Basic HTML Version
SPREADING THE
EVI
20 |
drinkanddrugsnews
| October 2012
Activism |
Recovery
www.drinkanddrugsnews.com
T
hese are turbulent times in the addiction field, with some ill-
conceived government initiatives and outspoken comments from
some recovery advocates leaving many in mainstream addiction
treatment feeling resentful and even distrustful of the ‘new recovery
agenda’. Not only that, but there have been disputes and arguments
within the recovery movement itself, which has led to frustration and confusion
across professional groups and people trying to achieve that bridge between
active addiction and active recovery.
In some respects, ideological and territorial disputes are inevitable in a fluid
new movement containing a variety of beliefs, philosophies and views on the
nature of recovery. It’s true that the UK recovery movement looks far more
cohesive than its US counterpart, but this seems to be partly because that
movement is largely dominated by the 12-step fellowship and has a different
social context (an insurance-led market rather than NHS provision, and fewer
social safety nets). It has also existed for longer there.
That’s not to say that we should simply accept the rancour as inevitable. But
we should recognise it for what it is and work towards its elimination, because
we all have a vested interest in maintaining cohesion and defending everyone’s
right to recovery, not our individual subjective orthodoxy or personal doctrine.
An important aspect of achieving understanding of the recovery landscape is
transparency regarding the roles and remits of various component organisations.
Grace Ball
discusses how the UK
recovery movement is continuing
to evolve, and reports back from
the UK Recovery Academy’s
recent Manchester conference
The Recovery Academy set out a clear mission statement back in 2009, the key
element being to help develop the evidence base and bring it to a wider
audience, and to encourage the practitioner community to develop its own
evaluative skills to demonstrate, and report, what works.
With welfare reform and health and social care policy changes, there’s more
scrutiny for positive outcomes and responsibility to the public purse, but above all a
focus on what can be done to improve the chances of initiating and sustaining an
individual’s recovery journey within their community. The objective understanding
and application of the recovery evidence base becomes paramount within a
framework of limited funds and challenging decision making.
The evidence underpinning rhetoric should not be underestimated, although
rhetoric can have negative connotations. It’s often thought to refer to speech
that, if it isn't wholly untrue, is at least misleading or perhaps simply vacuous –
at times some people within the recovery movement have been critical of ‘empty
rhetoric’. However, rhetoric should not just be empty words or dramatic
presentations – recovery rhetoric has a place in the study and art of writing and
speaking well about recovery, being persuasive and knowing how to transmit
logical objective arguments. Rhetoric should be a fundamental building block of
recovery education and workforce development.
The Recovery Academy conferences reflect on communal dimensions of
recovery, highlighting the importance of proactively nurturing recovery cultures
in order to reap the full social benefits of recovery success. These are not vacuous
intellectual exercises – the intention has always been to demonstrate living,
material expressions of the diversity and richness of UK recovery cultures.
The academy focused exclusively on the nature of evidence as the theme for
its 2012 conference, held in Manchester. We believe in the importance of
highlighting what is currently known in order to make a space for what is
emerging, new and innovative, and we welcomed more than 15 presenters and
workshop facilitators to support and develop the thinking of a full house of
delegates. The academic approach helped to define and evidence recovery within
different settings, with presentations scoping out how to measure and evidence
change and outlining the challenges.
Ian Wardle talked about the uncertainty, defensiveness and rhetoric of a
multitude of small recovery organisations representing various interests and
viewpoints, a multi-million pound treatment industry that has learned to speak
the language of recovery and devolved commissioning with no master template.
He also discussed how the threat of disinvestment prompts worthy, but defensive,
lowest-common denominator lobbying, the unimaginative approach to the scale
of challenges facing our industry and persistent strategic isolation and insularity.
Delegates were encouraged to consider an individual’s recovery through
strength-based case management focussing on the client/patient’s strengths,
personalisation of care and improvement of the therapeutic relationship, and
using the community as a resource – assertively reaching out to people and
maintaining contact.
Themes of care and treatment converged with a focus on recovery in the
community. Dr David Best highlighted recovery to mean a sense of hope, purpose
and belonging, and a sense of identity and pride within three levels – a personal
recovery journey, recovery as a social contagion and recovery as a social
movement where people experience connectedness, meaning and
empowerment. Mark Gilman developed the evidence for recovery as an asset in