Accelerating knowledge transfer through research partnerships with third sector drug and alcohol services

In 2024, 5,565 deaths related to drug poisoning were registered in England and Wales, the highest number since records began in 1993 (ONS, 2025), making this is one of the most pressing public health challenges in the UK. Evidence shows that alcohol and drug-related harms are closely linked to inequality, trauma, and mental health challenges, disproportionately affecting people in more deprived communities. Dame Carol Black’s (2021) review of the treatment sector highlighted that services are often operating under significant pressure, with limited resources and insufficient research infrastructure to evaluate and improve outcomes.

The 2025 Innovate UK Accelerated Knowledge Transfer (AKT) programme aimed to strengthen collaboration between universities and organisations delivering frontline drug and alcohol services to generate evidence, test new ideas, and improve treatment and recovery support for people affected by drug and alcohol use. As part of this initiative, the University of Essex worked with Open Road and Essex Recovery Foundation (ERF) to explore challenges in treatment services, improve how outcomes are measured, and develop practical approaches that can strengthen recovery support and harm prevention in the community.

In the case of Open Road there was a focus on reviewing and improving routine data collection for clients given a Community Sentence Treatment Requirement (CSTR) by the court, allowing them to receive treatment and support in the community instead of a prison sentence. The academic team audited the existing data collection system, analysed client data to compare outcomes between those on CSTR and non-CSTR pathways, and conducted interviews with staff and clients to better understand experiences and identify meaningful outcomes. The project with ERF focused on strengthening measurement of outcomes and organisational impact. The work involved assessing current data collection systems and challenges; and conducting interviews with staff, clients, and commissioners to identify which outcomes matter most in recovery. The projects were characterised by close working with the partner organisations through regular meetings, presentations, and collaborative discussions with stakeholders and frontline staff. The projects also contributed to wider sector engagement, feeding into a participatory event in January 2026 which aimed to set a local research agenda for the sector.

Through analysis of over 60,000 client episodes across five centres in Essex, the Open Road project found that individuals on CSTR pathways are generally younger, more likely to be unemployed, and more likely to experience unstable housing than non-CSTR clients. While unemployment remains common across both groups, the analysis suggests that individuals on the CSTR pathway often face greater social and economic challenges, particularly around employment and housing. These factors are important because they are closely linked to long-term recovery outcomes, highlighting the importance of holistic support alongside treatment. Analysis of interview data indicated that while some clients found the CSTR pathway offered them a useful structure, staff generally felt the pathways are not set up to the meet the complex needs of all service users; often failing to reflect the individual nature of recovery. Furthermore, staff reported frustrations with the caseload management system, describing it as inefficient and involving duplication, while recognising that collecting data is important for monitoring progress and risk.

In parallel, the ERF project identified member base and workforce views on the nature of ERF’s impact. Data highlighted the importance of values such as flexibility, person-centred approaches, inclusivity, choice, and transparency. Building the lived experience community in Essex was recognised as the most important aspect of ERF’s role, with interviews highlighting diverse pathways to empowerment for individuals as well as a range of pathways to impact on the wider treatment and delivery system through enabling lived experience contributions. Ultimately, findings showed that ERF’s impact is understood to be achieved through multiple domains that aim at improving the quality of life and increased engagement of people affected by substance use in a recovery community which has a role in service development and commissioning.

Through interviews, discussions, and stakeholder engagement across the two projects, the work strengthened connections between the University of Essex and Open Road, ERF and several other third-sector organisations in the local drug and alcohol treatment system.  Staff in both partner organisations agreed that the projects helped to validate some of their day-to-day challenges while providing a road map to improving their data collection and evaluation processes. For Open Road the project provided recommendations for a more effective and streamlined data collection framework; and a structured approach to tracking client outcomes, helping services better understand progress and recovery pathways.  For ERF, the project developed a data collection protocol to enable ongoing impact assessment. In both cases, the academic team provided workshops or training guides to staff to support the use of these improvements in everyday practice, providing partner organisations with practical tools and evidence to strengthen service delivery, evaluation, and future development.

Specifically, recommendations for Open Road outlined:

• Improvements to the caseload management system, such as additional functions and clearer data entry pathways
• Opportunities for automation to reduce repetitive manual tasks and improve efficiency
• Development of a new data collection protocol, introduced during staff training
• Creation of a visual infographic poster to support staff implementation of the new process
• A training tutorial on the caseload management system for new and existing staff

Recommendations for ERF outlined:

• An improved consent process, in keeping with the value of transparency.
• A minimum dataset of community demographics to measure diversity and equity, enabling assessment of how representative the ERF community is of the local population.
• Options for self-report client outcome measures including, for example, the multidimensional inventory of recovery capital, a measure co-produced and adapted for this population, covering aspects of community belonging, mental and physical health, housing, and available support.
• An approach to measuring empowerment, which was identified as a key element of community engagement.
• An approach to measuring ERF’s impact on the treatment system including on commissioning and tendering processes.

These projects have helped to strengthen the ongoing collaboration between the University of Essex and partner organisations. In the short term, this includes sharing findings, exploring opportunities for joint research, and building on the improved data systems and insights developed during the project. In the longer term, both partners along with other organisations in the local drug and alcohol treatment system are exploring funding options to scale up the projects and develop new collaborative research projects to tackle the local research priorities identified.

At the core of these projects, was a recognition by all partners of the very difficult work undertaken by staff in this treatment system and the very real challenges of operating within a resource poor environment. Whilst these challenges have been acknowledged and documented in the Black Review  and a national Drug Strategy is in place to improve services in the sector, the reality of very limited funding for research to directly support the work of frontline services remains a core issue limiting progress towards fully evidence based services in this sector.

Researchers:

• Siti Aisyah Shamshun Baharin, Department of Psychology
• Susan McPherson, Institute of Public Health and Wellbeing
• Joel Parkinson, School of Health and Social Care
• Katie Peterson, Institute of Public Health and Wellbeing
• Jimena Vazquez Garcia, School of Health and Social Care