The first formal evaluation of the Adelaide park lands dry zone has recommended a six month extension to the trial, but finds not all has gone to plan.

According to the Adelaide City Council report, the number of people gathering in the park lands decreased during the dry zone trial, which was intended as a “circuit-breaker” to provide businesses and residents with “a break” from antisocial behaviour.

The report says it was not possible, however, to directly attribute the decrease to the dry zone, and that an extra six months would be needed to understand its impact relative to other factors, including the time of year in which it was implemented.

The report also concedes the 8pm drinking curfew had failed to meet one of its central aims: “not creating a displacement of the issues to another part of the park lands”.

The report says police and social service providers have now turned their attention to areas around the Riverbank, Torrens Parade Ground, West Terrace, Adelaide Convention Centre and Jolley’s Boathouse.

The Senior Officers Group (SOG) – made up of representatives from Adelaide City Council and several state government departments, including SA Police – said that “while the reduction in congregation to drink in the South Parklands is a positive outcome for the local community, there has been displacement to other areas … which does not indicate a solution to the core issues”.

“The SOG is also concerned about the potential criminalisation of the group through expiations for breaches of the Dry Area legislation, where expiations are issued with little capacity for payment by vulnerable people.”

Community consultation found the dry zone had majority support among those surveyed, and that perceptions of safety in the park lands had improved since implementation.

The consultation was limited to small numbers of respondents on Adelaide City Council’s website, and about 150 people surveyed in the park lands.

Out of the 24 people who responded to the question “Are you supportive of the current trial Dry Area across the Adelaide Park Lands?” on the council’s website, 17 answered “yes”.

Of those surveyed in the park lands by independent consultant Truscott Research, 86 per cent supported the dry zone, but views on its impact were mixed.

Almost half of those surveyed (45 per cent) were undecided about the effect of the trial on anti-social behaviour in the park lands, while 37 per cent said the dry zone had caused a reduction in anti-social behaviour, and 19 per cent felt the dry zone had had no impact.

Social service providers have previously expressed concern that the dry zone was moving violent behaviour to different parts of the city and into nearby suburbs.

They told the evaluators they were also concerned that poor, disadvantaged and homeless people would be criminalised by the dry zone.

“Many service providers and advocates for vulnerable people argue that a dry area is an enforcement response to a health and social issue and that vulnerable people are unfairly disadvantaged by the penalties of breaching the dry area regulations,” the report says.

The Mobile Assistance Patrol service, which provides transport to places of safety for intoxicated people, reported a decrease in the number of daily pickups since the dry zone came into force. On 27 of the 35 reporting days, no pickups were recorded.

However, “the incidence of no pickups being recorded may be that either no one wished to accept offers of transport or that very few people were congregating in the park lands during the MAP bus attendances”.

The Salvation Army Sobering Up Unit offers a safe place for intoxicated people to sober up in, and an alternative to police custody for people who breach the Public Intoxication Act.

There were “no real changes or trends” in admissions to the Sobering Up Unit during the trial.

The report says SA Police were unable to provide data on fines handed to park lands users for breaching the curfew, apprehensions of offenders, or referrals to social services.

“SA Police committed to providing data but were unable to meet deadlines for submission,” the report says.

Data on the use of ambulance services and admissions to emergency departments from SA Health was also missing, because “this data requires processing time that is longer than the timeframes of this evaluation”.

The report only considered the first month of the dry zone.

Councillors will consider the recommendations of the report at tomorrow’s committee meeting.

Adelaide City Council administration declined to comment before then.