P. 1
Strategic Review of SRUK 2010

Strategic Review of SRUK 2010

|Views: 294|Likes:
Published by smartrecovery
This is the final report of the Consultation into the future of SMART Recovery UK.
This is the final report of the Consultation into the future of SMART Recovery UK.

More info:

Published by: smartrecovery on Jul 01, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

03/05/2014

pdf

text

original

Strategic review of SMART Recovery UK 2010

Richard Phillips Thursday, 01 July 2010

Contents

Table of Contents
Contents .................................................................................................................................................. 2 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 3 Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 3 The urgency of change ............................................................................................................................ 4 Growth and Cost effectiveness ........................................................................................................... 4 Organisational difficulties ................................................................................................................... 5 Competing visions ............................................................................................................................... 5 Infrastructure .......................................................................................................................................... 7 Facilitator Mentors ............................................................................................................................. 7 Training ............................................................................................................................................... 7 Supporters and Partners ......................................................................................................................... 8 Changes to the proposed model......................................................................................................... 9 SMART Recovery ‘Supporters’ ............................................................................................................ 9 SMART Recovery ‘Partners’ ................................................................................................................ 9 SMART Recovery Therapy ............................................................................................................. 10 License........................................................................................................................................... 10 Role of Commissioners.................................................................................................................. 11 Volunteer advisors ........................................................................................................................ 11 Other funding streams .......................................................................................................................... 12 Local Commissioners – Regional Mentors ........................................................................................ 12 Other sources .................................................................................................................................... 13 Governance ........................................................................................................................................... 14 Appendices............................................................................................................................................ 16 Notes toward guidance for ‘Supporters’ ...................................................................................... 16 Notes toward agreement for ‘Partners’........................................................................................ 16

-2-

Introduction
This report considers the challenges facing SMART Recovery UK and recommend actions to consider including in a forward plan. A consultation was carried out between April 25th and June 11th 2010 and was based on a set of proposals set out in a document published on the SMART Recovery UK website. This was backed up with an online video presentation, an on-line questionnaire and 4 regional seminars discussing the proposals. There was an excellent response, with the document being downloaded over 700 times and the video watched over 120 times. Seventy people completed the on-line questionnaire and the events were attended by over sixty people. This was a very impressive response rates and provides confidence that we have sufficient feedback to critique the proposals as set out in the consultation document. This report is not however simply a ‘report back’ on the findings of the consultation. The commentary and recommendations inevitably rest on some value judgements and opinion, though the author has attempted to make such judgements explicit and closely referenced to the feedback. It is also worth mentioning that the consultant has had operational autonomy during the review process, this report has not been edited by the board nor recommendations held back on their request.

Summary
1. The historical ‘business model’ pursued by SRUK did not work well and offered poor value for money. It must be substantially revised 2. The core mission of the organisation should continue to focus on expanding the availability of high quality peer led SMART Recovery meetings. 3. The organisation should remain a partnership between peers and professionals 4. A more robust infrastructure of facilitator mentors, training and central support should be developed. 5. The previously suggested blanket licensing model should not be pursued 6. Provide guidance, but not ask for a signed agreement, for organisations that want to provide informal support to SMART Recovery. 7. Offer a formal partnership model, based on signed agreement and license fee for organisations that want to use SMART Recovery Therapy (name tbc) as an integral part of their programme. 8. The supporter / partnership model should be open to any social care organisation 9. Seek funding from local commissioners to fund the Regional Facilitator mentors 10. Board to prepare proposals to improve communication and strengthen Peer representation in decision making.
-3-

The urgency of change
There are a number of reasons why the review of SMART Recovery is important and timely

Growth and Cost effectiveness
Since 2006, over £250k has been raised and spent by SRUK and an additional £100k spent on the Alcohol Concern pilots. In addition, Addaction has spent money to implement SMART Recovery within their services. This table shows the number of current meetings set up via the various arrangements. AC Pilot Scotland England 12 AC spin-of 1 12 Addaction 2 16 5 SRUK only 11 -

It is difficult to precisely attribute any specific piece of funding with any particular meeting. For example the Alcohol Concern pilots depended on expertise and capacity from SRUK that was funded through other channels. That said, it is instructive to take some of the bottom line figures, to consider how cost effective the organisational strategy has been to date. If we exclude Addaction (as they do not rely on SRUK capacity), there are roughly 35 current meetings based on an investment of approximately £350k of public and charitable funds. This does not lead us to comfortable conclusions about the cost effectiveness of the approach to date. The reason that costs per meeting have been so high is not because of profligacy, but because the approach to setting up meetings was relatively ineffective. Where this began to change was with the success of the Alcohol Concern pilots in recruiting the support of partner agencies and generating new spin-off meetings. One possibility is that the Alcohol Concern pilots have brought SMART Recovery to some kind of ‘tipping point’ where there is sufficient momentum to achieve a large growth in meetings without the resources and infrastructure of the last few years. This perspective might look feasible if you sit in Manchester, where an impressive level of commitment has spawned many new meetings – it does not look so realistic anywhere else in the country. Furthermore the lack of infrastructure (particularly training capacity) represents a serious risk even to the growth in and around Manchester.
SRUK also supported the Alcohol Concern pilots and some of the spin-of meetings through training etc, so this is not a clean distinction. 2 Most of these meetings are currently ‘closed’ and would need to become mostly open or mirrored by open meetings if the revised proposals are accepted.
1

-4-

The conclusion must be that the model of meeting development prior to the Alcohol Concern pilots was not cost effective and not sustainable. It will not be possible to achieve substantial growth in the availability of meetings unless the average cost of setting up a meeting is substantially reduced. A new approach is urgently needed, that learns from and builds upon the relative success of the partnership work, especially the Alcohol Concern pilots.

Organisational difficulties
Over the last six months a number of underlying tensions within the UK SMART Recovery movement surfaced. The following is a summary of key factors that appear to have led to the breakdown of communication. • Addaction and the Alcohol Concern pilots developed work around SMART Recovery ‘in parallel’ to the approach of the SRUK employed development manager, with no consistent approach being agreed across the country. The organisation relied on grant funding. It ran out of money, the development manager was made redundant and SRUK narrowly avoided having to close. The board was expanded to create a stronger governance structure, though this remained distant from existing facilitators. The former development manager promoted a vision for the organisations future that the board strongly disagreed with. A number of existing facilitators had sympathy for the former employees’ vision, personal loyalty to him or both – and had little or no trust in the intentions of the board.

• • •

With the benefit of hindsight, problems might have been avoided if a consistent vision of SMART Recovery UK had been agreed earlier and a stronger and more representative relationship built up between the board and facilitators. The Consultation found that the distance between the views of most facilitators and the board is actually small. With some revision of the proposals and better communication, the organisation can quickly be strong enough to take on the challenge of rolling out SMART Recovery across the country. The much needed steps to improve Governance are discussed on page 14.

Competing visions
There appear to be several competing ‘visions’ of the direction SMART Recovery UK should move in. One of the central disagreements is over the relationship between peer led mutual aid and the role of professionals. The following is an attempt to summarise three general positions.

-5-

Fully mutual Board consisting entirely of peers Exclusively peer led meetings

Partnership Board mix of peers and professionals Predominantly peer led meetings Close working relationship with care providers Requires infrastructure and some paid staff High expectations of training Consistent with tradition

Provider led Professional led board, peer representative Dominance of professional led meetings Driven by provider interests

Keep distance from care providers Shoestring budget and no paid staff Few training requirements Departure from tradition

Probably relies largely on providers staffing High requirements of training Departure from tradition

Please note that it is not being suggested that everyone falls into one category or another. This is a summary of positions not people, but seeks to map out the spectrum of opinion expressed in the consultation. It would be perfectly possible, for example, to argue for an entirely peer led board, along with close partnership with treatment providers – but in general the arguments on these issues seemed to cluster as described in this table. The problem for SRUK is that it is impossible or disastrous to try and pull in all three directions at once. To some extent this is what has been happening over the last year. Some have pushed hard for something close to the ‘fully mutual’ model and at least some of the work of Addaction comes close to the provider led model. There was also widespread but misplaced anxiety that the Board also wanted to pursue the ‘provider led’ model – which was never even on the table for discussion. The overwhelming response from the consultation was that a partnership approach would be best. It remains the view of the author that this would be the fastest, safest and surest route to building a national network of peer led SMART Recovery meetings. Some of the suggested characteristics of such a partnership approach as listed in this table do however still need to be examined carefully and arguably some changes made to the initial proposals. • • • Historically, the core ‘business model’ of SRUK has not been cost effective. It must be substantially revised. Difficulties within the organisation could have been minimised or averted by better communication and stronger more representative governance. -6The weight of argument and feedback suggests that the best future for SRUK remains as a partnership between peers and professionals.

Infrastructure
A key aim of the consultation process was to identify what level of infrastructure was needed to support the desired expansion of meetings. The strongly held view of a small number of respondents was that SMART Recovery should not seek to develop the kind of infrastructure that needed much money and that seeking funding would corrupt the values of the organisation. This position was in tension with the requests of a much larger number of people, including most facilitators, for there to be better training and support from paid staff. The feedback from professionals was overwhelmingly that to work alongside SRUK there needed to be a properly resourced organisation that could pick up the phone and make decisions. This has big implications for other decisions that need to be made, such as the approach to raising funds.

Facilitator Mentors
The proposed ‘Regional Facilitator mentors’3 were discussed both through consultation events and a facilitator specific telephone conference. The proposal was very well received and considerable detail was offered about how these posts could function. This should be reviewed again in the drafting of role descriptions. The question of whether these should be paid positions was also discussed in some detail and a clear majority of facilitators felt that these should be paid. It seemed that ‘paid but part time’ was the closest to a consensus position, though presumably the question of part time or full time would depend on the scale of responsibilities and geographical spread. The number of facilitator mentors required was not discussed in detail. One aspect of their role that seems to be important is to visit new meetings or re-visit meetings that are having difficulties. This is only realistic if the role has a limited geographic range, so having the ‘North of England’ for example would not work. In fact, it would be better to have more but part time roles than fewer full-time – assuming people could be found that wanted to work in this way. One of the challenges in developing such roles, aside from funding them, would be trying to recruit from the pool of facilitators whilst the organisation is still small.

Training
Consultation feedback supported the proposal to increase the availability of facilitator training and strongly indicated that some current facilitators have not had adequate training. There were mixed views on the question of whether facilitator training should be

3

Now renamed from ‘Peer mentors’ which was not clear who was mentoring who.

-7-

regarded as mandatory, with a majority against this but concern to create a culture where ongoing training and support was the norm. It is proposed that SRUK should work with the USA to provide their distance learning package to our existing facilitators as a one off project. This would help get everyone to a similar level of knowledge and ‘back-fill’ the shortage of training since the departure of the development manager. A UK specific distance learning package should then be developed as well as face to face training. A separate mini consultation of existing facilitators strongly supported these suggestions. The board has successfully bid for a small grant to support the development of training capacity so this work could begin immediately.

• • •

Aim to develop more robust infrastructure of facilitator mentors, training, online support and central co-ordination. Ask the USA to provide their distance learning package to our existing facilitators Develop our own distance learning package as well as face to face training.

Supporters and Partners
This was a detailed and important area of discussion throughout the consultation, with at times polarised views. At one end of the spectrum, from a small number of peers (and also possibly from one or two mutual aid activists from outside SMART Recovery) there was considerable distrust of treatment provider involvement, arguing for this to be limited to asking for room space. At the other end a small number of voices from within treatment providers seem reluctant to let meetings truly be independent and peer led. This appears on the surface to be a very binary debate, but if you look more carefully at the consultation it is clear that these ‘polar’ positions were a tiny minority of voices. An overwhelming weight of feedback supported the notion that providers could do a great deal to support the development of SMART Recovery. This is not to gloss over the many differences and viewpoints within this discussion, but the majority discussion was how providers could help, in ways that did not interfere too much, not whether they should be involved at all. In addition to this feedback there is very strong evidence that partnership with providers is effective at encouraging the creation of new meetings, both directly and as spin-offs.
-8-

The consultation document included feedback from Addaction and the Alcohol Concern pilots on the success factors in encouraging and supporting meetings. These were very well received, with many additional tips and consistent suggestions added through the discussions. The consultation feedback should be reviewed again when preparing guidance for partners, in terms of what they should do and also what they should not do. An important piece of feedback was that we should not be just thinking about partnership with treatment providers. Support for SMART Recovery could come from a wide range of health and social care organisations; we will attempt from here on to refer only to ‘providers’.

Changes to the proposed model
The partnership proposals in the consultation document focused on formal partnerships, including signed agreements and fees from treatment providers. This was very controversial, with the greatest concern being the likelihood of narrowing the number of agencies that would want to help support new meetings. Some providers are clearly happy to do simple things such as putting up some posters and making a room available, but would not want a formal agreement or be charged a license fee. (for now let’s call these ‘Supporters’) A smaller number of care providers have shown interest in a more intensive partnership with SMART Recovery, such as having a staff member trained as a ‘champion’ and using some SMART Recovery tools within their own programmes. On reflection, it seems obvious that these are two distinct cases.

SMART Recovery ‘Supporters’
There is a strong argument that a signed license agreement approach would be overkill for the first category of providers. As a change to the consultation proposals it is now suggested that SRUK produces simple guidance on what providers can do to encourage the development of SMART Recovery meetings. This does not require any communication between the provider and SRUK nor any kind of signed agreement. See Appendices, pg. 16

SMART Recovery ‘Partners’
The option of formal partnership would allow providers to use SMART Tools within their programmes and train staff as champions, as well as support the development of free standing meetings. Even if this is only for a minority of providers it is a complex and controversial proposal and needs to be examined in more detail. A common criticism of this proposal was the view that other than the name, SMART Recovery is in the public domain so providers could use it without any agreement from SRUK. These concerns have some truth to them, but are over-stated. A large proportion of SMART Recovery materials are copyrighted to the US charity, even if the underlying theories
-9-

and principles are not. Anyone can create a similar REBT / CBT based programme but it would take months or even years of work to build up an equivalent body of materials. In short there is nothing to stop a similar programme being created, but there is huge benefit in having a set of manuals, materials and training ‘off the peg’. When looked at from this perspective, using SMART Recovery materials looks more attractive. Although it did not come out in consultation meetings, discussions with senior managers at some provider organisations indicated a significant level of interest. Another, perhaps more robust concern, is that using SMART Recovery in this way creates risk that it becomes ‘just another treatment method’ and is co-opted into the treatment system. Although the original proposals included safeguards to prevent this, the feedback in the consultation brought this issue into clearer focus. The previously proposed safeguard was to require Partners to encourage the creation of new peer led meetings. A stronger approach would be to make this condition concrete, setting a timescale for the service to have floated off a free standing meeting, or the percentage of sites having achieved this in the case of bigger organisations. From the feedback of the consultation it is clear that this would still be controversial to many, who would see this as ‘selling’ SMART Recovery and a move away from the peer centric mutual aid model. It is hoped that the revised proposals answers to these concerns, and would ensure that professional use of SMART Recovery Therapy within provider organisations will be a minor activity compared to peer led meetings.
SMART Recovery Therapy

There was inconclusive consultation feedback on whether the term ‘SMART Recovery Therapy’ should be used to describe work using SMART Recovery tools within professional services. On balance, the question of how this affects the ‘core mission’ of SMART Recovery should be the deciding factor. One risk to SMART Recovery is co-option by the treatment system, so it seems to make sense to use terminology that maintains the distinction and distance between treatment and mutual aid. On this basis, it is tentatively recommended that this professional activity is described as ‘SMART Recovery Therapy’. The caution on this recommendation is around the need to explore medico-legal implications of using the term ‘therapy’ for the combination of therapeutic tools that is SMART Recovery.
License

Although licensing was an unpopular idea during the consultation, the likelihood of providers using SMART Recovery to sell services without supporting peer led meetings was even more unpopular. No alternative has been put forward to having a ‘signed agreement’ as a mechanism to set limits on what providers can do and this still appears necessary in the case of the proposed full Partnership arrangement.

-10-

The provider might gain substantial benefit from SMART Recovery and we need to be confident that partnership really does mean that benefit runs both directions. If provider organisations gain considerable benefit from using ‘SMART Recovery Therapy’ (even winning multi-million pound contracts) it still seems reasonable to ask for a payment to SRUK that will support the peer led meetings that are the core purpose of the organisation. Few discussions on the level of actual license fees took place as part of the consultation, though affordability is obviously a concern to many. It seems to be generally accepted that the level of fee should vary depending on the size of the organisation and number of sites. It is suggested this is simplified into several bands, with a price for a standalone site, up to five sites, ten and so on. The onus should be on keeping it simple to understand and overall fees as low as possible. The original proposals suggested a license fee as the primary funding source for the organisation. It is now suggested that this is one amongst several sources of funding (see pg. 12).
Role of Commissioners

The previous proposals focussed on the role of local substance misuse commissioners in promoting the partnership model to providers. Within the consultation events there was considerable scepticism as to whether commissioners would be interested, though this was not borne out by discussions and feedback from people closer to commissioning roles. This approach may still be worth pursuing, though local Commissioners may be even more useful as a direct source of funding (see next section).
Volunteer advisors

Within the consultation documents the wording suggested that all facilitators were also Peers. We received useful feedback from American colleagues about the work of a small number of none peer facilitators. These are people in the USA with a personal and sometimes professional commitment to supporting recovery, who train as facilitators and run meetings. There is an expectation that they will seek to hand over these meetings to peers, though some will then go on to found further meetings. The obvious example is Joe Gerstein, a founder of SMART Recovery USA who sits on the SRUK board, who has set up a couple of dozen meetings over the years. The key point about this is that these meetings are run in their own time and without payment. This is a completely different thing to organisations using SMART Recovery or running meetings as part of meetings, which is covered in the proposed ‘Partnership’ model above. It is near certain that such ‘Volunteer advisors’ would only ever be a tiny fraction of facilitators so allowing this would not distort the commitment to peer led meetings at the heart of SMART Recovery. This kind of help appears to have been very valuable in the USA so it is suggested we permit this in the UK as well.
-11-

• • • •

• •

The supporter / partnership model should embrace other social care organisations, not just substance misuse treatment. The blanket licensing model should not be pursued Provide guidance, but do not require signed agreement, from organisations that want to support SMART Recovery but not enter into formal partnership Develop a formal partnership model, based on a signed agreement and license fee, which allows other providers to make use of ‘SMART Recovery Therapy’ and train staff as champions. Term used to be confirmed. Further explore asking Commissioners to help promote partnerships The ‘Volunteer advisor’ activity should be permitted, as per the USA.

Other funding streams
If we accept the majority view that SRUK needs to employ regional facilitator mentors, there is a need to raise significant amounts of money. There was no consensus through the consultation on how this might be achieved. There was wide agreement that SRUK should not be looking just to treatment providers but also considering DATs and other forms of health and social care grants. During the later stages of the consultation process conversations and feedback was sought on this wider approach.

Local Commissioners – Regional Mentors
A direct funding mechanism is proposed to seek funds for the regional facilitator mentors. Rather than attempting to approach each of the roughly 200 locality based commissioning teams individually, SRUK should put together a package for funding on a region by region basis. If successful, this approach would result in anywhere up to 14 employed posts. SMART Recovery could still develop in areas without these posts, though probably at a slower rate. One of the concerns expressed in the consultation about raising funds was that SMART Recovery would become subject to all sorts of demands that might undermine the core values and purpose. It would be important to ensure that the agreement did not push SRUK toward any kind of ‘outcome monitoring’ of individual meeting participants. It would need more thought, but on the face of it the only acceptable outcome measure should be the number of SMART Recovery meetings being run and perhaps some minimum expectations around training. From initial discussions with Commissioners this would probably be acceptable to most, certainly those with more than a passing understanding of mutual aid!

-12-

The reason for the original caution about DAT funding (and recommending treatment providers) is their vulnerability to the changing tides of public policy. This may still prove to be the case, but if this is combined with other sources of funding, such as provider partnerships, then the core financial base of the organisation should still be fairly secure. The organisation should be mindful that the desire to create so many paid posts is to some degree in tension with the traditional commitment of SMART Recovery to rely as much as possible on volunteer input. The problem faced by SRUK is the desire to support rapid but sustainable growth, with relatively few people currently involved and able to offer unpaid time beyond running meetings. As SMART Recovery grows, this picture might change and there may be many dozens or even hundreds of facilitators with many years of recovery under their belts. The need for paid regional facilitators might not be forever, but it is real and urgent this year if the current wave of growth is to be sustained.

Other sources
The appeal to seek wider funding base included suggestions to partner with other recovery organisations, seek local authority crime and disorder funding and take a more local approach. There might be options in all of these, though it requires time and capacity to explore and negotiate each one. Although new funding and commissioning arrangements might emerge to support the recovery agenda, it seems more likely that any shift in resources toward recovery models will in the short to medium term come through existing structures. An alternative way of thinking about this is to consider the political imperatives that will drive funding into Recovery. These are the ideas of Big Society, Volunteerism, Self Help, Value for Money and (most controversially in this sector) Abstinence. SMART Recovery stands up well in front of these priorities and can afford to be reasonably ambitious for solid mainstream funding. If regional facilitator mentors are successfully recruited, they would be well placed to begin a process of seeking local partners for future joint funding strategies.

• • •

Pursue the idea of asking local Commissioners to promote provider support / partnership with SMART Recovery Seek funding from local Commissioners via regional structures to help fund Regional facilitator Mentors. With limited time and resources, SRUK should at this stage focus on known mainstream substance misuse funding

-13-

Governance
The make-up of the board was discussed on several occasions within the consultation and aroused very strong feelings. The overwhelming feedback was that the proposals did not go far enough and that one member on the board, possibly a year from now is tokenistic (especially if this was one out of 13, which is at least possible from currently published documents). A small minority expressed an even stronger position, that the board did not have a mandate to make decisions and it must be majority or entirely run by peers. This was expressed alongside the view that the consultation did not have credibility because of the make-up of the board. It is important that this is resolved quickly as even many facilitators who strongly support consultation process share the view that the board is too distant and weakened by a lack of representation. The breakdown in trust is, with hindsight, fairly easy to understand and was discussed on pg. 5. The consultation process itself was in part intended to move this process forwards and open up the discussion, but it does not resolve the underlying governance issues. Mistrust is only likely to lift for sure when communication is substantially better and facilitators feel there is a stronger voice at the top table for people who actually deliver SMART Recovery. Having peers on the board may be one part, even an important part of the long term solution, though it would be a mistake to think of this as the only option. The following are a couple of ideas. It is recommended that the board consider and consult on specific proposals. • In many charities, senior members of staff attend board meetings and take part in almost all discussions4. They do not carry all the legal obligations of being a trustee but very much have a seat at the table. If SRUK develops the facilitator mentor posts, several of these could be invited to attend board meetings. Charity trustees have legal responsibilities that need to be understood before shouldering the task. As an interim step, peers could be brought onto the board in an ‘observer capacity’. This does not mean they would simply sit and observe, they could participate fully in discussions. The recent telephone conference about training would be easy to replicate. This would draw all the facilitators (and not just a ‘representative few’) into key discussions.

These and other options are not mutually exclusive. It is proposed that a mixture of these and possibly other mechanisms are pursued.
4

Some discussions on legal issues, for example staff remuneration and complaints might be ‘off limits’ to everyone except the legal trustees.

-14-

The board has a responsibility to increase peer involvement in the decision making process, but peer facilitators also have responsibilities to engage in this discussion with an open mind. One factor that needs to be held in mind is that this is still a small organisation. There is only a very small ‘pool’ to recruit from if the facilitator mentor model is pursued and additional peers are also invited to sit on the board. There is a great deal of talent amongst the facilitators, but there are not as yet many of them.

• •

Board to prepare set of proposals to improve communication and strengthen representation of peers in decision making. Some steps should be put in place almost immediately

-15-

Appendices
Notes toward guidance for ‘Supporters’ Provider agencies are encouraged to help promote SMART Recovery to their clients. Without any further permission, SRUK actively encourages providers to: • • • • Offer to host meetings. If possible please support this by offering refreshments, occasional access to a computer or other help requested by the facilitator. Put up posters, distribute leaflets and otherwise raise awareness of SMART Recovery amongst your service users. If you host a meeting, you are welcome to mention on your website or publicity materials that you ‘support SMART Recovery’. Consider becoming a full SMART Recovery Partner!

SRUK respectfully requests that you do not: • • Restrict any SMART Recovery meetings you host to clients of your own service. Use SMART Recovery materials within your own program.

Notes toward agreement for ‘Partners’

This is not in any way a comprehensive list, but aims to get the key principles down on paper for further discussion. This would be worked up into an agreement document that would be signed by any provider that wanted to become a ‘SMART Recovery Partner’. The partner agency may: • Put forward one or more members of staff per service to train as a ‘SMART Recovery Champion’ for the service. The online training will be provided free by SRUK and face to face training provided ‘at cost’. Use the SMART Recovery Therapy and other SMART Recovery manuals within programmes run by the provider, including sessions that are not peer led SMART Recovery meetings. This includes for example using the handouts and tools within one to one counselling sessions. Display the ‘SMART Recovery Partner’ logo on their website or other promotional materials. SRUK will list your organisation as partner on our own website. Include mention of SMART Recovery Therapy within funding applications using standard wording supplied by or otherwise agreed with SRUK.

• •

The partner agency must: • Actively promote free standing, peer led meetings in the local area. SRUK may for example insist that 85% of your sites using SMART Recovery Therapy must have a local free standing meeting within one year and at any point thereafter. Pay an annual fee to SRUK

-16-

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->