34. Fourth supplementary memorandum
submitted by HM Prison Service, Home Office
FRESHSTART
We would like to clarify the response Martin
Narey gave the Committee about the FRESHSTART initiative during
the oral evidence session on Tuesday 25 May 2004.
In 2002-03, 14,173 prisoners attended a FRESHSTART
interview at their local JobCentre on release. They scored half
a point each towards the target under the Resettlement KPI for
employment, training and education outcomes on release. This was
reflected in the original baseline for the KPI, to help incentivise
this key joint initiative. In 2003-04, FRESHSTART attendance was
20,341.
FRESHSTART is at the heart of the partnership
established between the Prison Service and JobCentre Plus. It
represents a significant step up in work to connect released prisoners
with the job opportunities and the employment and benefits advice
and support available through JobCentre Plus. The JobCentre Plus
prison surgeries now established across the estate are further
reinforcing the partnership.
Work is underway to track better the FRESHSTART
outcomes and we expect to receive a further analysis from the
Department for Work and Pensions during the Summer. However, from
the information available for April-October 2002, 14% of FRESHSTART
attendees found work within 13 weeks of discharge compared with
8% of non-attendees. FRESHSTART attendance therefore nearly doubles
the chances of a prisoner getting employment and that is why we
rate it so substantially at a half point in our KPI.
FRESHSTART attendees are also helped to access
the New Deal or other training places, and JobCentre Plus programmes
such as progress2work and Link Up which provide additional support
for hardest to help groups such as released prisoners to enter
the labour market and gain employment. In addition, released prisoners
attending FRESHSTART are provided with appropriate benefits advice
and connected promptly with the benefits for which they are eligible.
DRUG TREATMENT
DELAYS
1. National Treatment Agency for Substance
Misuse (NTA)
1.1 The Government has allocated substantial
funding for the treatment of drug misusers. In this financial
year alone the pooled drug treatment budget has risen to £253
million. The pooled treatment budget is matched with an additional
£200 million from local mainstream monies and £35.77
million from the Prison Service for drug treatment programmes
in prisons. This brings the total annual expenditure on drug treatment
to around £500 million.
1.2 To ensure the best use of this increased
funding and to improve the quality of services, the Government
set up the National Treatment Agency (NTA) for Substance Misuse
in April 2001 to increase the availability and effectiveness of
drug treatment.
2. Waiting Times Targets
2.1 The Government recognises that it is
crucial that we reduce the time any one who needs drug treatment
has to wait before their treatment begins. This is because a delay
in being able to offer treatment can lead to the drug user losing
their motivation to enter treatment so that by the time a place
is available, they are no longer interested.
2.2 This is why in December 2001 the NTA
set maximum waiting time targets against which all Drug Action
Teams (DATs) in England are measured.
2.3 To assist DATs in reducing waiting times,
the NTA and NIMHE (National Institute for Mental Health in England)
developed a national programme to improve access to treatment
for drug misusers. The programme focused on implementing tools
and techniques for reducing waiting times that have already proved
to be successful in other parts of the health and social care
system, both in the UK and abroad.
2.4 The latest data published in December
2003 shows that the treatment targets are on track. More people
are receiving better quality treatment faster than ever before
and we have reduced waiting times and increased the numbers in
treatment:
— The total numbers in treatment increased
from 128,200 in 2001-02 to 140,900 in 2002-03.
— The numbers in treatment during 2002-03
increased by 41% from the 1998-99 baseline of 100,000.
— There is currently an average waiting
time of between 1.5 to four weeks for all types of treatment.
The NTA is continuing to work with DATs to ensure waiting times
continue to drop in all areas.
3. Waiting Times in Criminal Justice
Interventions Programme (CJIP) DAT Areas
3.1 The NTA provides frequent reports on
waiting times generally and on the CJIP areas to the Treatment
Aim Delivery Group. This is the Home Office and Department of
Health officials group that monitors all aspects of the progress
of the PSA Target on Drug Treatment.
3.2 CJIP, which was introduced in 25 DATs
in 2003, aims to co-ordinate the treatment of drug misusing offenders
more effectively by increasing co-operation between criminal justice
agencies and drug treatment agencies. This work has resulted in
wider improvements to local treatment systems as information on
clients' needs is shared more efficiently between services, which
in turn has enabled clients to move through the system more quickly.
CJIP has been expanded to an additional 22 DAT areas since April
2004.
3.3 The NTA reported that waiting times
in CJIP areas is, in fact, lower than non-CJIP areas. For example,
on average waiting times for residential rehabilitation in non-CJIP
areas is around four weeks, but in CJIP areas this had been reduced
to 3.6 weeks by the end of March 2004. A summary of waiting times
in each CJIP DAT area by treatment type, by the end of March 2004,
is attached.
3.4 The provisional data from May 2004 indicates
that average waiting times for all types of treatment continues
to fall eg residential rehabilitation is down to 2.6 weeks.
3.5 The NTA acknowledge that bridging the
gap between prison and community has been challenging in a number
of areas. By the end of May 2004, 23 DATs out of the 25 DATs had
a single point of contact for referrals in place to specifically
help reduce waiting times for drug misusing offenders leaving
prison. The NTA are continuing to work with the remaining two
DATs and the 22 new CJIP DATs to ensure that a single point of
contact is established in all areas.
3.6 The NTA also reported that Compacts
have now been agreed with all CJIP DAT chairs. These Compacts
include local targets, such as reducing waiting times, which need
to be achieved in each area to drive up performance at all stages
of the CJIP process. The process of agreeing local compacts has
emphasised to local DAT partners the very high priority attaching
to CJIP delivery and this has helped to break down much of the
remaining resistance to prioritising CJIP amongst any remaining
reluctant local partners.
AR CONTRACTS—MARCH 2004: TAKEN FROM
MONTHLY CJIP MONITORING REPORTS
|
| Number referred to specialist drug treatment
| Number not referred to specialist treatment
|
|
| Bolton | 48
| 18 |
| Bradford | 32
| 46 |
| Bristol | 35
| 0 |
| Calderdale | 38
| 15 |
| Camden | 26
| 1 |
| Ealing | 57
| 33 |
| Hackney | 28
| 2 |
| Haringey | 20
| 0 |
| Hull | 57 |
28 |
| Islington | 66
| 18 |
| Lambeth | 52
| 15 |
| Leeds | 96
| 68 |
| Liverpool | 109
| 14 |
| Manchester | 87
| 32 |
| Middlesbrough | 18
| 11 |
| Newham | 44
| 18 |
| Nottingham City | 60
| 32 |
| Reading | 25
| 2 |
| Rochdale | 44
| 8 |
| Salford | 30
| 6 |
| Southwark | 36
| 2 |
| Tower Hamlets | 36
| 4 |
| Waltham Forest | 9
| 0 |
| Wandsworth | 29
| 1 |
| Westminster | 66
| 1 |
| Total | 1,148
| 375 |
|
June 2004
| 
