Services that Manage the Care Needs of Drunk - Scottish Government

Canberra (following the closure of the previous service in 1996), their original
plan was to locate sobering-up beds within one or more existing crisis
services. However, their call for tenders to provide this add-on service
attracted no responses. The Canberra service was later established in 2004
as a stand-alone facility near the city centre. 49
2.55 The examples given in Box 2 below illustrate some of the models that have
been used to better integrate sobering-up services with services for homeless
people in Australia.
Box 2: Examples of integration of sobering-up services and homeless services
in Australia
New South Wales
In the state of New South Wales, regular monitoring of admissions to sobering-up services found that
the vast majority of clients of sobering-up services were homeless. This led to changes in state
legislation regarding the provision of “proclaimed places” (equivalent to “designated places” in
Scotland) for intoxicated persons. As part of these changes, a protocol was agreed between the
Department of Community Services (responsible for managing funding for homeless services), the
police and health services, and this spelled out in detail what each of these agencies would undertake
to do in responding to the needs of intoxicated homeless people. The result was that “Proclaimed
Places” were abolished and were replaced with Intoxicated Persons’ Units within homelessness
services. This represented “a change in focus from the provision of a sobering-up service to a case
management approach that attempts to address the underlying causes of both clients’ homelessness
and addictions”. 50
Tasmania
In Tasmania, the sobering-up service in the city of Launceston is located within a larger crisis
accommodation service, with two beds allocated for that purpose. If the police bring someone to the
shelter who is intoxicated, the beds must be used for sobering-up, but if they are not needed, they
may be used for crisis accommodation instead. 51 It is not clear from the information provided how this
arrangement works in practise, although one report suggested that a similar arrangement in New
South Wales (prior to the introduction of the legislative changes described above) did not work very
well, and resulted in homeless people being turned away in order that beds could be held open for
people who were intoxicated. 52
Western Australia
In Port Hedland, individuals who attend the sobering-up centre on a regular basis are provided with
intensive support and practical assistance by outreach workers employed by a homeless support
service. 53 This particular service was cited as an example of best practice in relation to responding to
the needs of the homeless Aboriginal population in the Port Hedland area.
(continued on the next page)
49
Allen-Kelly et al, 2006.
50
New South Wales Department of Health, 2005. It is not clear from the information provided what
happens in New South Wales when an individual is identified as drunk and incapable, but is not
homeless, although given the relatively small numbers of people involved, it seems likely that they are
accommodated in the same facilities with those who are homeless.
51
Allen-Kelly & McArthur, 2005.
52
Parliament of Victoria, 2000.
53
Memmott P et al, 2003.
54
Parliament of Victoria, 2000.
18