POSITIVE HEALTH CHOICES, HOLISTIC APPROACHES, RESTORATIVE, SUPPORTIVE NOT PUNITIVE, INCLUDE
WHÄNAU / FAMILIES, LINK WITH COMMUNITIES, CLEAR KEY MESSAGES, ROLE-MODELING ACCEPTABLE
BEHAVIOUR, LEARNING PROCESSES, SUPPORT YOUNG PEOPLE TO MAKE HEALTHIER LIFESTYLE
CHOICES, FLEXIBLE PROCEDURES, RESPOND APPROPRIATELY TO INDIVIDUAL SITUATIONS, INVITE
STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT, YOUTH PARTICIPATION FOR YOUTH BUY-IN, PLANNED AND COORDINATED,
HUMAN RIGHTS, REINFORCE POSITIVE BEHAVIOURS, BETTER LONG-TERM EFFECTS FOR THE WHOLE
COMMUNITY, IMPROVED HEALTH OUTCOMES, COLLABORATE, ADDRESS INEQUALITIES, PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT, REFERRAL PATHWAYS, POSITIVE HEALTH CHOICES, HOLISTIC APPROACHES,
RESTORATIVE, SUPPORTIVE NOT PUNITIVE, INCLUDE WHÄNAU / FAMILIES, LINK WITH COMMUNITIES,
CLEAR KEY MESSAGES, ROLE-MODELING ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOUR, LEARNING PROCESSES,
SUPPORT YOUNG PEOPLE TO MAKE HEALTHIER LIFESTYLE CHOICES, FLEXIBLE PROCEDURES,
RESPOND APPROPRIATELY TO INDIVIDUAL SITUATIONS, INVITE STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT, YOUTH
PARTICIPATION FOR YOUTH BUY-IN, PLANNED AND COORDINATED, HUMAN RIGHTS, REINFORCE
POSITIVE BEHAVIOURS, BETTER LONG-TERM EFFECTS FOR THE WHOLE COMMUNITY, IMPROVED HEALTH
OUTCOMES, COLLABORATE, ADDRESS INEQUALITIES, PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT, REFERRAL
PATHWAYS, POSITIVE HEALTH CHOICES, HOLISTIC APPROACHES, RESTORATIVE, SUPPORTIVE NOT
PUNITIVE, INCLUDE WHÄNAU / FAMILIES, LINK WITH COMMUNITIES, CLEAR KEY MESSAGES, ROLEMODELING ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOUR, LEARNING PROCESSES, SUPPORT YOUNG PEOPLE TO MAKE
HEALTHIER LIFESTYLE CHOICES, FLEXIBLE PROCEDURES, RESPOND APPROPRIATELY TO INDIVIDUAL
SITUATIONS, INVITE STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT, YOUTH PARTICIPATION FOR YOUTH BUY-IN,
PLANNED AND COORDINATED, HUMAN RIGHTS, REINFORCE POSITIVE BEHAVIOURS, BETTER LONGTERM EFFECTS FOR THE WHOLE COMMUNITY, IMPROVED HEALTH OUTCOMES, COLLABORATE,
ADDRESS INEQUALITIES, PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT, REFERRAL PATHWAYS, POSITIVE HEALTH
CHOICES, HOLISTIC APPROACHES, RESTORATIVE, SUPPORTIVE NOT PUNITIVE, INCLUDE WHÄNAU
/ FAMILIES, LINK WITH COMMUNITIES, CLEAR KEY MESSAGES, ROLE-MODELING ACCEPTABLE
BEHAVIOUR, LEARNING PROCESSES, SUPPORT YOUNG PEOPLE TO MAKE HEALTHIER LIFESTYLE
CHOICES, FLEXIBLE PROCEDURES, RESPOND APPROPRIATELY TO INDIVIDUAL SITUATIONS, INVITE
STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT, YOUTH PARTICIPATION FOR YOUTH BUY-IN, PLANNED AND COORDINATED,
HUMAN RIGHTS, REINFORCE POSITIVE BEHAVIOURS, BETTER LONG-TERM EFFECTS FOR THE WHOLE
COMMUNITY, IMPROVED HEALTH OUTCOMES, COLLABORATE, ADDRESS INEQUALITIES, PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT, REFERRAL PATHWAYS, POSITIVE HEALTH CHOICES, HOLISTIC APPROACHES,
RESTORATIVE, SUPPORTIVE NOT PUNITIVE, INCLUDE WHÄNAU / FAMILIES, LINK WITH COMMUNITIES,
CLEAR KEY MESSAGES, ROLE-MODELING ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOUR, LEARNING PROCESSES,
SUPPORT YOUNG PEOPLE TO MAKE HEALTHIER LIFESTYLE CHOICES, FLEXIBLE PROCEDURES,
RESPOND APPROPRIATELY TO INDIVIDUAL SITUATIONS, INVITE STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT, YOUTH
PARTICIPATION FOR YOUTH BUY-IN, PLANNED AND COORDINATED, HUMAN RIGHTS, REINFORCE
POSITIVE BEHAVIOURS, BETTER LONG-TERM EFFECTS FOR THE WHOLE COMMUNITY, IMPROVED HEALTH
OUTCOMES, COLLABORATE, ADDRESS INEQUALITIES, PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT, REFERRAL
PATHWAYS POSITIVE HEALTH CHOICES, HOLISTIC APPROACHES, RESTORATIVE, SUPPORTIVE NOT
PUNITIVE, INCLUDE WHÄNAU / FAMILIES, LINK WITH COMMUNITIES, CLEAR KEY MESSAGES, ROLEMODELING ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOUR, LEARNING PROCESSES, SUPPORT YOUNG PEOPLE TO MAKE
HEALTHIER LIFESTYLE CHOICES, FLEXIBLE PROCEDURES, RESPOND APPROPRIATELY TO INDIVIDUAL
SITUATIONS, INVITE STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT, YOUTH PARTICIPATION FOR YOUTH BUY-IN,
PLANNED AND COORDINATED, HUMAN RIGHTS, REINFORCE POSITIVE BEHAVIOURS, BETTER LONGTERM EFFECTS FOR THE WHOLE COMMUNITY, IMPROVED HEALTH OUTCOMES, COLLABORATE,
ADDRESS INEQUALITIES, PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT, REFERRAL PATHWAYS, POSITIVE HEALTH
CHOICES, HOLISTIC APPROACHES, RESTORATIVE, SUPPORTIVE NOT PUNITIVE, INCLUDE WHÄNAU
/ FAMILIES, LINK WITH COMMUNITIES, CLEAR KEY MESSAGES, ROLE-MODELING ACCEPTABLE
BEHAVIOUR, LEARNING PROCESSES, SUPPORT YOUNG PEOPLE TO MAKE HEALTHIER LIFESTYLE
CHOICES, FLEXIBLE PROCEDURES, RESPOND APPROPRIATELY TO INDIVIDUAL SITUATIONS, INVITE
STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT, YOUTH PARTICIPATION FOR YOUTH BUY-IN, PLANNED AND COORDINATED,
HUMAN RIGHTS, REINFORCE POSITIVE BEHAVIOURS, BETTER LONG-TERM EFFECTS FOR THE WHOLE
COMMUNITY, IMPROVED HEALTH OUTCOMES, COLLABORATE, ADDRESS INEQUALITIES, PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT, REFERRAL PATHWAYS, POSITIVE HEALTH CHOICES, HOLISTIC APPROACHES,
RESTORATIVE, SUPPORTIVE NOT PUNITIVE, INCLUDE WHÄNAU / FAMILIES, LINK WITH COMMUNITIES,
CLEAR KEY MESSAGES, ROLE-MODELING ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOUR, LEARNING PROCESSES, SUPPORT,
POSITIVE HEALTH CHOICES, HOLISTIC APPROACHES, RESTORATIVE, SUPPORTIVE NOT PUNITIVE
MORE
THAN
JUST A
POLICY
BEST PRACTICE ALCOHOL AND OTHER
DRUG POLICY FOR YOUTH ORGANISATIONS
GUIDELINES
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many thanks to the following people, without whose input and support these
Guidelines and the accompanying Workbook would never have been completed:
For your helpful comments and input on the progressive drafts: Tim Leyland
(Ministry of Social Development), Vonnie Marshall and Helen Inkster (Nelson Bays
Primary Health Organisation), Sally Wood (Help for Young People at Events and in
their Gathering Spaces), Alicia Terry (Nelson Tasman Youth Workers Collective),
Patrick Duffy (Health Action Trust), Alice Evatt (Nelson Marlborough Alcohol and
Drug Service), Lee-ann O’Brien (Te Rapuora Health Services), Dr Jan Bashford
(Massey University), Catherine Milburn (New Zealand Drug Foundation), Sally
Liggins and Michael Blewden (SHORE/Whariki), Mike Ikilei (Auckland Council) Leo
Trompetter (Ministry of Education) and the Public Health, National Health Board and
National Drug Policy teams (Ministry of Health).
For your support, feedback and input, thanks also to my colleagues around the
country working in Community Action on Youth and Drugs (CAYAD) contracts:
Damien Pivac, Zubin SenGupta, Mike Moss, Sarah Rautahi, Ngaire Te Ahu and Bev
Thomas.
For your patience in trialling the drafts while working on your organisations’
policies: Gabrielle Thorpe, Paul Johnson, Jane Henderson, Samantha Stewart
and the staff and young people at Abel Tasman Educational Trust, Julie RadfordPoupard and the young people of Youthtown, and Stacey Hitchcock, Matt Grey and
the staff and young people of Zeal Henderson.
Finally, huge thanks to Ben Mills (YouthLaw) for ongoing advice and support, and to
my CAYAD colleague Anna-Jane Jacob at Auckland Central Safety team, Auckland
Council, for your ongoing support, enthusiasm and input.
Rosey Duncan 2010
Compiled and written by Rosey Duncan
Copyright: Health Action Trust, PO Box 691, Nelson, NZ.
Copyright © 2011 Health Action Trust, PO Box 691, Nelson, NZ
www.healthaction.org.nz
Published
2010
by Health
Action
Trust, Nelson www.healthaction.org.nz
Compiledinand
written
by Rosey
Duncan
and Auckland Council …
ISBN number
Published by:
CAYAD Nelson; Health Action Trust, Nelson and Auckland Central CAYAD; Auckland Council
ISBN 978-0-473-18021-8
INTRODUCTION
3
FACTORS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF ALCOHOL AND OTHER DRUG PROBLEMS
4
HOW AN EFFECTIVE DRUG POLICY CAN BENEFIT AN ORGANISATION
7
WHY SCHOOLS NEED EFFECTIVE DRUG POLICIES
8
Policies can reduce risks
Effects of expulsion or exclusion
Ministry of Education stand-down and suspension guidelines
8
8
10
THE THREE KEY ELEMENTS OF BEST PRACTICE IN DRUG POLICY
11
RESPONDING TO DRUG-RELATED INCIDENTS
13
Legal obligations
Safety
The significance and context of a drug-related incident
Possible responses to drug-related incidents
Factors to consider when choosing the best procedural option
Discipline
Searches
Confiscations
Privacy
Liaising with police
Drug testing
13
13
14
14
15
16
17
19
19
21
22
SUPPORT SERVICES
24
Supporting young people: recommended strategies
Telephone services
Online directories
Online resources
Community services, agencies and processes
Health education resources
24
25
26
26
27
27
STAFF TRAINING
28
Professional Development
Dealing with media
28
29
EVALUATION
30
FURTHER INFORMATION
32
Supporting resources
References
32
33
SECTION
CONTENTS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
“THERE ARE SO
MANY VARIATIONS IN
ALCOHOL AND OTHER
DRUG ISSUES; THESE
GUIDELINES HELPED US
TO UNDERSTAND AND
START THINKING ABOUT
EACH OF THOSE AND
HOW WE MIGHT MANAGE
THOSE.”
INTRODUCTION
This document is a guideline for people working with rangatahi or young people and
wishing to develop or review existing alcohol and other drug policies.
It is designed as a guideline for any youth-focused organisation, although there are
several sections targeted to schools, as that is where many of the research studies
have been based.
This document refers to a range of research dating from 1979 to 2010, from
organisations such as the Alcohol Public Health Research Unit (now SHORE/
Whariki) and the Australian National Council on Drugs, which the author believes
constitute research endorsed by the New Zealand Ministry of Health and other leading
institutions as best practice in the drug policy field.
The concepts of policy and procedure are considered as separate in this document.
Policy outlines a kaupapa or position, guiding principle or philosophy, based on what a
policy-maker wants to achieve or prevent. Procedure outlines a course of action; what
will be done in response to relevant incidents.
Structure of this document
The structure of this document is as follows.
Section 1:
Looks at factors that contribute to the development of drug related
problems.
Section 2:
Discusses the usefulness of an effective policy.
Section 3:
Includes information specific to schools.
Section 4:
Briefly discusses the three key elements of best practice drug policy.
Section 5:
Provides best-practice information relating to the various issues
organisations will need to consider when writing their own policy and
procedures.
Section 6:
Identifies relevant resources and support services.
Section 7:
Looks at professional development for staff.
Section 8:
Contains evaluation checklists.
Section 9:
Contains references to more in-depth information.
The accompanying Workbook contains checklists and templates to help with the policy
or procedure development or review process.
03
FACTORS IN THE
DEVELOPMENT OF
ALCOHOL AND OTHER
DRUG PROBLEMS
There are many factors
that can contribute to the
development of alcohol and
other drug problems. The
following three studies
outline contributing factors in
motivational, developmental
and social frameworks.
Risk factors should not be
confused with causal factors:
no single factor is necessarily
causal in itself; drug-related
problems are generally
caused by a range of factors in
combination.
MOTIVATIONAL FACTORS1
• To escape developmental distress
“The most severe and harmful drug use
problems are associated with childhood
backgrounds … This appears to translate
into social marginalisation and emotional
distress through social exclusion
processes, which can operate in families,
schools and communities.”
• To self-manage body and spirit
“Substance misuse is often an intentional
activity … relevant to feeling good, … or
achieving spiritual connection.”
• To conform to social norms
“Conformity is a general motivation
behind the majority of alcohol and other
drug use. …to achieve social inclusion,
… [or] acceptance within a valued social
group.”
• To create individual identity
“[Young people] try and establish a
distinctive individual and peer identity. …
[One way of expressing] identity is via the
use of licit and, in particular, illicit drugs.
Moderating influences on this behaviour
include the policies and practices of
schools, families and the wider society.”
1
04
From ‘Alcohol and drug use: theoretical integration of
interventions to prevent harm’ Toumbourou (2005),
cited in the Australian National Council on Drugs
publication Drug Testing in Schools: Evidence, impacts
and alternatives (Roche et al 2008).
SOCIAL FACTORS 3
DEVELOPMENTAL FACTORS 2
At pre-school:
• inheritedvulnerability(formales)
• maternalsmokingandalcoholuse
• extremesocialdisadvantage
• familybreakdown
• childabuseandneglect
At school entry:
• earlyschoolfailure
• childhoodconductdisorder
• aggression
• favourableparentalattitudestodrug
use
From adolescence onwards:
• lowinvolvementinactivitieswith
adults
• theperceivedandactuallevelof
community drug use
• theavailabilityofdrugsinthe
community
• parent–adolescentconflict
• parentalalcoholanddrugproblems
• poorfamilymanagement
• school failure
• deviant peer associations
• delinquency
• favourable attitudes to drugs
• community disadvantage and
disorganisation
• positive media portrayals of drug use
• adult unemployment
• mental health problems
2
Risk factors identified in Drug Testing in Schools:
Evidence, impacts and alternatives (Roche et al
2008).
• individual and interpersonal factors,
such as:
low self esteem, genetic susceptibility,
sensation seeking, aggressiveness,
conduct problems, shyness,
rebelliousness, alienation, academic
failure, and low commitment to school
• peer group factors, such as:
associating with others who use illegal
drugs, rejection, friendship with other
rejected children, and peer pressure to
use substances
•family risk factors, such as:
alcoholic or drug-using parents, perceived
parent permissiveness, lack of consistent
discipline, negative communication
patterns, conflict, low bonding, stress and
dysfunction, lack of extended family or
support systems, emotionally disturbed
parents, parental rejection, lack of adult
supervision, lack of family rituals, and
physical and/or sexual abuse
•school risk factors, such as:
lack of support for positive school values
and attitudes, school dysfunction, high
rates of substance abuse and prosubstance norms, low teacher and
student morale, and academic failure
•community risk factors, such as:
a high crime rate, high population density,
physical deterioration, norms supporting
drug abuse, transient populations, lack
of community activities or institutions,
poverty and lack of employment
opportunities, nature of the youth culture,
and easy availability of drugs
3
Identified by the former Alcohol Public Health
Research Unit (1999)
“A major health
challenge for
New Zealand is the
inequalities in health
between Maori/Pacific
and non-Maori/nonPacific peoples.”
Ministry of Health 2007a
“Early intervention
and earlier access
to services are
particularly important
for tamariki and
rangatahi [young
people].”
Ministry of Health 2007b
HOW AN EFFECTIVE DRUG POLICY
CAN BENEFIT AN ORGANISATION
Clear and effective alcohol and other drug policies and procedures
help to improve safety, consistency, and efficiency, leading to better
outcomes for everyone. Benefits include:
Clear expectations
Having a policy in place means all staff
and youth will have a clear understanding
of behavioural expectations and the likely
consequences.
Consistency
With a policy in place, incidents can be
responded to in a calm, planned and
consistent manner according to the
policy.
2
Increased likelihood of earlier
prevention
Effective drug policy raises awareness
of acceptable behaviours and likely
consequences.
Improved efficiency within an
organisation
Planned procedures outlining clear
pathways to follow in certain situations
will improve the efficiency of staff
responses.
Reduced costs
In any organisation, a lack of policy
is likely to result in costs associated
with elements such as lower youth
(or employee) attendance, time spent
discussing how to respond to drugrelated incidents, obtaining legal help and
so on.
Improved safety for everyone in an
organisation
Planned procedures will contribute
towards keeping young people and staff
at an organisation safer, both at the time
of an incident and during follow-up. For
example, recording the process when
arranging for disposal of a substance.
Improved outcomes for all
“It is well documented that people of
Maori and Pacific ethnicity and low socioeconomic status (income, education,
occupation, housing) have consistently
poorer health outcomes in comparison
with the rest of the population.“ (Ministry
of Health 2007a). Effective policies can
help address these health inequalities.
Improved connections to other
services
Maintaining up-to-date contact lists will
improve an organisation’s effectiveness
in referring to other services when
necessary. The procedure flow charts
in the Workbook allow space to record
contact details for relevant local services.
07
WHY SCHOOLS NEED
EFFECTIVE DRUG POLICIES
Removing students has academic and social consequences.
Young people need to remain engaged in their places of learning,
experiencingasenseofbelongingandsupport,inordertoachieve
well later in life.
POLICIES CAN REDUCE RISKS
Improving school policies can reduce
the risks associated with substance use
and also contribute to improved health
outcomes.
Studies have recorded better mental
health and lower criminality among older
school-leavers – both of these aspects
lead to better long-term effects for the
community as a whole.
EFFECTS OF EXPULSION OR EXCLUSION
“Suspensionorexpulsionmay
exacerbate…existingacademic
and learning difficulties, provide
[students] with more opportunity to
engage in risky or criminal activities,
and predispose them to greater risk
of substance use or to quit school
permanently”
(Roche et al 2008)
There is a strong correlation
between early school leavers
and unemployment and/or lower
incomes, which are in turn generally
related to poverty and dependence
on income support. In New Zealand,
recent data show that those with no
qualifications have unemployment
ratesfarexceedingthosewith
qualifications, and the lowest
median incomes.
Education Counts 2010a
Following established policy can also
provide schools with legal protection
in respect to their actions following a
drug-related incident (Hoch and Olszowy
1979).
08
Removing students from schools has
huge academic and social consequences
both for the student(s) directly involved,
for other students, and for the wider New
Zealand society (Ministry of Education
2009).
Quantity of instruction or potential
‘opportunity to learn’ strongly
influences student outcomes... The
practice of suspension cuts short …
potential opportunities to learn at
school.
Education Counts 2010b
While suspensions impact on
actual opportunity to learn they are
also associated with a wide range
of concerning youth behaviours
including drug and alcohol abuse
and violence that are disruptive
to the learning of the individuals
concerned and disruptive and unsafe
for peers in the school community.
Education Counts 2010b
Effects or consequences may include:
• Disrupted schooling
• Family may encounter difficulty
arranging supervision for their child
while not attending school [and
students who are most likely to be
suspended or expelled are also most in
need of adult supervision]
• Student & family may encounter
other associated family or social
consequences
• Student is required to enroll elsewhere
if excluded or expelled but wishes to
continue schooling
• Extra workload for school staff / BoT
and support services
• Student may come into contact with
Justice System
Studies have found that, through
exclusion, affected students may
become further disconnected from
school, existing support and support
services, and the ‘problem’ may
simply be relocated to higher risk
environments even less able to control
or guide appropriate skills and behaviour
(American Academy of Pediatrics
Committee on School Health 2003;
Christle et al 2004; Goodstadt 1989;
Hallfors and Van Dorn 2002; Norden
2008; Skiba et al 2002).
3
Research has shown that when youth
are not in school they are more likely
to engage in violence, drug taking and
sexual behaviours (Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention 1994).
Exclusionary policies may accelerate the
course of permanent school drop-out and
delinquency by reducing supervision and
increasing affected students’ association
with deviant peers (Brooks et al 2003;
Christle et al 2004; Skiba and Peterson
1999).
“Feeling connected to family and
school is a key predictor of positive
health choices among young people
–[expulsion]practicedestroysthis
for those receiving as well as those
seeing it as unfair.”
Skager (n.d.)
• Loss of a chance to help the young
person make healthier lifestyle choices
09
School board members, parents,
community members and school
administrators participating in a study
by Stamm and Frick (2009) agreed that
exclusions in the case of substance use
served little benefit: while exclusions
were used to show that drugs are not
tolerated, there was general agreement
that it was better to keep students in
school, where they can be monitored and
kept engaged in their schooling.
While suspension or exclusion may
temporarily suppress inappropriate
behaviour, such approaches alone are
unlikely to instil in students the skills
and knowledge required for appropriate
behaviour change (Maag 2001; Skiba and
Peterson 2003). It has been asserted that
students’ main learning outcome from
zero tolerance exclusionary policies is
that the behaviour is unacceptable and
not tolerated (Morrison and Skiba 2001).
Rather than providing a learning process,
such strategies effectively create an
‘event’ that sends the message ‘that a
line has been crossed’ (Morrison and
Skiba 2001, p 179).
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION STAND-DOWN AND
SUSPENSION GUIDELINES
The Education Act 1989 clearly states
that only the principal of a school can
make a decision to stand down or
suspend a student. Thus, in disciplinary
situations, the school principal should
always be fully informed of the situation.
10
“Stand-downs and suspensions
should always be the last response
after a range of other interventions
have been tried and have failed to
improve the situation”
(Ministry of Education 2009)
When setting suspension conditions it is
important to:
• minimise disruption to the student’s
attendance at school
• facilitate the student’s return to the
classroom (Ministry of Education 2010).
The most current information about
the Ministry of Education’s school
suspension policy can be found in the
Stand-downs, suspensions, exclusions
and expulsions guidelines on its website.
(Ministry of Education 2010). These
Guidelines are designed to assist boards
of trustees, principals, and teachers with
their legal options and duties.
A new document for school boards,
principals, and teachers covers
development and implemention of drug
education programmes as part of the
health and physical education curriculum.
Promoting Student Health and Wellbeing:
A Guide to Drug Education in Schools
also outlines how drug programmes are
supported by whole-school approaches
that link to wider school communities.
THE THREE KEY ELEMENTS OF
BEST PRACTICE IN DRUG POLICY
There are 3 key elements which underlie good drug policies:
1) REINFORCEMENT OF POSITIVE BEHAVIOURS
“Behaviours of...staff influence
students’ perceptions of substance
useasdotheexpectationsofadults
and the level of social approval
or disapproval of substance use.
School policies and how well they
are enforced positively shape such
processes and outcomes.”
(Flay 2000)
Various studies have emphasised the
importance of reinforcing positive
behaviour.
2) PROVISION OF SUPPORT RATHER THAN
PUNISHMENT
There is increasing support for school
drug policies that take a supportive rather
than punitive approach, and “are based
on a health-promoting schools approach”
(Beyers et al 2005).
Schools with a comprehensive written
drug policy that addresses both
prevention and intervention are well
placed to respond in a planned and
co-ordinated manner to drug related
incidents (Hoch and Olszowy 1979;
Norden 2008).
“Prevention policy should...
giveexplicitrecognitionand
reinforcement to the large number
of students who choose not to use
or abuse drugs”
4
(Goodstadt 1989)
Responses to drug-related incidents
are less likely to be excessively punitive
when policy is clearly stated in advance
(Hoch and Olszowy 1979).
Following stated school policy can
“provide schools with legal protections in
respect to their actions following a drug
related incident” (Hoch and Olszowy
1979).
3) INCLUSION OF STAKEHOLDER INPUT
It is best if schools attempt a schoolwide approach; that is, one that does not
just rely on drug education, but invites
input from all stakeholders and then
uses a variety of strategies in a variety
of locations to ensure awareness and
understanding of the policy.
Other organisations are likely to benefit
from a similar approach.
11
[Young people] are more likely to respect
stated policy if they have had some input
into its development (Hoch and Olszowy
1979).
Policy input from community leaders and
organisations helps to frame the problem
as a community, rather than a schoolonly, problem (Hoch and Olszowy 1979).
Stakeholder involvement in policy
development and the incorporation of
community norms into policy planning
and implementation is thought to facilitate
policy implementation, enforcement and
compliance (Goodstadt 1989).
Regular communication of the policy to
stakeholders is required to ensure that a
consistent message is delivered (Beyers
et al 2005).
Developing policy alongside youth
stakeholders will increase those
stakeholders’ awareness of the rationale
behind the policy, and their ‘buy-in’ or
commitment to the policy.
Inclusion of young people in policy
development and review is a good
way to increase youth participation and
engagement in an organisation.
12
KEY
NS
O
I
T
S
QUE
• Doesyourpolicyreinforce
positive behaviours?
• Isyourpolicyfocusedon
providing support rather than
punishment?
• Haveyouinvitedinput
from your key stakeholders
including community leaders
and young people in the
development of your policy?
RESPONDING TO DRUGRELATED INCIDENTS1
If there is a policy in place this will guide procedures. The
procedural document should be the first point of reference in
response to a drug-related incident.
LEGAL OBLIGATIONS
Different laws apply to public
organisations (such as schools,
government departments or those
acting under contract from government
departments or agencies) and private
entities (private schools not receiving
government funds, private training
institutions, private trusts and other
entities not dependent on government
funds).
The Education Act places further
requirements and obligations on public
schools.
Accordingly, the information contained in
this document should be regarded as a
guide only, and in all situations individual
organisations should seek proper legal
advice.
The information provided here applies to
generic youth organisations. Issues may
be more complex for youth organisations
that have Child, Youth andFamily (CYF)
contracts.
All organisations should complete
detailed reports of any alcohol or other
drug-related incidents on an incident
reporting form (see the accompanying
Workbook for a sample).
SAFETY
KEY
N
ACTIO
In a medical emergency
involving drugs:
5
Dial 111 and ask for an
ambulance
Try to find out what drug or
drugs are involved
After calling an ambulance:
• Ensure the immediate health and
safety of all young people and staff
present.
• Decide what privacy obligations
apply and who needs to be involved
- with the safety and well-being of
the affected student as the primary
consideration.
ENSURE YOU:
Decide who will be the first point
of contact and which staff will
be involved, when, and how
much information they need
1 This section has been prepared with the support of
YouthLaw.
13
KEY
T...
N
I
O
P
THE SIGNIFICANCE AND CONTEXT OF A
DRUG-RELATED INCIDENT
It is good practice to involve a range
of people to assess the impact of the
incident’s significance and context,
subject to privacy concerns.
People to be involved may include:
• teachers/tutors
• administration staff
• counsellors or other school-based
service workers
• and board or committee members.
It is important to consider the impact
on the conduct of the affected student
of any known special needs, possible
health problems (including mental
health disorders), family issues and
personal situation, and any other relevant
circumstances.
on specific social occasions, usually
involving experienced or controlled
users
• circumstantial/situational – use for a
specific situation or purpose
• intensive – similar to previous but
borders on dependence; use often
related to need for relief or to maintain
level of performance
• compulsive – persistent and frequent
high doses producing psychological
and physiological dependence
POSSIBLE RESPONSES TO DRUG-RELATED
INCIDENTS
Norden (2008) recommends that in
determining responses to drug-related
incidents staff should consider the
significance of the incident in relation to
patterns of drug use behaviour.
Drugs: Guidance for Schools (2004)2
suggest the following possible responses
to a drug-related incident (note that this
is not an exhaustive list):
Patterns of drug use behaviour
• early intervention and targeted
prevention
Shafer’s model of drug use patterns1
sorts drug use into the following
categories:
• experimental – likely peer-influenced,
use may be one-off, short-term
• social/recreational – voluntary use
1 (USNCMDA 1973), as referred to by Norden (2008, p.
453-4),,
14
Consider the significance
andcontextofadrug-related
incident before choosing a
procedural response.
• referral to counselling or other services
• inter-agency programmes
• pastoral support programmes
• behaviour support plans.
2 Guidelines published by the United Kingdom
organisation DrugScope
FACTORS TO CONSIDER WHEN CHOOSING THE
BEST PROCEDURAL OPTION
General factors to consider in choosing
the best procedural option for responding
to drug-related incidents include the
following:
The needs of the individual involved
should also be considered, in regard to
his or her:
• education (potential disruption)
• cultural background
• emotional state
• the safety/welfare of other youth and
staff
• family/whanau’s capacity to provide
support
• who is involved (for example a young
person, staff member, visitor or
community member)
• family/whanau’s attitudes to the
substance involved (and the behaviour
modeled by them in this context)
• what substance is involved
• motivations for the behaviour (a
HEeADSSS assessment may be
useful)
• where and when the behaviour
occurred
• what the behaviour involved
• what outcome(s) the organisation
wants to achieve (policy should be
referred to for guidance)
• the human rights of person involved
• the individual rights and responsibilities
of those involved in searches or
questioning
5
• language (that is, the language spoken
by the individual/family/whanau)
• personal situation
• peer group affiliation
After considering these factors,
organisations should ensure that
appropriate follow-up procedures are
carried out.
• expectations of parents/caregivers
about how incidents should be
managed
• support services available
• demands on staff
• the consequences of action or inaction
on young people, the organisation and
staff
• media attention
15
DISCIPLINE
After safety issues have been addressed,
disciplinary action may be justified.
Having made this decision, decisionmakers must further determine if
disciplinary action is desirable.
The principles of natural justice apply
to all disciplinary decisions: the young
person’s right to know what they’ve
been accused of; the young person’s
right to give their side of the story; and
the young person’s right to be treated
fairly and without bias. In schools, natural
justice requirements in stand-downs,
suspensions, exclusions and expulsions
are given effect by section 13(c) of the
Education Act.
Disciplinary measures must entail no
discrimination. Prohibited grounds of
discrimination are set out in section 21 of
the Human Rights Act 1993, and include
sex, marital status, religious belief, ethical
belief, colour, race, ethnic or national
origins, disability, age, political opinion,
employment status, family status and
sexual orientation.
The Bill of Rights Act provides a number
of rights to people living in New Zealand,
including the right to freedom from
unreasonable search and seizure.
The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990
applies to Government and all bodies
carrying out a ‘public function’.
Organisations that carry out a public
function may also be bound by
international law, including the United
16
Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Child (UNCROC).
An organisation may be considered to be
carrying out a public function if:
• it is required by law to perform certain
functions; or
• the type of function that it provides is
considered to be ‘public’ in nature; or
• it has been contracted by a
government department or agency to
carry out a specific function; or
• it receives a substantial proportion
of its income from public funds and
those funds are directed towards the
performance of a specific function.
Article 12 of the UNCROC requires
the views and opinions of a child to be
heard in matters affecting them, and
those views to be given due weight
commensurate with the age and maturity
of the child.
NOTES FOR SCHOOLS
• Schoolsmustfollowtheprinciples,
policies and guidelines of their school
charter in making decisions about
students. Additionally, principals must
comply with the Education Act in
determining whether disciplinary action
is justified. (Guidance on this is provided
by the Ministry of Education.)
• Suspension,stand-down,exclusionor
expulsioncanonlybeusedincases
of gross misconduct or continual
disobedience, and should be considered
a last resort.
SEARCHES
Young people, like everyone else, have a
right to be secure against unreasonable
search and seizure under section 21 of
the Bill of Rights Act.
Unless the organisation wishing to
search the young person has legislatively
mandated powers, it is unlikely that any
search of a young person conducted
without the young person’s consent will
be lawful.
In all situations where consent to a
search is withheld, a power to search
must be established by law.
A balance should be struck between
the rights of the young person not to
be searched unreasonably and the
obligations of the organisation to provide
for the safety of the young person and
others.
This balance should be considered on
an individual case-by-case basis: it is not
wise to make inflexible rules about where
the balance lies in given hypothetical
situations.
A positive relationship between young
people and adults is crucial. Where
young people respect and understand
that adults are working in their interests,
consent is more likely to be given.
Strip searches of young people, or
searches which expose their underwear,
are extremely unlikely to be lawful.
Searching of lockers will be more
justifiable if individuals do not own
lockers, and it is clear from the outset
that they rent them or use them
temporarily with the agreement of the
owner, and that a term of that agreement
is a power to search.
Even so, young people will still be
entitled to a degree of privacy. Balancing
that privacy with safety concerns is
still relevant, and should never be an
automatic decision.
A term of an agreement such as
‘you agree that your locker may be
searched at any time for any reason’ is
unreasonable: each situation must be
considered on its merits.
5
Good reasons are required for lawful
searches, and suspicion alone does not
constitute a good reason. There are no
definitive criteria that will define a good
or a bad reason to search, since the law
requires that each case be decided on
its merits. What will be important is how
many reasons there are, how persuasive
they are, how reliable they are, the
existence of new rather than prior
information, and balanced risk.
A search is justified if the person being
searched agrees of their own free will.
Searches must be justified from the
outset. This means that the discovery
of illicit material following an otherwise
unjustified search does not justify the
search after it has occurred. In such a
17
KEY
T...
N
I
O
P
situation it would be unlawful to use the
illicit material in decisions made against
the individual.
Natural justice must be observed in
searches. This means that young people
must be told the reasons why it is
believed that a search is justified; they
must be given an opportunity to respond;
and they must be treated fairly and
without bias.
The police are empowered to search
individuals only in certain circumstances.
These include:
• where the individual is deemed to have
given their consent
• where an arrest is made
• in certain circumstances under
provisions of specific pieces of
legislation, for example the Misuse of
Drugs Act 1975
• where a search warrant has been
issued for that individual
18
If an organisation wishes to
conduct a search, it is best that
it seeks legal advice.
Any search of a young person
without their consent and
without legislatively conferred
powers is legally risky.
NOTES FOR SCHOOLS
Schools are legally empowered to
make rules for the effective delivery of
education and the provision of a safe
learning environment. Searches will be
legally compliant when carried out with a
student’s informed consent.
Students’ rights to an education are
absolute. Schools are not able to
impose unreasonable conditions on
the provision of education. Therefore,
‘contracts’ or enrolment forms detailing
the school’s powers to search and
students’orparents’expressedor
implied agreement are unlikely to be
legally enforceable.
CONFISCATIONS
PRIVACY
In the case of any property that is
confiscated from a young person,
possession must explicitly breach the
rules of the organisation, and these rules
should be known to the young person.
No information held about individuals
should be disclosed to third parties
unless allowed for or required by law, or
the consent of the individual is obtained.
A third party can be an organisation,
or another individual. This means that
unless a law specifies that the passing
of certain information is either allowed or
required, a school or youth organisation
may not communicate that information to
a young person’s parent.
Confiscations must be reasonable – that
is, they should be for a reasonable period
of time under the circumstances, they
must be provided for by established
rules and they must not be arbitrary.
The young person must submit the
property to be confiscated; confiscations
without the young person’s agreement or
knowledge may be unlawful.
Where an organisation has concerns
about the nature of property legally held
by a young person (such as cigarettes,
offensive material, pornography or gangaffiliated clothing), arranging a time when
parents or guardians may receive the
confiscated property may be appropriate,
depending on circumstances.
Where a young person is aged over 18
years, or where they are married or in a
civil union, they are most likely entitled
to receive the confiscated property
themselves after a reasonable period of
time, rather than through their parents or
guardians.
Organisations should keep in mind that
it is a criminal offence to knowingly
damage or destroy property legally
owned by another individual without their
consent.
Organisations should remember that
young people have a right to privacy,
regardless of the occurrence of any drugrelated incident.
5
The Privacy Act
Section 6 of the Privacy Act 1993
specifies privacy principles. Principle
11 limits the disclosure of personal
information without consent of the
individual concerned, although there are
exceptions, notably for the prevention
or lessening of a serious and imminent
threat to the life or health of the
individual or someone else, or to aid law
enforcement. Any disclosure justified
by an exception is allowed rather than
required.
Information about others should generally
be kept confidential unless the consent
of the individual concerned is obtained.
19
Where information is to be passed within
an organisation, only individuals who
need to know should know.
For example, if it is unnecessary for
administrative staff to know about a
particular person’s drug use, then they
should not be informed. Similarly, if it
is necessary for administrative staff to
know about a disciplinary matter for
recording purposes, they should be told
as little information as is needed.
Youth workers should work to
comprehensive codes of practice
specifying when ‘harm’ is judged to be
serious enough for a youth worker to
make the decision to pass on information
about a young person without their
consent. Drug use alone is unlikely to
justify a youth worker or staff member
breaking confidentiality, including any
implied confidentiality with a young
person.
If information is serious enough to pass
on, it should ideally be passed on to a
CYF social worker or a police officer.
Exhaustive efforts should be made to
encourage the young person concerned
to seek help themselves, or to provide
their consent to the passing on of
information, unless the situation is one
of emergency, in which immediate and
serious harm is risked.
20
The children, young persons and their
families act
Sections 15 and 16 of the Children,
Young Persons and their Families Act
1989 allows any person to report abuse
(physical abuse, emotional abuse,
sexual abuse, ill-treatment, neglect or
deprivation) of a young person aged
under 17 to a CYF social worker or a
police officer without criminal, civil
or disciplinary penalties, unless the
disclosure is done in bad faith.
NOTES FOR SCHOOLS
Section 77(b) of the Education Act
requires principals to take all reasonable
steps to ensure that a student’s parents
are told of matters that prevent or slow
that student’s progress through school,
or harm the student’s relationships with
teachers or other students.
School policies should keep in mind that
it could be unlawful for a school to pass
information about a young person to
their parent without that young person’s
consent, unless the information affects
the young person’s educational progress
or relationships with others.
LIAISING WITH POLICE
Good practice requires good
communication and a positive working
relationship between youth organisations
and police (Norden 2008).
Organisations should build trusting
partnerships with the police and liaise
closely with their local police officer, to
ensure that there is an agreed procedure
for dealing with the range of incidents
that might arise.
Part of this process will involve the
clarification of roles and mutual
expectations before incidents occur.
Organisations should agree on the
following with the police, and clearly set
out the agreements in their procedures
accordingly:
• when an incident can be managed
internally by the organisation
• when the police should be informed or
consulted
• when the police should be actively
involved
• when a young person’s name can
be withheld and when it should be
divulged to the police.
Organisations are allowed and should feel
able to contact police to discuss a case
and ask for advice without divulging a
young person’s name.
Contact should be made with the
designated officer named in the drug
policy, with whom a relationship should
have been built.
There may be incidents where the
police need to take action, irrespective
of agreed protocols or the wishes of the
organisation.
5
In the context of police liaison, youth
organisations should keep the following
in mind:
• During questioning of young people
under 17, police must arrange for an
independent nominated person chosen
by the young person to be present.
• Everyone who suspects a crime has
been committed is entitled to inform
the police.
• 111 should be called in emergencies,
but only in emergencies.
• Citizens’ arrests, and detaining
individuals against their will, are
strongly discouraged, and may
constitute criminal offences.
21
DRUG TESTING
“Mandatory drug testing may
… motivate some drug-involved
adolescents to change from using
drugs with relatively less associated
[risk] such as [cannabis] to those that
pose greater danger, (eg inhalants)
but are not detected by screening
tests.”
(CSACSH, 2007)
There are legal and ethical implications
for drug testing programmes, as
well as potential adverse outcomes.
Organisations should be aware of the
boundaries of their authority in relation to
drug testing.
Norden (2008) asserts that schools
that support testing are likely to see it
as a decisive, zero-tolerance action in
response to drug use.
Arguments in support of drug testing
include the suggestion that testing can
be used as an excuse by a young person
wanting to refuse drug use offers by their
peers.
However, testing has the potential
to undermine trust and open
communication between young people
and staff, and it de-emphasises pastoral
and alternative disciplinary approaches.
22
The Australian National Council on
Drugs (ANCD) found a strong case could
be made against drug detection and
screening strategies being used in school
settings. (Roche et al 2008).
In particular, they found that:
• drug testing was an ineffective
deterrent
• there were moral and legal issues to
consider
• punitive and inquisitorial methods of
deterrence were ill-advised.
• drug tests might be unreliable
• many professionals were opposed to
testing in schools
• associated costs were often high
In estimating costs, organisations should
consider:
• purchasing of tests
• provision of counselling
• other essential forms of support
required after detection of drug use
“Widespread implementation of
drug testing may… inadvertently
encourage more students to abuse
alcohol, which is associated with
more adolescent deaths than any
illicit drug but is not included in
many standard testing panels.”
(CSACSH, 2007)
There are several other issues to
consider:
Anyone can source information on the
limitations of drug tests and ways to
defeat them on the internet.
Any one type of test may not be
appropriate for detecting a particular
substance; different types of tests have
greater or lesser accuracy for different
substances and most have a “window of
detection” of approximately 72 hours.
Promising Alternatives
The ANCD found that effective
mechanisms do exist to target and
intervene in appropriate ways with
high-risk students and/or their families,
particularly those interventions that
focus on building positive relationships
and developing pupils’ sense of
connectedness with the school.
Yamaguchi, Johnston and O’Malley
(2003) concluded that “policies that
address key values, attitudes and
perceptions [of peer drug use] may prove
more important in ‘drug prevention’ than
drug-testing.”
Kern, Gunja, Cox et al (2006) highlight the
components of promising alternatives:
•engage students in after-school
programmes
•incorporate reality-based drug
education
•provide counselling
•allow young people to be assessed and
treated by healthcare professionals
•encourage parents to become better
informed
•cultivate trust and respect among
young people and adults
These strategies will help to ensure that
young people;
1.
receive comprehensive, sciencebased information
2.
receive help when they need it
3.
stay busy and involved in productive
activities.
5
Safety of randomly testing adolescents
for the use of drugs should be
scientifically established before it is
widely implemented. (CSACSH, 2007)
Drug testing is a complex issue,
and cannot be covered in full by this
document. Organisations should always
seek legal advice before initiating
drug testing. The YouthLaw website
contains some useful information
on this: see http://www.youthlaw.
co.nz/search/everything/drug%20
testing?contains=drug%20testing
Recommended reading:
Kern, J, Gunja F, Cox, A. et al. 2006.
Making sense of Student Drug Testing –
Why Educators are Saying No.
23
SUPPORT SERVICES
SUPPORTING YOUNG PEOPLE: RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES
• Remember that counsellors are
ethically obliged to intervene (not
ignore/punish).
• Establish confidentiality and trust, and
explain the limits of confidentiality.
• Ascertain if the youth concerned is in
need of protection or crisis intervention
(for example, if they are a victim of
sexual abuse, or are suicidal).
• Work with family/whanau, not just the
young person. Engage family/whanau
in family-based interventions.
• Observe the principles of Te Tiriti o
Waitangi – partnership, participation
and protection.
• Work collaboratively with youth and
their support networks, whether
mentors, schools, friends, parents or
peers – whoever the young person
sees as whanau.
• Work collaboratively with government
and community organisations.
• Offer options for further support, for
example family/whanau involvement,
services related to the organisation or
community services.
• Ensure that all young people involved in
drug-related incidents are made aware
of services available to support those
with drug-related problems (DrugScope
and Alcohol Concern 2006).
• Address issues of age, culture, gender
and sexual orientation.
• Engage the youth’s peer network if it is
appropriate and feasible.
• Implement an assertive follow-up plan
to monitor the young person’s safety,
care and support.
• Try to ensure young people have a
choice of same-gender clinicians.
Using external agencies in youth drug use interventions
Referral pathways to other agencies should be well established, and links nurtured.
Involving outside agencies can bring both risks and benefits. There may be a risk of
fragmentation and loss of continuity entailed in such outside involvement; however,
if the use of different services is well coordinated it can result in a family-focused,
comprehensive holistic intervention.
NOTES FOR SCHOOLS
Principals are required to take all reasonable steps to ensure that students receive good
guidance and counselling under section 77(a) of the Education Act.
24
TELEPHONE SERVICES
The following telephone services are available:
• 0800787797 AlcoholDrugHelpline
Provides free, confidential advice and referrals for dealing with a person’s own or
someone else’s drug use
• 0800229675 AlcoholicsAnonymous
• DRUG(3784) GettheMsg!
Free health information text service – text the name of any drug to DRUG for free
information
• 0800423743 Lifeline
Provides a friendly and supportive 24-hour listening service, or face-to-face
counseling; users phone to make an appointment
• 0800778778 Quitline
For quitting smoking
6
• 093096967 YouthLaw
Provides free legal services to those aged under 25 years, and professional
development workshops for adults working with young people, including schools
and youth organisations; accepts New Zealand collect calls from young people
• 0800376633 Youthline
Available from a landline 24 hours, seven days a week
• 0800211211 Youthline
Available from any cellphone: users can call and ask for Youthline.
Youthline also provides support through text (027 4 YOUTHS) and email (talk@
youthline.co.nz).
In a medical emergency, dial 111 and ask for an ambulance.
25
ONLINE DIRECTORIES
Local government (council) websites sometimes include a database of local services
and agencies in their area, or this information can be obtained from the local Citizens’
Advice Bureau. Specific online directories include:
• www.addictionshelp.org.nz
The national Addictions Treatment Directory website
• www.211.govt.nz
This connects to the Ministry of Social Development’s online Family and Social
Services directory, which includes organisation contact details and a brief
description of services.
ONLINE RESOURCES
The following online resources are available:
• http://www.drugfoundation.org.nz/
New Zealand Drug Foundation
• http://www.youthlaw.co.nz/
YouthLaw
Contains a section on young people, drugs and the law, and one on drug testing
• http://ncpic.org.au/
National Cannabis Prevention and Information Centre (Aus)
Provides a cannabis use problems identification test, developed in New Zealand by
Dr Jan Bashford
• http://www.minedu.govt.nz/
Ministry of Education
Provides drug education guidelines in the ‘Special Education’ section
• http://www.alac.org.nz/PublicationsAndOrders.aspx
Alcohol Advisory Council
Provides resources for people working in the alcohol and other drug field)
26
COMMUNITY SERVICES, AGENCIES AND
PROCESSES
Youth organisations can also make use of
the following community resources:
• alcohol and other drug services
• alternative education providers
• child and adolescent mental health
services
• Child, Youth and Family services
• group special education services
• district truancy services and the NonEnrolment Truancy Service (NETServe):
• marae-based or iwi services
• the Ministry of Education’s student
support services
• parenting organisations in the local
community
• the Ministry of Education’s Resource
Teachers: Learning and Behaviour
services
• the Strengthening Families process:
for 0 – 17 -year -olds: http://www.
strengtheningfamilies.govt.nzwww.
strengtheningfamilies.govt.nz
• the Ministry of Justice’s Youth Aid,
Youth Justice and Youth Offending
Team services.
HEALTH EDUCATION RESOURCES
For a full list of available drug harm
reduction resources, please refer to the
Stocktake of Services and Resources to
Minimise the Harms from Drugs (Allen
and Clarke 2009), which lists most hardcopy resources available in New Zealand.
Health education resources available
include:
• AlcoholAdvisoryCouncilofNew
Zealand resources
o
Bewildered (workbook and DVD)
o
Smashed and Stoned (group
intervention programme for at-risk
youth)
• NewZealandDrugFoundation
resources
o
Drugs in Focus (series of
booklets)
o
Primary Pathways (teaching
resource for schools)
• MinistryofHealthresources
o
Cannabis and Your Health
6
27
STAFF TRAINING
It is a good idea for organisations working with young people to
provide continuing staff education opportunities about alcohol and
other drugs and best practice in addressing related issues.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
There should also be regular training for
staff on your organisation’s policy and
procedures.
Staff should have access to professional
development relating to:
• current and emerging drug-related
issues
• substances used in the local area
• brief interventions such as HEeADSSS
assessments or the Substances and
Choices Scale (SACS) (see below)
• responding to disclosure of other
issues
• referral pathways
• the effects of substance use
• signs and symptoms indicating drug
use
• first aid
• the Privacy Act and other relevant
legislation
• (for those who have this role)
communicating with media.
28
It is useful for staff in youth organisations
in New Zealand to be familiar with Maori
models of health such as Mason Durie’s
“Te Pae Mahutonga: A model for Maori
health promotion” (Durie 1999) and Te
Whare Tapa Wha (Durie 1994), which
place the health of individuals within
holistic best practice frameworks for
Maori.
YouthLaw operates a programme for
schools which includes staff professional
development on dealing with various
legal issues in schools.
HEeADSSS and SACS assessments
Staff who use these assessment tools
should be trained and competent.
Appropriate referral pathways should be
in place.
HEeADSSS assessments
The HEeADSSS assessment is a
psychosocial tool that is used widely by
health professionals in Aotearoa New
Zealand. The purpose of the assessment
is to build rapport with young people
and to assess their risk behaviours and
resiliencies.
DEALING WITH MEDIA
HeaADSSS is an acronym for the
following:
H – Home
E – Education/employment/eating
A – Activities
D – Drugs or Alcohol
S – Sexuality
S – Suicidality
S – Safety
SACS assessments
The Substances and Choices Scale
(SACS) is a one-page pencil and paper
self-report questionnaire designed to be
administered by health professionals to
young people aged 13–18 years.
The SACS has three sections. The first
records the number of occasions the
young person has used a variety of
substances in the last month.
A communications plan can be used to:
•ensure staff know who is authorised to
communicate with media – usually the
incident manager or principal
•identify the key messages that an
organisation wishes to convey to the
community
•establish a policy on how to deal with
media enquiries
•ensure an organisation respects the
privacy rights of families and individuals
involved.
Organisations should keep in mind
that, in dealing with the media, written
statements are easier to control and
manage than spoken interview situations.
7
The second measures both substance
use-related symptoms and substancerelated harm. Scoring this section yields
a ‘SACS difficulties score’: a figure from
0 to 20.
This score can be used to screen or
measure change through a treatment
episode. The third section asks about
tobacco use (for more information see
http://www.sacsinfo.com/).
29
EVALUATION
Any policy should be evaluated for effectiveness after a period of
time. For consistency and higher rates of evaluation records, set
up easy recording systems, or employ someone to do it on ongoing
basis.
HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT TOOLS TO REDUCE INEQUALITIES
The Ministry of Health recommends two main health impact assessment tools (see
http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/indexmh/inequalities-tools):
1. The Whanau Ora Health Impact Assessment:
A formal approach used to predict the potential health effects of a policy on Maori
and their whanau. It pays particular attention to Maori involvement in the policy
development process, and articulates the role of wider health determinants in
influencing health and well-being outcomes (Ministry of Health 2007c).
2. A Guide to Health Impact Assessment – 2nd Edition:
This introduces health impact assessment as a practical way to ensure that health
and well-being are considered when policy is being developed in all sectors.
Both tools are best used when assessing various discipline options, before decisions
are made, in terms of their potential benefit or unintended, negative impacts, and can
be used to refine and improve proposals.
Earlier tools provided on the Ministry of Health Website are:
1. Reducing Inequalities in Health (Ministry of Health 2002):
This sets out an intervention framework to improve health and reduce inequalities
in health. There are four levels or intervention points for action by health and other
social sectors. The framework provides a way forward for the health and disability
sector to act positively at the national, regional and local level.
2. A Health Equity Assessment Tool (Equity Lens) for Tackling Inequalities in Health
(Ministry of Health 2004):
30
The Wellington School of Medicine developed this health equity assessment
tool for the Ministry. It comprises a set of questions to assist the health sector to
consider how particular inequalities on health have come about; who is the most
advantaged; where the effective intervention points are to tackle inequalities; and
the intended and unintended consequences of any actions.
The questions are:
1. What health issue is the policy/programme trying to address?
2. What inequalities exist in this health area?
3. Who is most advantaged and how?
4. How did the inequality occur? (What are the mechanisms by which this
inequality was created, is maintained or increased?)
5. What are the determinants of this inequality?
6. How will you address the Treaty of Waitangi in the context of the New Zealand
Public Health and Disability Act 2000?
7. Where/how will you intervene to tackle this issue? Use the Ministry of Health
Intervention Framework to guide your thinking.
8
8. How could this intervention affect health inequalities?
9. Who will benefit most?
10. What might the unintended consequences be?
11. What will you do to make sure it does reduce/eliminate inequalities?
12. How will you know if inequalities have been reduced/eliminated?
31
FURTHER INFORMATION
SUPPORTING RESOURCES
Useful documents include:
• The Ministry of Education’s health and physical education curriculum
• Ministry of Youth Development. 2004. Strengthening Drug Education in School
Communities: Best Practice Handbook for Design, Delivery and Evaluation Years
7–13
• Ministerial Committee on Drug Policy. 2007. National Drug Policy 2007–2012
• Copeland et al. 2009. Management of Cannabis Use Disorder and Related Issues: A
clinician’s guide
• Educating New Zealand. 2010. Promoting Student Health and Wellbeing:
A Guide to Drug Education in Schools. URL: http://www.minedu.govt.nz/
NZEducation/EducationPolicies/SpecialEducation/AQuickGuideToExtraSupport/
WhatToDoInACrisis/DrugEducationInSchools.aspx
• safer nightlife: Best practice for those concerned about drug use and the night-time
economy. The London Drug Policy Forum. 2008.
• Wilkinson, R. and Pickett, K. 2010. The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for
Everyone
The YouthLaw website provides the following relevant information and guidance:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Education Acts 1989 and 1964
The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act
The Human Rights Act
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
The Privacy Act
The Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992
Information on the concept of ‘in loco parentis’
Information on school charters
National Education Guidelines
Education circulars from the Ministry of Education
Information from the Ministry of Education website on suspensions, exclusions
and expulsions is provided through the following link or by searching “suspension,
exclusion” using the search function within their website:
http://www.minedu.govt.nz/NZEducation/EducationPolicies/Schools/
StanddownsSuspensionsExclusionsExpulsions/PartOne.aspx
32
REFERENCES
Abel S, Casswell S. 1998. Cannabis in Schools: Issues for Principals and Boards. New Zealand
Journal of Educational Studies 33(1): 55–66.
Alcohol and Public Health Research Unit. 1999. Advice for Purchasing Strategy on Public
Health Issues: Reducing drug related harm. Auckland: Alcohol and Public Health Research
Unit.
Allen M, Clarke D. 2009. Stocktake of Services and Resources to Minimise the Harms from
Drugs. Wellington: National Drug Policy New Zealand.
American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on School Health. 2003. Out-of-School
Suspension and Expulsion. Pediatrics 112: 1206–9.
Beyers JM, Evans-Whipp T, Mathers M, et al. 2005. A Cross-National Comparison of School
Drug Policies in Washington State, United States, and Victoria, Australia. Journal of School
Health 75(4): 134–40.
Brooks K, Schiraldi V, Ziedenberg J. 2000. School House Hype: Two years later. Washington,
DC: Justice Policy Institute and the Children’s Law Center.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 1994. Health Risk Behaviors Among Adolescents
Who Do and Do Not Attend School – United States, 1992. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly
Report 43(8): 129–32.
Christie G, Marsh R, Sheridan J, et al. 2007. The Substances and Choices Scale (SACS)
– the development and testing of a new alcohol and other drug screening and outcome
measurement instrument for young people. Addiction 102(9): 1390–98(9).
Christle C, Nelson CM, Jolivette K. 2004. School characteristics related to the use of
suspension. Education and Treatment of Children 27(4): 509–26.
9
Committee on Substance Abuse and Council on School Health (CSACSH) Testing for Drugs of
Abuse in Children and Adolescents: Addendum - Testing in Schools and at Home. Pediatrics.
2007; 119:627-630. URL: http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/119/3/627 Accessed 13
December 2010.
Copeland J, Frewen A, Elkins K. 2009. Management of Cannabis Use Disorder and Related
Issues: A clinician’s guide. Sydney: National Cannabis Prevention and Information Centre,
University of New South Wales.
DrugScope. 2004. Drugs: Guidance for schools. London: DrugScope.
DrugScope and Alcohol Concern. 2006. Drugs: Guidance for the Youth Service. London:
DrugScope and Alcohol Concern.
Durie M. 1994. Whaiora: M aori Health Development. Auckland: Oxford University Press.
Durie M. 1999. Te Pae M hutonga: A model for Maori health promotion. Health Promotion
Forum of New Zealand Newsletter 49.
33
Education Counts. 2010a. Early leaving exemptions. Wellington: Education Counts. URL:
http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/indicators/student_participation/schooling/1951
Accessed 6 May 2010.
Education Counts. 2010b. Stand-downs, suspensions, exclusions and expulsions from school.
Wellington: Education Counts. URL: http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/indicators/student_
participation/schooling/53413 Accessed 6 May 2010.
Flay BR. 2000. Approaches to Substance Use Prevention Utilizing School Curriculum Plus
Social Environment Change. Addictive Behaviours 25(6): 861–85.
Goldenring JM, Rosen DS. 2004. Getting into adolescent heads: An essential update.
Contemporary Pediatrics 21(1): 64–90.
Goodstadt MS. 1989. Substance abuse curricula vs. school drug policies. Journal of School
Health 59(6): 246–51.
Hallfors D, Van Dorn RA. 2002. Strengthening the role of two key institutions in the prevention
of adolescent substance abuse. Journal of Adolescent Health 30: 17–28.
Hoch LL, Olszowy J. 1979. Handling Drug Use in Schools. NASSP Bulletin 63: 71–5.
Kern, J, Gunja F, Cox, A. Rosenbaum, M, Appel, J, and Verma, A. 2006. Making sense of
Student Drug Testing – Why Educators are Saying No. American Civil Liberties Union and the
Drug Policy Alliance, USA.
Maag JW. 2001. Reward by punishment: reflections on the disuse of positive reinforcement in
schools. The Council for Exceptional Children 67(2): 173–86.
Ministerial Committee on Drug Policy. 2007. National Drug Policy 2007–2012. Wellington:
Ministry of Health.
Ministry of Education. 2009. Good practice Guidelines for principals and boards of
trustees for managing behaviour that may or may not lead to stand-downs, suspensions,
exclusions and expulsions Part II. Ministry of Education. URL: http://www.minedu.govt.nz/
NZEducation/EducationPolicies/SpecialEducation/FormsAndGuidelines/~/media/MinEdu/
Files/EducationSectors/PrimarySecondary/StandDownSuspensionExclusionExpulsions/
SuspensionGoodPracticeWEB.pdf
Ministry of Education. 2010. Stand-downs, suspensions, exclusions and expulsions guidelines.
Wellington. Ministry of Education. URL: http://www.minedu.govt.nz/NZEducation/
EducationPolicies/Schools/StanddownsSuspensionsExclusionsExpulsions.aspx
Ministry of Health. 2002. Reducing Inequalities in Health. Wellington: Ministry of Health.
Ministry of Health. 2004. A Health Equity Assessment Tool (Equity Lens) for Tackling
Inequalities in Health. Wellington: Ministry of Health. URL: http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/
pagesmh/8198/$File/health-equity-assessment-tool-guide.pdf Accessed 6 January 2010.
34
Ministry of Health. 2007a. Reducing Health Inequalities for All New Zealanders. Wellington:
Ministry of Health. URL: http://www.moh.govt.nz/inequalities
Ministry of Health. 2007b. Te Raukura Mental health and alcohol and other drugs: Improving
outcomes for children and youth. Wellington: Ministry of Health.
Ministry of Health. 2007c. Whanau Ora Health Impact Assessment. Wellington: Ministry of
Health.
Ministry of Health. 2007d. Cannabis and Your Health. Wellington: Ministry of Health
Ministry of Youth Development. 2004. Strengthening Drug Education in School Communities:
Best Practice Handbook for Design, Delivery and Evaluation Years 7–13. Wellington: Ministry of
Youth Development.
Morrison GM, Skiba R. 2001. Predicting violence from school misbehavior: Promises and
perils. Psychology in the Schools 38(2): 173–84.
Norden P. 2008. Keeping them connected – reducing drug-related harm in Australian schools
from a Catholic perspective. Drug and Alcohol Review 27(4): 451–8.
Roche AM, Pidd K, Bywood P, et al. 2008. Drug Testing in Schools: Evidence, impacts and
alternatives. Report prepared for the Australian National Council on Drugs. Canberra: Australian
National Council on Drugs. URL: http://www.ancd.org.au/images/PDF/Researchpapers/rp16_
drug_testing_in_schools.pdf
Skager R. n.d. Findings and Recommendations for More Effective Drug Education for Youth:
Honesty, Respect and Assistance When Needed. URL: http://www.factsontap.org/research_
links.htm
Skiba R, Michael RS, Nardo AC, et al. 2002. The color of discipline: Sources of racial and
gender disproportionality in school punishment. The Urban Review 34(4): 317–42.
Skiba R, Peterson R. 2003. Teaching the social curriculum: School discipline as instruction.
Preventing School Failure 47(2): 66–73.
Stamm M, Frick WC. 2009. How Different Stakeholders in Two Public School Systems
Perceived the Ability of their Drug and Alcohol Policies to Protect the Needs of the School, the
Community and/or the Student. American Secondary Education 37(3): 33–51.
Toumbourou J. 2005. Alcohol and drug use: theoretical integration of interventions to prevent
harm. In: Browning CJ, Thomas SA (eds). Behavioural Change: An evidence-based handbook
for social and public health. London: Elsevier.
United States National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse. 1973. Drug use in
America: problem in perspective. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences; 5, 125-9.
Yamaguchi, R, Johnston, LD, and O’Malley, P. Relationship Between Student Illicit Drug Use
and School Drug-Testing Policies. Journal of School Health. 2003; 73(4):159-164
35
"GO HARD,
HAVE FUN,
GET STUCK IN,
IT'S NOT
DIFFICULT!"
Disclaimer: The purpose of this publication is to inform discussion and assist policy development. All care has been taken in the
production of this publication. It is advisable to check the current status of legal information as it may be subject to changes over
time.HealthActionTrustmakesnowarranty,expressedorimplied,norassumesanylegalliabilityorresponsibilityfortheaccuracy, correctness, completeness or use of the information in this publication. Further the Health Action Trust shall not be liable for
any loss or damage arising directly or indirectly from the information presented in this publication.
POSITIVE HEALTH CHOICES, HOLISTIC APPROACHES, RESTORATIVE, SUPPORTIVE NOT PUNITIVE, INCLUDE
WHÄNAU / FAMILIES, LINK WITH COMMUNITIES, CLEAR KEY MESSAGES, ROLE-MODELING ACCEPTABLE
BEHAVIOUR, LEARNING PROCESSES, SUPPORT YOUNG PEOPLE TO MAKE HEALTHIER LIFESTYLE
CHOICES, FLEXIBLE PROCEDURES, RESPOND APPROPRIATELY TO INDIVIDUAL SITUATIONS, INVITE
STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT, YOUTH PARTICIPATION FOR YOUTH BUY-IN, PLANNED AND COORDINATED,
HUMAN RIGHTS, REINFORCE POSITIVE BEHAVIOURS, BETTER LONG-TERM EFFECTS FOR THE WHOLE
COMMUNITY, IMPROVED HEALTH OUTCOMES, COLLABORATE, ADDRESS INEQUALITIES, PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT, REFERRAL PATHWAYS, POSITIVE HEALTH CHOICES, HOLISTIC APPROACHES,
RESTORATIVE, SUPPORTIVE NOT PUNITIVE, INCLUDE WHÄNAU / FAMILIES, LINK WITH COMMUNITIES,
CLEAR KEY MESSAGES, ROLE-MODELING ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOUR, LEARNING PROCESSES,
SUPPORT YOUNG PEOPLE TO MAKE HEALTHIER LIFESTYLE CHOICES, FLEXIBLE PROCEDURES,
RESPOND APPROPRIATELY TO INDIVIDUAL SITUATIONS, INVITE STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT, YOUTH
PARTICIPATION FOR YOUTH BUY-IN, PLANNED AND COORDINATED, HUMAN RIGHTS, REINFORCE
POSITIVE BEHAVIOURS, BETTER LONG-TERM EFFECTS FOR THE WHOLE COMMUNITY, IMPROVED HEALTH
OUTCOMES, COLLABORATE, ADDRESS INEQUALITIES, PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT, REFERRAL
PATHWAYS, POSITIVE HEALTH CHOICES, HOLISTIC APPROACHES, RESTORATIVE, SUPPORTIVE NOT
PUNITIVE, INCLUDE WHÄNAU / FAMILIES, LINK WITH COMMUNITIES, CLEAR KEY MESSAGES, ROLEMODELING ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOUR, LEARNING PROCESSES, SUPPORT YOUNG PEOPLE TO MAKE
HEALTHIER LIFESTYLE CHOICES, FLEXIBLE PROCEDURES, RESPOND APPROPRIATELY TO INDIVIDUAL
SITUATIONS, INVITE STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT, YOUTH PARTICIPATION FOR YOUTH BUY-IN,
PLANNED AND COORDINATED, HUMAN RIGHTS, REINFORCE POSITIVE BEHAVIOURS, BETTER LONGTERM EFFECTS FOR THE WHOLE COMMUNITY, IMPROVED HEALTH OUTCOMES, COLLABORATE,
ADDRESS INEQUALITIES, PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT, REFERRAL PATHWAYS, POSITIVE HEALTH
CHOICES, HOLISTIC APPROACHES, RESTORATIVE, SUPPORTIVE NOT PUNITIVE, INCLUDE WHÄNAU
/ FAMILIES, LINK WITH COMMUNITIES, CLEAR KEY MESSAGES, ROLE-MODELING ACCEPTABLE
BEHAVIOUR, LEARNING PROCESSES, SUPPORT YOUNG PEOPLE TO MAKE HEALTHIER LIFESTYLE
CHOICES, FLEXIBLE PROCEDURES, RESPOND APPROPRIATELY TO INDIVIDUAL SITUATIONS, INVITE
STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT, YOUTH PARTICIPATION FOR YOUTH BUY-IN, PLANNED AND COORDINATED,
HUMAN RIGHTS, REINFORCE POSITIVE BEHAVIOURS, BETTER LONG-TERM EFFECTS FOR THE WHOLE
COMMUNITY, IMPROVED HEALTH OUTCOMES, COLLABORATE, ADDRESS INEQUALITIES, PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT, REFERRAL PATHWAYS, POSITIVE HEALTH CHOICES, HOLISTIC APPROACHES,
RESTORATIVE, SUPPORTIVE NOT PUNITIVE, INCLUDE WHÄNAU / FAMILIES, LINK WITH COMMUNITIES,
CLEAR KEY MESSAGES, ROLE-MODELING ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOUR, LEARNING PROCESSES,
SUPPORT YOUNG PEOPLE TO MAKE HEALTHIER LIFESTYLE CHOICES, FLEXIBLE PROCEDURES,
RESPOND APPROPRIATELY TO INDIVIDUAL SITUATIONS, INVITE STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT, YOUTH
PARTICIPATION FOR YOUTH BUY-IN, PLANNED AND COORDINATED, HUMAN RIGHTS, REINFORCE
POSITIVE BEHAVIOURS, BETTER LONG-TERM EFFECTS FOR THE WHOLE COMMUNITY, IMPROVED HEALTH
OUTCOMES, COLLABORATE, ADDRESS INEQUALITIES, PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT, REFERRAL
PATHWAYS POSITIVE HEALTH CHOICES, HOLISTIC APPROACHES, RESTORATIVE, SUPPORTIVE NOT
PUNITIVE, INCLUDE WHÄNAU / FAMILIES, LINK WITH COMMUNITIES, CLEAR KEY MESSAGES, ROLEMODELING ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOUR, LEARNING PROCESSES, SUPPORT YOUNG PEOPLE TO MAKE
HEALTHIER LIFESTYLE CHOICES, FLEXIBLE PROCEDURES, RESPOND APPROPRIATELY TO INDIVIDUAL
SITUATIONS, INVITE STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT, YOUTH PARTICIPATION FOR YOUTH BUY-IN,
PLANNED AND COORDINATED, HUMAN RIGHTS, REINFORCE POSITIVE BEHAVIOURS, BETTER LONGTERM EFFECTS FOR THE WHOLE COMMUNITY, IMPROVED HEALTH OUTCOMES, COLLABORATE,
ADDRESS INEQUALITIES, PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT, REFERRAL PATHWAYS, POSITIVE HEALTH
CHOICES, HOLISTIC APPROACHES, RESTORATIVE, SUPPORTIVE NOT PUNITIVE, INCLUDE WHÄNAU
/ FAMILIES, LINK WITH COMMUNITIES, CLEAR KEY MESSAGES, ROLE-MODELING ACCEPTABLE
BEHAVIOUR, LEARNING PROCESSES, SUPPORT YOUNG PEOPLE TO MAKE HEALTHIER LIFESTYLE
CHOICES, FLEXIBLE
PROCEDURES,
Te Mana
Taki Hauora RESPOND APPROPRIATELY TO INDIVIDUAL SITUATIONS, INVITE
STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT, YOUTH PARTICIPATION FOR YOUTH BUY-IN, PLANNED AND COORDINATED,
HUMAN RIGHTS, REINFORCE POSITIVE BEHAVIOURS, BETTER LONG-TERM EFFECTS FOR THE WHOLE
COMMUNITY, IMPROVED HEALTH OUTCOMES, COLLABORATE, ADDRESS INEQUALITIES, PROFESSIONAL
Health
Promotion POSITIVE HEALTH CHOICES, HOLISTIC APPROACHES,
DEVELOPMENT,Community
REFERRAL
PATHWAYS,
RESTORATIVE, SUPPORTIVE NOT PUNITIVE, INCLUDE WHÄNAU / FAMILIES, LINK WITH COMMUNITIES,
CLEAR KEY MESSAGES, ROLE-MODELING ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOUR, LEARNING PROCESSES, SUPPORT,
POSITIVE HEALTH CHOICES, HOLISTIC APPROACHES, RESTORATIVE, SUPPORTIVE NOT PUNITIVE
Health
Action Trust Nelson