Building on progress?
Because people still use drugs, there is a mistaken and simplistic view that the drug strategy has failed. The Government never claimed it could stamp out drug use – and no amount of money ever could. Simply spending money is no guarantee of success, but a problem in the past has been chronic under investment and a marginalisation of drug treatment, drug prevention and other interventions.
The Government has recently announced cuts across the drugs strategy when some key commitments and outcomes have yet to be met. The Home Office website states: “The Drug Interventions Programme is a critical part of the Government’s strategy for tackling drugs.” DrugScope has recently learned that the Drug Intervention Programme (DIP) main grant for 07/08 (i.e., this financial year) is to be cut by around 11%. The target of 1,000 DIP referrals a week to treatment, by 2008, has yet to be achieved.
A Department of Health press release issued on 29th March 2007 reporting a fall in overall illegal drug use among 11-15 year olds, stated: “Despite these promising figures we are not complacent – just one young person smoking or misusing drugs or alcohol is one too many.” DrugScope highlighted earlier this month that the Young People Substance Misuse Grant for 07/08 has been cut by just over 10%. We have to date been contacted by over a dozen projects reporting cuts to services and staffing. The target to reduce Class A drug use among young people has yet to be achieved.
Still to be found on the National Offender Management Service (NOMS)website: “The Integrated Drug Treatment System (IDTS) is due to be in place in prisons nationally by end March 2008 and will introduce a wider range of treatment options…” The additional £28 million planned for the IDTS in 06/07 was cut by 60%. As yet, it is uncertain how much of the £40 million planned for 07/08 will be used. In January the Chief Inspector of Prisons said: "The recent announcement of reduced funding could have a substantial impact on the implementation of this hugely important initiative.”
Yes, these cuts need to be placed in context, not least against the large increases in the adult Pooled Treatment Budget, even if the increases for the last two years have been less than was announced in 2005. Given the pressures on Department of Health spending few were surprised that the increase of over 40% planned for 06/07 was reduced to around 30% - still a significant rise. The increase of 3.4% for 07/08 (against nearly 13% planned) brings the total to £388 million, compared to the £442 million expected at this stage in the spending cycle.
The reduction in planned spending for the Pooled Treatment Budget has an inevitable logic: the target to double the number entering treatment by 2008 was met nearly two years early (the announcements in 2005 were ‘indicative’). A tremendous achievement, but the treatment effectiveness strategy explicitly emphasises the importance of improving aftercare/wraparound services, such as housing, employment and training, as key to improving outcomes. How is that needed investment being funded?
Some DA(A)Ts have received less money this year, although the National Treatment Agency (NTA) points to differences in average spend per person in treatment and some DA(A)Ts are getting significantly more. The NTA also points to the fact that some DA(A)Ts were underspending by year-end, but the delay in announcing last year’s Pooled Treatment Budget allocations will not have helped commissioning and planning – judging effectiveness or need by underspend is, in the circumstances, a blunt measure.
The announcement of the cut in the Young People Grant for this year came late in the planning cycle (end of February 2007) and the planned cut in DIP even later (end of March 2007, final allocations still to be confirmed).
The Home Office has said, in a recent letter to stakeholders, that in developing the next drugs strategy: “We must also seek efficiencies and re-focus upon the strategies and interventions that have the greatest impact”, which is reasonable. But, before the Government has published its consultation document, the ground is already shifting.
Yes, effectiveness and 'efficiency' need to be addressed (which will be challenging), but the cut in the Young People Grant is hurting and the cut in DIP funding may come as news to many front-line services, not least this far into the new financial year. Given where we are, it does not feel very strategic.
2 comments:
The truth is prohibition is a failed policy, that is the cause of the problems we see today. Unless the cause of the problem is attacked, the problem will continue and no amount of funding will solve it.
Prohibition prevents any control of the market, there can be no regulation of what's sold or who sells it and no safeguards such as age limits for sales.
Worse though, prohibition prevents proper sceince. There can be no statistically valid studies of the drug using population nor of what's being sold. As an illustration we don't even know how strong cannabis is (by strength I mean mg THC/grm sample) despit it being used by millions of people.
Perhaps we are starting to see the basic questions being asked and perhaps - just maybe - we might be seeing the first rays of a bright new dawn of drug policy realism.
you say that;
"Because people still use drugs, there is a mistaken and simplistic view that the drug strategy has failed. The Government never claimed it could stamp out drug use – and no amount of money ever could."
well in 1998 they did sign up to the UN 10 year stratergy with a motto 'a drug free world, we can do it'. If that was just aspirational, then they also committed in the 1998 strategy to targets for a 50% drop in class A drug use by under 25s (by next march). Even their most positive assessment suggest that class A drug use has ony 'stabilised', and this is only because of falls in use of ecstasy and LSD which are probably misclassified anyway (as the lancet recently discussed). Heroin use has risen up to 2001 and then stabilised (at a historic high) and cocaine use has at least doubled, including the emergence of the disterous crack 'epidemic'. Given that these are the two drugs the govt has repeatedly stated are its primary focus (for the obvious and sensible reason that they are associated with the most crime and health harms) - this is by any stretch not success. Let us also remember that it is government rhetoric that has fostered this obsession with reduced prevalence as the holy grail of UK drug policy.
I agree that not all the drug strategy has been a failure. There has been great progress in service provision and harm reduction - but i would also argue these have been led by the field rather than the government, and have been largely despite the drug strategy rather than because of it. The strategy, for all the very welcome new money going in treatment, has been overshadowed by unscientific political preoccupations with criminal justice responses and crime reduction targets - and , despite any progress, this has come at the expense of health and harm reduction budgets more generally.
some of these issues are discussed here
Post a Comment