also to the staff at the hostels and the health centre in Byker who gave up their time. This evaluation would not have been possible without Newcastle City Council successfully applying to Alcohol Research UK for a research grant.
AUTHOR DETAILS Barefoot Research and Evaluation is a social research organisation based in Newcastle upon Tyne, working across the North East and Cumbria. Barefoot Research and Evaluation has carried out work on a diverse range of criminal justice and social welfare programmes in the voluntary and public sector, with an emphasis on vulnerable and hidden groups. Dr. Christopher Hartworth has 20 years’ experience of research and evaluation, beginning in developing countries in poverty alleviation programmes and continuing in the North East of England in work with disadvantaged communities. Joanne Hartworth has a First Class Honours Degree in Sociology, is a qualified teacher and an accomplished project manager, having managed projects in East and West Newcastle
This report was funded by Alcohol Research UK. Alcohol Research UK is an independent charity working to reduce alcohol-related harm through ensuring policy and practice can be developed on the basis of reliable, research-based evidence. www.alcoholresearchuk.org
2
CONTENTS Executive summary
P.4
1.0 Introduction
P.6
1.1 The evaluation
P.7
1.2 Origins and development of Super Strength Free in Byker
P.10
1.3 About the locality in Byker
P.10
1.4 Street drinking in Byker
P.10
1.5 Services for street drinkers in Byker
P.12
1.6 Problems caused by public drinking
P.14
1.7 Routine approaches to address antisocial behavior caused Public drinking
P.14
1.8 Dispersing the problem
P.15
2.0 Finding of the evaluation
P.16
2.1 Qualitative findings
P.16
2.2 Qualitative findings
P.18
2.2.1 Street drinkers and users of homeless and recovery services
P.18
2.2.2 Off-licences
P.20
2.2.3 Homeless services
P.21
2.2.4 Other findings
P.23
3.0 Conclusions and recommendations
P.24
3.1 Conclusions
P.24
3.2 Recommendations
P.26
References
P.27
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This is an evaluation of a Northumbria Police-led scheme that aims to tackle street drinking in the East of Newcastle. It is based on a model developed by Suffolk Police, which encourages off-licences, on a voluntary basis, to remove high-strength beers and ciders from their shelves in order to tackle street drinking and anti-social behaviour. The East Newcastle scheme was developed by South Heaton (Byker) Neighbourhood Policing Team (NPT), implemented in January 2014 and became operational in July 2014. It was led by a dedicated Police Constable.
Street drinking has existed along Shields Road for many years. This is probably the result of a number of different factors, including the availability of strong cheap alcohol. Other factors include a history of heavy industry and an associated culture of drinking, the high price of alcohol in pubs and clubs, the presence of a number of homeless hostels where people with substance misuse problems form a large proportion of residents, isolation of older residents, worklessness and deprivation. Whatever the reasons behind street drinking, the alcohol-related crime and disorder to which it contributes has become a priority for Northumbria Police’s Neighbourhood Policing Team (NPT). As a result of Force planning, learning from successes in other areas, and the energy and commitment of a motivated Police Officer, the local Police team implemented Super Strength Free (SSF). There has been a mixed response to the scheme, and some businesses did not take part. The hostels felt any initiative seeking to limit availability of the common brands they see their residents drinking is a good thing. The evaluation found street drinkers generally ambivalent towards the scheme, perhaps because Super Strength Free did not appear to limit their purchasing ability to a significant degree. When the researcher visited off-licences, there were high-strength drinks on the shelves and it was reported that the same products could be bought at national chains (e.g. Iceland and Asda) nearby. Street drinkers were more concerned with Community Support Officers (CSOs) seizing their alcohol, which necessitated 4
purchasing more alcohol elsewhere. Service users in recovery from substance misuse problems found the intervention, whilst welcome, was too simplistic to have any significant impact on the symptoms of what they saw as entrenched problems of homelessness, substance abuse and lack of diversionary activities. Nonetheless, there were people in this cohort who had noticed a reduction in the number of street drinkers on Shields Road. The Police data present a picture of a steadily reducing number of street-drinkingrelated crimes in the locality, both adult and youth. This was occurring before the initiative and has continued after the scheme became operational. Clearly, the NPT’s approach has had a significant impact in the area and Super Strength Free has been a recent addition to this. It is clear that the crime reduction in the area is perhaps less a consequence of the specific scheme and more about the drive and dedication of the Officer behind it. This focuses the attention of other Officers who then provide additional support to the CSO team, who do much of the legwork. Northumbria Police have an excellent record of making crime reduction initiatives work.
5
1.0 Introduction This is an evaluation of a Northumbria Police-led scheme that aims to tackle street drinking in the East of Newcastle. It is based on a model developed by Suffolk Police, which encourages off-licences, on a voluntary basis, to remove high-strength beers and ciders from their shelves, in order to tackle street drinking and anti-social behaviour. The South Heaton (Byker) Neighbourhood Policing Team (NPT) has a history of taking innovative approaches to tackle the problems caused by public drinking among both adults and children. These have included Bottlewatch (2007), an initiative to tackle alcohol-related youth disorder, and Alcoholwatch (2009), aimed at addressing both youth disorder and street drinking. Both of these scheme involved working with offlicences in an attempt to control sales to young people and street drinkers. The schemes in the East End of Newcastle and in the city centre have proved to be very successful, but less so when implemented in the West of Newcastle. This may be related to the geography of both areas and the location of the NPT and local Police station in relation to areas with a high density of both population and off-licences. The Super Strength Free scheme contributes to achieving both crime and disorder and public health objectives. In relation to the former it contributes to achieving a number of the main priorities within the Police and Crime Commissioners Strategy 2013 to 2018, including reducing alcohol-related crime and antisocial behaviour and increasing community confidence. The scheme makes up one element of Newcastle Area Command’s Violence Against the Person Strategy, under the Prevention category. The scheme also contributes to the Public Health Vision for Newcastle 2016 through creating “decent neighbourhoods” and healthy environments as well as addressing an important wider determinant of health in an area of health inequalities (Newcastle City Council, 2013: 7). Alcohol is a key theme in the 2016 Vision document and is the topic of a specific public health thematic briefing. As a Public Health representative from Newcastle City Council commented: “Tackling problematic alcohol use is everybody’s business.” 6
1.1 The evaluation This evaluation was commissioned by Newcastle City Council’s Public Health Department using funding from Alcohol Research UK, an independent charity that funds research into alcohol-related issues. The evaluation was carried out between December 2014 and January 2015 by Barefoot Research, a sector specialist organisation. At this point the scheme had been running for six months. We used a mixed methodology to conduct the evaluation, comprising both quantitative and qualitative techniques, including:
Focus groups and semi-structured interviews with street drinkers; service users of the homeless hostels and the medical facilities on Robson Street; and members of the service users forum in Newcastle, who represent users of homeless and recovery from substance misuse services in Newcastle. A total of 30 people were interviewed in these ways.
Interviews with licensees in the participating off-licences: a total of 10 shops were visited and interviews took place with 24 people in their shops, both workers and owners.
Focus group with Community Support Officers (CSOs) at Clifford Street Police station; a total of four CSOs participated.
Semi-structured interviews with professionals, including representatives from the Police (the lead Police Constable and responsible Chief Inspector); Newcastle City Council Licensing department; the Council’s Public Health department; Northumbria Police’s Licensing Unit; managers from both the male and female hostels in Byker; the Joseph Cowan Medical and Day Centre; and the Safe Newcastle Community Safety Officer responsible for the area.
An analysis of Police data.
A review of existing research and evaluations relating to enforcement schemes, licensing approaches and street drinkers. The qualitative methodology was based on Grounded Theory (Glaser and Strauss, 1967) and we used purposive non-probability sampling to select respondents who had been involved with the scheme. Qualitative information was formatted into manageable data using framework analysis (Ritchie and Spencer, 1994) and constant 7
comparative methods (Glaser and Strauss, 1967) were used to analyse the data to clarify meaning and examine, compare and contrast associations. Common themes became apparent and the report is structured in agreement with these. 1.2 Origins and development of Super Strength Free in Byker The Super Strength Free scheme was conceived in 2013 as an initiative to reduce crime and antisocial behaviour associated with street drinkers in Byker. The scheme was first identified by a Chief Inspector at Northumbria Police, who tasked a Police Constable to coordinate the implementation of the scheme. The original Chief Inspector was replaced by another who took responsibility of the scheme for a short time. Currently, the scheme is overseen by the Chief Inspector of Licensing. There has therefore perhaps been a lack of consistent senior oversight, although the Police Officer has remained constant and has been the driving force behind the scheme. The Byker Super Strength Free scheme took its inspiration from the original Reducing the Strength scheme in Ipswich. The Police involved other partners in Newcastle through meetings that included their own Neighbourhood Beat Team, their Licensing Department and the Public Health Department from Newcastle City Council. The lead Police Officer first identified off-licences along Shields Road and the neighbouring streets as potential participants because they were known to sell highstrength (greater than six percent) beers and lagers to street drinkers. However, the list was expanded to include other off-licences in neighbouring areas in Heaton, specifically along Chillingham Road and in the avenues and terraces nearby. Although these latter off-licences were known not to sell to street drinkers, children and young people were known to source high-strength alcohol from them. The police also thought it was important to involve off-licences outside of Shields Road. This was in order to prevent street drinkers just going a short distance further to buy their high-strength alcohol and also to demonstrate that many other off-licences were involved in the scheme (thus one particular area was not specifically targeted). A list of approximately 30 off-licences was created and a Police Officer and a member of their Licensing Unit visited each premises in turn. The first visits took place in January 8
2014 with the purpose of gauging reactions to the proposed scheme. The second visit in early summer was carried out by a Senior Licensing Officer from the Council, a uniformed Police Officer and the Licensing Coordinator from Northumbria Police. Here, the scheme was explained as voluntary and posters were handed out to display in the windows. Participating licensees were asked to remove high-strength beers and ciders from the shelves and to say to prospective street drinking customers that they no longer sell those products. There were a number of strategic meetings between the Police and the local authority to create a partnership approach to the problem of street drinking. In October 2014, a meeting was held with senior representatives from the local authority’s Public Health, Adult and Children's Services to discuss ways to address the issue of children joining the groups of adult street drinkers. The Super Strength Free scheme was initially set up to target adult street drinkers on Shields Road and its nearby streets. However, since its inception it is clear that it also addresses young people consuming alcohol in Heaton Park, purchased from shops along Chillingham Road. There are different purchasing patterns related to the two different groups, with the children generally buying larger bottles of strong cider that they can share amongst their group and older street drinkers buying smaller volume cans or bottles for individual consumption. These cans can be bought cheaply, for as little as £1 for a can of strong lager. The children also often consume legal highs in conjunction with drinking, generally smoking them in rolled cigarettes or in ‘bucket bongs’, in a similar way to cannabis. The children can be in groups of between 10 and 30 between the ages of 13 and 17 years old. These groups raise many concerns, ranging from possible involvement in criminal activity to the risk of exploitation associated with children being under the influence of substances.
9
1.3 About the locality of Byker Byker is located in the East End of Newcastle and is one of the Council’s priority wards due to high levels of deprivation. Despite high deprivation levels, there is a thriving and busy high street on Shields Road and a number of popular amenities, including a sports centre with swimming pool, climbing centres and the famous listed Byker Wall. The locality is predominantly working class, with a history of industry, ship yards and heavy construction. Despite high unemployment there is still a strong local identity. Drinking has always played an important role in social life, previously associated with leisure after hard, manual labour and now associated with leisure in the context of male worklessness, i.e. a lot of drinking goes on. Byker is now covered by an Alcohol Exclusion Zone, where no public drinking is permitted, and is also in a Cumulative Impact Area (CIA) for the purposes of licensing. This means that it has a high concentration of ‘on-licensed’ premises (e.g. pubs and clubs) and off-licences, and there are issues of nuisance and disorder related to alcohol, such as the presence of street drinkers. The implications of a CIA mean that any applications for new or varied on- or off-licences will be refused unless the applicant can demonstrate that their business will not undermine the licensing objectives. For example, one off-licensee in Byker applied for a licence to sell alcohol in the early morning, which was rejected as a result of reasonable concerns over cumulative impact. 1.4 Street drinking in Byker There have been street drinkers in Byker for many years. These have come from both the two hostels for the homeless and from drinkers who live in the nearby local community. The two hostels are a male hostel on Wilfred Street at the bottom of Shields Road and a female hostel on Denmark Street, just over halfway up Shields Road. There is another homeless hostel nearby in the Ouseburn. Street drinkers congregate in several areas, including around Hadrian Square just outside of the sports centre in the middle of Shields Road; outside of the male hostel; in a backstreet near Cedar House, the female hostel; and in other venues as they present 10
themselves (for example, a mobile public toilet on Raby Walk was removed because of antisocial behaviour caused by street drinkers). Although there are street drinkers in Byker throughout the year, they tend to be more visible at times of good weather, particularly in the summer months. There are around 20 regular individuals involved in street drinking in and around Shields Road. These are mostly male, although there are also a small number of females. They are of all ages, from 16 to over 50 years old, though children as young as 14 occasionally mix with them. These regulars are occasionally joined by others who are displaced from the city centre through Dispersal Orders/Directions to Leave because of their alcohol-related antisocial behaviour. This can lead to trouble, including fights between drinkers. Those involved in street drinking tend to be highly vulnerable individuals: almost all have entrenched alcohol (and often other substance) misuse problems and many have mental health problems. Previous research has suggested the great majority of street drinkers have suffered a traumatic childhood (Johnsen and Fitzpatrick, 2007). Local services, the Police included, are not unsympathetic to the situation of street drinkers, although these concerns are outweighed by the negative consequences of street drinking on community safety and public nuisance. The reasons people become street drinkers are generally twofold: they are often homeless, and therefore have nowhere else to drink; and they do it for the social function, to be with other people in a social gathering. Comprehensive research carried out by Hough and Rice (2011), identified four common motivations: Environmental: rough sleeping (to keep warm); and nowhere else to drink. Social: company, fun, support, encouragement by peers, normalisation among peers. Psychological: to forget/cope with distressing feelings, thoughts or memories (including trauma and abuse), to avoid boredom and loneliness, to cope with pressures and to feel happy. Physical: habit/need/addiction 11
Johnson and Fitzpatrick (2007: 20) identify several common factors that make an area suitable or attractive to street drinkers, all present in Byker, including: geographical concentration of services for those involved, such as hostels, day centres or healthcare settings; a built environment conducive to street lifestyles, such as open public spaces and street furniture; and proximity to drug markets or begging opportunities (for example along Shields Road or the city centre). 1.5 Services for street drinkers in Byker As mentioned previously there is a concentration of services for homeless street drinkers in Byker, including hostels, drop-in day centres, medical facilities and therapeutic services. Residents in the homeless hostels are allocated a support worker and are able to quickly access a range of services, from drug and alcohol treatment to diversionary activities. Engagement in the services is voluntary and there is no compulsion to their involvement.
12
Box 1.0 What life is like for a street drinker (Hough and Rice, 2011)
Street drinkers consume, on average, between 45 and 70 units of alcohol a day (most commonly in the form of strong lager, white cider, or spirits). This means they are drinking in a day three or four times the recommended weekly maximum number of units for men. People usually drink as much as they can afford (although some supplement their incomes through begging and crime). Their consumption is facilitated by the easy availability of cheap alcohol. People generally drink on the streets for social reasons or because they have nowhere else to drink. Most people drink to forget disturbing emotions, thoughts and memories, including childhood trauma and abuse. Half of the current street drinkers interviewed said that they had a drug problem. Many experienced poor physical and mental health. Street drinkers live in various types of accommodation, including sleeping rough on the streets, homeless accommodation, and their own tenancies. Street life is characterised by violence and vulnerability, boredom and loneliness. Many street drinkers do not have close relationships with their families and, although most drink in a group, they usually do not have close, trusting friendships with people within the group. Many people referred to a sense of the pointlessness or lack of meaning in life as a street drinker, and experienced everyday life as a repeated ‘groundhog day’ which cannot be escaped. They described the erosion of their sense of identity, self-esteem and self-efficacy during their time on the streets.
Source: Hough, J. and Rice, B. (2011) Voices of experience: how people who drink on the streets can make positive changes in their lives, Broadway Homelessness and Support, London.
13
1.6 Problems caused by public drinking Street drinking is a cause of antisocial behaviour and general nuisance, and can be damaging to local communities. There are also links between street drinking and other more serious offences such as shoplifting and begging. Members of the public in and around Shields Road are affected by the street drinkers and complaints have been made to the Police of aggressive beggars and feelings of intimidation. Street drinkers on Robson Street particularly affect parents who take their children via that route to Hotspur Primary School. Nuisance and antisocial behaviour increase when groups of street drinkers become rowdy or fight amongst themselves, which is a relatively common occurrence. Children and young people who consume alcohol and legal highs in Heaton Park cause antisocial behaviour that affects visitors to the park and local residents, causing it to become a no-go area at certain times. They also cause similar problems along Chillingham Road high street where they attempt to buy alcohol and legal highs or ask adults to purchase alcohol on their behalf. Public alcohol use among both of these groups can have negative impacts on community cohesion and increase the fear of crime. Shopkeepers along Chillingham Road have directly linked groups of young people to a reduction in shoppers. 1.7 Routine approaches to address antisocial behaviour caused by public drinking Street drinking and adult and youth antisocial behaviour are most commonly addressed by Community Support Officers, as they are a continuous presence on the streets. CSOs consider dealing with these issues and groups involved as a core part of their duties. Although they have no powers of arrest, they can remove alcohol from people drinking in Alcohol Exclusion Zones, they can encourage people to move on and they can act as a disrupting agent in places where people congregate. They also have quick access to uniformed Officers if they should need support and backup. 14
However, despite their enforcement role, they often have a relationship with street drinkers and they tend to be known to those involved and vice versa. A common aspect of their duties is both seizing alcohol and moving groups on. They are supported in these duties, particularly the latter, if uniformed Officers have served Dispersal Orders or Directions to Leave on individuals. It is unsurprising that after repeated alcohol seizures or moving people on, street drinkers will soon find another venue to drink. Alternative venues include other outside areas, in shelter, such as a public toilet or a derelict building, or in somebody's house or flat. They will continue to use alternative venues until they think attention has being diverted from them and they will return to those original locations. As one street drinker commented: “It is a game of cat and mouse.” CSOs note little difference in their routine activities as a result of the Super Strength Free scheme, as they would be engaged in disruptive activities as routine. They also identified that the super strength scheme meant more backup for their work from uniformed officers. 1.8 Dispersing the problem Dispersal occurs generally as part of routine enforcement activities, i.e. after repetitive alcohol seizures, street drinkers and children will choose another place to drink. As there are no attempts to engage with the street drinkers or children, the Super Strength Free scheme will only serve to disperse those involved. Displacement is a recognised spin-off of enforcement activities. For example, it was noted by CSOs that occasionally people from other areas such as Wallsend and North Shields will congregate in Byker as a result of enforcement activities in their areas of origin, i.e. they will come to Byker to drink, beg or shoplift. Similarly, they will get reports that people who normally frequent Byker are going to Gateshead to drink, beg or shoplift. There is evidence of such ‘activity displacement’ in other areas in England that 15
have implemented enforcement-led street drinking disruption initiatives (Johnsen and Fitzpatrick, 2007). It was reported by street drinkers interviewed that as a result of enforcement activities, i.e. CSOs or Police Officers removing alcohol, they move to an area under Byker Bridge to drink, or they go to people's houses. 2. Findings of the evaluation 2.1 Quantitative findings As part of the evaluation, we interrogated Police data that was supplied by analysts from Safe Newcastle. We used alcohol-related antisocial behaviour incidents, public order crimes and arrests for drunk and disorderly as indicators to look at possible impact of the scheme. The analysts provided this data in a geographical footprint around the participating premises and also in a 100 m radius around the off-licences, see figure 1. Figure 1. Super Strength Free premises, data footprint and 100m zones
In interrogating the data, we looked for patterns and/or noticeable differences in incidents, crimes and arrests and particularly those corresponding with the start of the scheme in July 2014. We also looked at the incidents in Elswick ward as a comparator
16
area as it was considered by the Police to be the most similar in terms of demographics and crime types. If we look at alcohol-related antisocial behaviour incidents between April 2011 and March 20151, in the study area and in the Elswick ward (Fig. 2), we see that there has been a reduction in adult and youth incidents in both areas over the period. Figure 2: Alcohol-related ASB incidents in SSF area and Elswick ward
600 500 400 300 200 100 0
Alcohol related ASB Incidents in Elswick ward, 2011 to 2014. Number of incidents
Number of incidents
Alcohol-related ASB Incidents in Super Strength Free catchment, 2011 to 2014
Non Youth Related Youth Related
800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0
Non Youth Related Youth Related
If we take a more detailed look at the alcohol-related ASB Incidents in Super Strength Free catchment data (Fig. 3), we see that the downward trend in incidents continues after the scheme became operational in July 2014, represented by the square markers. (The peak in July and August 2014 was due to an influx of street drinkers from other areas in Newcastle causing disorder and antisocial behaviour). Figure 3. Alcohol-related ASB Incidents in Super Strength Free catchment, April 2011 to March 2015 by
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
2011-12
1
2012-13
2013-14
2014 includes the months April to December 2014.
17
OCTOBER
2014-15
DECEMBER
AUGUST
JUNE
APRIL
FEBRUARY
DECEMBER
OCTOBER
JUNE
AUGUST
APRIL
FEBRUARY
OCTOBER
DECEMBER
AUGUST
JUNE
APRIL
FEBRUARY
DECEMBER
OCTOBER
AUGUST
JUNE
Youth Related APRIL
Number of incidents
month
Non Youth Related
Analysis of the crime and incident data was unable to show any specific attributable impact arising from the SSF scheme at this time. 2.2 Qualitative findings In this section we present the findings from three important stakeholders: the street drinkers and service users; the off-licences; and staff from the hostels. 2.2.1 Street drinkers and users of homeless and recovery services It was clear from interviews with street drinkers and service users that there is a complexity to their lives and experiences that influences the expected impacts of the initiative. It was reported that there were many reasons why people drink on the street and efforts to address the issue need to take the different factors into account. There are many reasons why people drink on the street, including:
Social reasons. To see their friends. These may or may not be homeless people.
Dependency. If people are alcohol dependent, they will do anything to get a drink including going elsewhere; buying an alternative drink on sale in a store; going to a different shop (if refused sale); or shoplifting alcohol. As one ex-street drinker said: “You’ll go to any lengths and distance to get alcohol if you really want it.”
Self-medication. To dull the pain and reality of being homeless; to keep warm (through the illusion of warmth that alcohol gives); to lose consciousness.
Lack of alternatives. Many street drinkers have nowhere else to go as they cannot afford the prices of drinks in pubs or clubs; they are prohibited from drinking inside if living in hostels.
Compounding these factors is the availability of cheap high-strength beers, ciders, selling for as little as £1 for a large can. Off-licences are also reported to sell alcohol by the glass/plastic cup and to fill up empty miniature bottles from large bottles of vodka and sell them for £1.
18
As a result of these many contributory factors, addressing street drinking is not straightforward and it was felt that a holistic approach was needed with an emphasis on stable housing and substance misuse. For example, respondents reported: “Street drinking is rooted in poor housing options for people with substance use issues ... people also need more things to do during the day to keep them off the streets.” Interviewees had little confidence that an initiative that discouraged off-licences to stop selling high-strength drinks would have much of an impact on its own.
Homelessness and street drinking are closely linked: for the proportion of street drinkers who are homeless, alcohol dependency becomes a key feature of their lives. It is difficult to escape the addiction and patterns involved in alcohol dependency in a context where many peers drink heavily. To illustrate, one homeless man said: “Everyone drinks in hostels so you cannot stop even if you want to, people asking you for drink or a lend to get drink or offering you drink … it’s safer sleeping on the streets than in a hostel because of the people in there.” There is a lack of suitable support options: it was reported that although support was offered at hostels and from other agencies, it was not always accessible or appropriate. Respondents felt there were barriers that prevented them taking advantage of the support provided (these were unspecified barriers here, but cases elsewhere have included attitudes of workers, appointment-based systems and referral problems). Delays and long waiting times for detox facilities were also mentioned as barriers despite being able to access first appointments rapidly. However, it was reported that many people will not want, or are not ready, to stop drinking and, therefore, opportunities for support may be rejected. It was widely felt that underlying problems such as homelessness or mental health problems needed to be addressed before, or at least at the same time as, the drinking was tackled.
19
2.2.2 Off-licences Similar to the above, there were a range of responses from off-licensees about the Super Strength Free scheme and related issues. These included: Shopkeepers have experienced the impact of the scheme in various ways. For example, when the scheme was introduced in the summer of 2014, the off-licences on Chillingham Road reported that street drinkers were coming to them to try and buy high-strength beers and ciders. Other shopkeepers said that they experienced less disorder outside of their shop from street drinkers and young people. Some offlicensees reported that belonging to the scheme helped them discourage street drinkers from their shop and attract different customers. One shopkeeper said: “Because I have a poster in my window, and if people come in trying to buy, I can just say ‘I am part of the scheme’ so can't sell you anything and after a while they stop coming and go somewhere else.” Some off-licences continue to sell high-strength beers and ciders both from under the counter and on their shelves. The former was evidenced by street drinkers who said: “You can still get them [high-strength beers and ciders] from shops, there will always be under the counter sales.” Homeless hostel staff also knew which off licences sold high-strength beers and ciders as their tenants would tell them. The shopkeepers who stopped selling the high-strength drinks felt particularly aggrieved that other stores near to them continued to sell highstrength drinks, leading to a loss of trade. A number of the shops did not display the poster advertising the Super Strength Scheme. Off-licensees generally felt under pressure in their position as small shop owners. Pressures included competition with the many other off-licences in the local area, attempting to maintain profits, and compliance with licence conditions, such as not selling to underage customers or people buying on behalf of under 18s. For this reason, 20
requests to adopt additional voluntary conditions on sales were unwelcome by some owners. Off-licences already implement a range of practices that are used to manage customers, reduce disorder and ensure compliance with licence conditions. For example, shop owners will generally not sell to people who are clearly drunk or under the influence of drugs, they will not sell to adults who buy specific drinks that are clearly intended for underage drinkers (such as some alcohol fruit drinks, large bottles of highstrength cider with plastic cups) and they often install their own disruption technology (such as the high-pitch emitting speaker outside their shops to disperse young people). 2.2.3 Homeless services Both the male and female hostels reported that street drinking and alcohol-related disorder was a problem amongst certain residents and that the scale of the problem depended on the dynamics of those groups. For example, the manager of the female hostel reported that they had a series of problems with a group of four residents, including public order and alcohol-related problems in the vicinity of the hostel. When this group of women moved on, the problem disappeared. It was reported that both men and women are involved in the street drinking, particularly if a male and female resident were together as boyfriend/girlfriend. The female hostel felt that women had different drinking patterns, being more secretive, consuming different alcohol types, and preferring bottles of vodka, wine and Tudor Rose Sherry compared to high-strength cans. They also reported that they could more easily enter shops such as Iceland to either purchase wines or shoplift. For example, one worker reported: “You couldn't tell the difference between one of our residents and any other respectable woman, so that makes it easier for them to get away with things, and shoplift.” The male hostel reported that problems caused by street drinking along Shields Road, such as fights or antisocial behaviour, were often the result of issues that took place outside of the area. This was particularly the case if there was an influx of street drinkers 21
who had been excluded from a different area (following a Dispersal Order) or because of an existing friendship group. For example, the manager said: “There is an assumption that all the problems are caused by our residents and that is simply not true, if there is trouble it is often because of people who come from other areas.” Both hostels reported having good relationships with the Neighbourhood Policing Team and were in contact regularly. For example, staff from one hostel said: “The CSOs are here all the time, they are brilliant.” The male hostel reported a new Standard Response protocol that was developed between themselves and the Police in the summer of 2014 to deal with street drinking and antisocial behaviour. This consisted of a series of steps and responses that gave clarity to both the hostels and their residents. The hostel manager reported that after the Standard Response had been developed the frequency of street drinking reduced dramatically. The hostels felt that there were very good referral routes for their tenants who required support or interventions such as Outlook, Lifeline, NECA, Plummer Court, the Recovery Centre and other therapeutic services. However, it was recognised that the individual needed to have the motivation to reduce their alcohol use. As the manager said: “There is no easy fix for stopping alcohol.” There were concerns expressed, however, for those people involved in street drinking who lived in the local area and who were not homeless. For example, the manager said: “I am not aware of any referral routes for problem drinkers who live in the Byker Wall.”
22
The hostels were in favour of the Super Strength Free scheme, welcoming any initiative that contributed to reduced alcohol availability. The manager of the male hostel said: “The harder we make it, the better … anything that tackles harmful social issues is a good thing”. The hostels did express a regret that there were no longer any Multiagency ProblemSolving (MAPS) group meetings in Byker (they ended in 2013). They said they had not heard of the Super Strength Free scheme but may have if they had been going to the MAPS meetings, and if they were perhaps they could have contributed in some way. 2.2.4 Other findings Reduction in youth disorder and antisocial behaviour: there have been reports from certain off-licences, particularly along Chillingham Road, that the SSF has resulted in children no longer hanging around outside shops and disturbing customers. This was reinforced by reports from CSOs but was felt to be related not just to the SSF but also to the work they have done to address the ‘head shop’ selling ‘legal highs’. Reduction in street drinking: there have been reports from several sources, including homeless people, the Police and certain shops, that there has been a noticeable reduction in street drinking. The Police reported that public drinking has reduced significantly, even when the change in seasons is factored in. The reason for this is likely to be the result of the NPT focusing on the issue of street drinking and related antisocial behaviour and treating it as a priority. As this area is the routine work of the CSOs, the SSF has meant more backup for their work from uniformed officers. As one CSO reported: “It helps us do our job better.” It disperses the problem to other areas. This is common to all enforcement-led approaches to street drinking, i.e. geographical displacement and relocation of street drinkers (Johnsen and Fitzpatrick, 2007). There were reports from support services and 23
street drinkers that this has also been the case in Byker. As the NPT has focused on street drinking, with one of the main approaches to this being CSOs confiscating the alcohol as part of their routine duties, street drinkers have moved elsewhere. For example, one street drinker said: “They [CSOs] take it off you once, then twice and then that’s it, I can’t afford it, so I’m going somewhere else.” The dispersal of the problem was more related to confiscation activities of CSOs rather than the SSF scheme, as street drinkers could continue to buy high-strength drinks from certain off-licences. Creating the next generation of street drinkers: There were concerns by the Police about the presence of younger drinkers both who were associating with the street drinkers and those who congregated in Heaton Park. This concern is borne out by local research, which indicates that homelessness, multiple vulnerabilities, and a trajectory into adult street drinking begins by drinking from the ages of 14 and 15 years (Harding et al., 2011). The Police have attempted to respond to this by contacting and attempting to engage with the local authority’s Children’s Services. Local cooperation between agencies: There have been good working relationships between the Police and local services for street drinkers, and the hostels in particular. However, the engagement of other citywide agencies, particularly health and children's services, has been less evident. As a result, there has been no additional treatment, support or diversion options other than what is already available to street drinkers and young people. However, it must be recognised that the local authority’s children services are significantly under resourced and have no capacity for the delivery of services in this context.
24
3.0 Conclusion and recommendations 3.1 Conclusion Street drinking has been part of local culture along Shields Road for many years. This is likely the result of a number of different factors including the availability of strong cheap alcohol. Other factors include a history of heavy industry and an associated culture of drinking, the high price of alcohol in pubs and clubs, the presence of a number of homeless hostels where people with substance misuse problems form a large proportion of residents, isolation of older residents, worklessness and other factors of deprivation. Whatever the reasons behind street drinking, the alcohol-related crime and disorder to which it contributes has become a priority for Northumbria Police’s Neighbourhood Policing Team. As a result of Force planning, learning from successes in other areas, and the energy and commitment of a motivated Police Officer, the local Police team implemented Super Strength Free. There has been a mixed response to the scheme and some businesses did not take part. The hostel staff felt any initiative seeking to limit availability of the high-strength alcohol brands that they regularly see their residents drinking is a good thing. The evaluation found street drinkers generally ambivalent towards the scheme, perhaps because Super Strength Free did not appear to limit their purchasing ability to a significant degree (when the researcher visited off-licences, there were high-strength alcohols on the shelves and it was reported that the same drinks could be bought by national chains, e.g. Iceland and Asda, nearby). They were more concerned with CSO seizing their alcohol, which necessitated going elsewhere. However, those service users in recovery from substance misuse problems found the intervention, whilst welcome, was too simplistic to have a significant impact on the symptoms of what they saw as entrenched problems of homelessness, substance abuse and lack of diversionary activities. Nonetheless, there were people in this cohort who had noticed a reduction in the number of street drinkers on Shields Road. 25
The statistics present a picture of a steadily reducing number of street-drinking-related crimes in the locality, both adult and youth. This was occurring before the initiative and has continued after the scheme became operational. Clearly, the NPT’s approach has had significant impact and Super Strength Free has been a recent addition to this. Evaluations of the NPT’s previous alcohol-focused initiatives suggest success is less about the details of the specific scheme and more about the drive and dedication of the named Officer behind it. This focuses the attention of Officers providing additional support to the CSO team, who then do much of the legwork. Northumbria Police have an excellent record of making crime reduction initiatives work. 3.2 Recommendations We have several recommendations, which relate to service improvement or to more detailed investigation of the underlying issues. We recognise that since the Newcastle Super Strength scheme was initiated the Local Government Association (LGA) have published Reducing the Strength: Guidance for councils considering setting up a scheme. In the context of the new guidance it is clear that some of the issues identified in this evaluation might have been avoided and that in future any new initiative will be based on the new guidance.
1.
Communication was identified as an issue between all partners. It would have been beneficial for the sake of clarity, communications and reporting purposes if there had been a written framework for the initiative. This would benefit all stakeholders and introduce a necessary level of transparency to the work.
2.
A need for a clear line of command: Repeated staff changes in the Northumbria force led to the initiative lacking strategic direction and control. In many ways this is connected to the previous point.
3.
There is a need for further research to inform service development, both enforcement and prevention: such research would include an examination of the barriers preventing homeless people from accessing support services offered and a 26
study of the street drinking community including those living in their own houses as well as homeless people.
4.
Continue to monitor the impact of the scheme before expanding into other areas: The learning from evaluation of other super strength schemes shows that if the approach is embedded in a much broader set of measures to tackle street drinking it is more effective. We would advise reviewing the programme after 12 months to examine impact. Any review should also consider the risk of displacing the problem, either to different locations or on to different products.
5.
Voluntary engagement: Businesses may have different views about whether they wish to participate in the scheme. By taking a flexible approach and communicating well with off-licences the potential of the scheme would be improved.
6.
National Guidance: Any new initiative should be informed by the Local Government Association Guidance for councils considering setting up a scheme.
27
References Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company. Harding, J., Irving, A. and Whowell, M. (2011). Homelessness, pathways to exclusion and opportunities for intervention. Newcastle: The Cyrenians. Available at: http://www.thecyrenians.org/Resources/Tyneside%20Cyrenians/Resources/Research% 20Reports/Homelessness_%20Pathways%20to%20Exclusion%20and%20Opportunities%20 for%20Intervention.pdf Hough, J. and Rice, B. (2011). Voices of experience: how people who drink on the streets can make positive changes in their lives, Broadway Homelessness and Support, London Johnsen, S. and Fitzpatrick, S. (2007) The impact of enforcement on street users in England. York: JRF Foundation Newcastle City Council (2013). A public health vision for Newcastle. Available at: http://www.newcastle.gov.uk/sites/drupalncc.newcastle.gov.uk/files/wwwfileroot/hea lth-and-social-care/visiondocumentforworkinggroup8213v8.docxa_.ps1_.pdf Ritchie, J. and Spencer, L. (1994.) Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research in Bryman, A. and Burgess, R.G (eds) Analyzing qualitative data. London: Routledge, pp.173- 194. Guidance for councils considering setting up a scheme - See more at: http://www.local.gov.uk/web/guest/publications//journal_content/56/10180/6823763/PUBLICATION#sthash.0GRS0P69.dpuf
28
