Data on alcohol harm not readily available

WAITAKI community safety collective is struggling to get accurate data to determine if the programmes they run targeting alcohol harm in North Otago are working.

At a Waitaki District Council community services meeting on Wednesday Safer Waitaki coalition coordinator Helen Algar said while alcohol and drugs were huge factors in family violence, her group was struggling to find data around alcohol harm.

‘‘How can we make a difference if we can’t measure?’’

Safer Waitaki consulting statistician Sophia Leon de la Barra believed data would eventually come from government agencies.

Replies to some Official Information Act requests were well overdue, Miss Leon de la Barra said.

‘‘From what I understand of the OIA, we’re supposed to be entitled to anything they have.’’

She believed it was difficult to get localised data and her group might create its own surveys.

‘‘We can’t get district level data. There’s gaps.’’

Ministry of Health director of mental health John Crawshaw said the ministry did have information about alcohol use, but the cause of any harm could be multifactorial and was not kept at a national level.

‘‘The ministry has been working with some DHBs on providing a mechanism for gathering data on alcohol use linked to emergency department presentations. This will extend more widely from 1 July this year. The quality of data collected and the number of DHBs is expected to improve over time.’’

A ministry spokeswoman said the agency recognised the seriousness of alcohol harm, both for individuals and in the wider community.

She acknowledged it was important accurate and relevant information was available.

‘‘Additionally, administrative data is collected for different purposes by different agencies, e.g. health, police, Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority, New Zealand Transport Agency, and there is cross-agency work under way to improve alcoholharm related data at a local level.’’

Earlier this year the States Services Commission released a paper on OIA statistics.

Under the Act, agencies were required to respond as soon as practicable, and in a maximum of 20 working days, unless there were grounds to extend the timeframe for response. The timeliness agencies were achieving ranged from a low 39% to 100% ontime.

State Services Commissioner Peter Hughes said it was clear some agencies needed to improve and had work to do to lift their performance.

‘‘Openness and transparency is one of the four pillars of good government, along with free and frank advice, political neutrality and meritbased appointment,’’ Mr Hughes said.

shannon.gillies@odt.co.nz