Our Sponsors are an important foundation of our online community. Please visit their websites.
Our Associate Sponsors provide valuable support to our community and help build 'The Wall'.
Our partners help move the Wired In agenda forward.
Join our community, create your own profile page, and communicate about what matters to you.
The NTA and the Guardian have launched a new resource about treatment and recovery. Hallelujah! It’s good to see the NTA moving on this front and it is welcome. The site is attractive and accessible. A nice picture then.
As I read through the site though something began to niggle. There’s a lot of positivity. Some examples of recovery. Some interesting plans are outlined. All well and good.
What’s missing, my recovery neurones kept asking, what’s missing? And what’s not sitting right? What’s jarring me about this picture?
What’s missing? Well, in all the features, the articles, the reports and stories there is no mention of something many of us hold dear. There is no mention of the value of mutual aid as an important cog in the power machine of recovery. No mention of SMART; support groups, fellowship groups like NA (actually NA is referred to once in the passing, but you’re struggling to find it), CA or AA.
There is no lauding the value of the dozens of smaller social, support and lobbying groups that many of us use on this site. The concept of assertive linkage to such groups (an evidence-based intervention) is not on the radar yet it seems. Communities of recovery are missing. I feel sad about that.
Wired In is missing too. This incredible support and networking service – our service – is not referenced or signposted. That saddens me even more.
What’s not sitting right about this is less to do with sadness and more to do with frustration. We have this gorgeous glossy site, hosted by the Guardian and very, very high profile. It’s a delight to wander around. Bells and whistles. Great; up to a point.
But, while the NTA knows of Wired In. It looks like they are not big fans. They are sponsoring an attractive recovery information and comment site and, as of yet, failing to sponsor our site, arguably much more on the recovery front line and much more grass roots.
So, the bells on the new site ring a bit hollow for me. The peas in the whistles are more processed than dried. In the spirit of firmly mixed metaphors, the picture is sepia instead of glorious technicolor. It’s not sounding quire right, it doesn’t look quite right, it isn’t sitting quite right.
If the NTA is committed to recovery, then please support the elements of recovery that we know make a difference. We welcome the new language of recovery, we really do, but treatment is one tiny part of some people’s recovery journey. As Bill White points out, the further away we get from the treatment episode the more important the post treatment environment becomes.
Mutual aid and Wired In matter much more in the longer term. Communities of recovery are the powerhouse of recovery. A wise NTA would be catching on to that, promoting mutual aid as a free resource in every part of the country and funding Wired In.
I welcome the recovery focus and indeed the new site, but the lens needs a bit of cleaning, some fine tuning and the camera needs to be on those things that are currently missing from the picture. Is that possible?
It’s kind of hard for me to say anything that isn’t going to sound like sour grapes but frankly I am stunned. If I am going to do something I always look around and see if anyone else is doing something along the same lines so that I can learn from them. Seems pretty basic to me.
I think I would at least have had the courtesy to contact Wired In and let us all in the community know what was going on.
I find it shocking that the groups that we all need to support our recovery – formal and informal – are passed over.
But – another part of me thinks well – this was bound to happen and would I feel better if it was all singing and all dancing and with real peas? No I wouldn’t.
I find it a huge puzzle as to why the NTA (as an organisation, not as individuals) seem uninterested in supporting Wired In. I can only surmise that they have a deeply flawed picture of what our community is all about.
But hey, ho. As good old Gloria Gaynor sings ‘I will survive’ and we will. Just makes me more determined.
Something I also find shocking is the lack of consultation with the real experts (i.e. people in recovery) about what is actually needed. I think far too much money gets wasted on what are effectively stage-horses or show-ponies. Initiatives which claim to show how “serious” these people are about recovery and rehabilitation but fail to take in to account the practical considerations, and the lack of funding for the smaller initiatives which make a real difference to the lives of those in recovery.
I don’t want to get in to a political debate, but far too much is wasted on bureaucracy, spin and publicity and nowhere near enough is invested in the people that actually want to make a difference to the every day lives of those in recovery.
(Actually that’s not entirely true, I’m not afraid of tying my colours to the mast on this point, and if that starts a debate then all the better)
Matt
Hi all
The NTA have of course sponsored Wired In previously.
My impression is that the WI board felt that this was at too restrictive a cost.
I’ve cut and pasted bits from the note from Jon Hibs at the NTA, and following that the NTA news piece about the affair.
And to echo Matt, I think one of the problems about so called ‘Tackling Drugs Week’ every year is that there appears to be no coherence or agreement about the point of it.
Is it to raise the profile of treatment and recovery options to the general public?
Or rather to allay their concerns that crime and disorder is being controlled?
Or is it HO produced propaganda designed largely to talk-up the significance, impact and worth of criminal justice-facing treatment interventions like DIP about which there may in fact be questions or even dissent?
It’s not clear to me.
Regards
Simon
“From: Jon Hibbs
Sent: 08 April 2009 15:04
To: ‘david@wiredin.org.uk’
Cc: SMT
Subject: Daily Dose
David
…The NTA has been party to a certain amount of debate amongst colleagues in the Home Office and the Department of Health about the government sponsorship of Daily Dose. This came to a head recently when the service was closed for a week in March with the fear that it may not reopen.I have to say that we at the NTA were disappointed that Daily Dose was shut down for this period when you had been funded to provide the service until the end of the financial year… You will also be aware of the concerns raised by the NTA in the past about the relatively high profile given to Wired In blogs on the service…Also, I’d also appreciate any information you could provide on the costs of maintaining Daily Dose. Do you publish any accounts? I understand the NTA supplied £50,000 last year as a one-off and wonder if there is a breakdown of how this money was spent. I appreciate that there may be confidentiality issues around funding you receive from other organisations, but as we are dealing with public funds we have to be accountable for what we spend and ensure we get value for money…The NTA values Daily Dose and the independent news service it provides to the treatment sector, and we are keen to do what we can to preserve this important communications tool for the network of users, practitioners and providers who have come to rely on it.
Happy to discuss,
Jon
Jon Hibbs
Director of Communications
National Treatment Agency”
“28 April 2009
The NTA’s senior management has expressed surprise and sadness at the decision of Jim Young to retire as Editor of Daily Dose. Jim has performed a valuable service for the drug treatment field for many years and his expertise and judgement will be sorely missed by all.
His departure coincides with a note sent by the NTA to Prof David Clark, the director of Wired In, which Prof Clark claims was “interfering and hostile”. Jim himself has not made any such accusation to us.
This is not the first time Prof Clark has unfairly accused the NTA of interfering with the editorial policy of Daily Dose. As the note makes clear, the NTA has always valued the news service provided by Daily Dose and has no wish to alter its independent status.”
Michaela, Matthew, like me, you have a strong reaction to this; “stunned” and shocked. It does tell us we have a bit to go in terms of helping shift culture and attitude at the top end.
I’m always telling our service users in recovery (when I’ve got my professional hat on) that they are the experts and need to have their voices heard by those who make decisions and who influence and shape treatment.
I feel strongly that the growing recovery movement in the UK needs to be bottom up, but supported from the top down. It is essential to have clarity on what the elements which catalyse and sustain recovery are.
Mutual aid, support groups, Wired In, larger organised recovery groups (like the Recovery Walk/March), Serenity (recovery) cafes, family groups, forums etc. are the nuts and bolts of recovery.
I don’t think that’s as clear as it needs to be for some yet. I do think it will change if the powers that be will listen to the experts.
Hi Simon – thanks for this. I was kind of aware of this, but Daily Dose is not Wired In and vice versa. They are linked in some ways, as are all of us in the ‘recovery’ network, but are seperate entities. I for example have nothing at all to do with Daily Dose.
Perhaps this is at the root of some of the misconceptions and very good learning for me and Sarah – so a genuine thank you.
I know that I started a Wired In versus NTA kind of thread and for that I apologise as this really is about more than that. As PeaPod says this is about recognising and supporting the nuts and bolts of recovery.
There may be background past politics here, but we shouldn’t let it cloud how we see things in the here and now.
Because of passions, I’m not usually slow at spotting something I would like to challenge; it’s just so much harder to do it in a way that doesn’t actually make matters worse! I don’t see that happening here.
I think what we are saying is pretty constructive really and hopefully it won’t be viewed reactively, but reflectively.
And thanks to you also Michaela for pointing out my error in confusing DD with WI and I do apologise for claiming that the NTA sponsored WI.
Though the bit in JH’s note about WI blogs remains interesting.
I was bewildered by that comment in the email the first time round and while not wanting to open old wounds, it does sound like an attempt to stifle the voices of the free recovery community. What’s the threat?
Given that our stories and experiences and what we’ve learned from them are our strongest assets and that they have the power to help others, it does seem like an incredible thing to complain that our blogs were receiving too high a profile. We could get quite upset by that sort of thing if we spent too much time chewing it over.
Am I missing something?
No I don’t think you are Peapod.
But given the highly political nature of drugs I think the NTA prefer a similarly highly-controlled approach to communications.
It does not appear to be an interactive microsite I note. And where quangos have attempted to host blog-type forums (drugs.gov and the prison drug strategy review, for example) they have been fairly sterile.
So I think it may be something about the NTA’s judgement about how messages can be disseminated as effectively as possible, and remain ‘on-message’.
That rings true Simon. Sounds like control issues to me. Pity, for our messages have validity and authenticity precisely because they come from recovering people.
I don’t think they can be stifled.
Having worked in prevention (proper prevention – i.e. not stopping something after it has started but working to prevent it ever starting!)
for many years I can remember feeling frustrated when the word ‘Prevention’ was hi-jacked to include treatment and methadone maintenance. We read about ‘primary, secondary and tertiary prevention’ – later shortened to ‘prevention’. This allowed certain organisations to get funding for whatever they were doing – and mostly this was not genuine prevention. Later still ‘prevention’ was used to promote harm reduction – which was ‘the prevention of harm’.
I am probably very cynical but I feel the NTA have seen the success of the recovery movement and so they now want to not only jump on the bandwagon – but take it over. Once the general public realise the potential of recovery for those suffering from drug addiction
they will want at least some of the huge funding budget to be re-distributed from the NTA to help recovery groups – but, hey
that won’t be necessary now because the NTA are supporting, promoting and ‘doing’ recovere —- aren’t they?
It’s all about semantics isn’t it – take a word, any word, use it often enough in documents and position papers and you can make it mean whatever you want.
When (not if) the recovery movement is a resounding success – helping people to get clean and stay clean – the NTA, the Dept of Health and the Home Office will be able to claim it as their own.
Meanwhile, the recovery movement will succeed even without adequate funding because their funds are the determination and emotion that drive individuals. Rufus Jones a Quaker said:
‘I pin my hopes on quiet processes and small circles, in which vital and transforming events take place’.
