Conservative Home a complete list of 188 recommendations that have left the political work of justice, social policy of the Commission.
Here are 48 that come from Dependencies paper :
Policy proposals we suggest are based on three principles:
reform treatment – breaking the cycle of dependency and devolution of responsibilities, addressing addiction (including alcohol dependence) and investing in abstinence-based recovery programs
-The prevention of damage – to promote public health and control the consumption of alcohol and drugs through prices.
-Protecting children – in front of parental substance abuse, understanding that children are affected by parental addiction and cannabis deal.
POLICIES
An integrated drug treatment redefine politics in terms of dependence, which covers alcohol and drugs, a policy goal lead to abstinence.the existing Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. (Section 3.1.4)
A review of the Misuse of Drugs Act and associated penalties is proposed to be undertaken by the new Addiction Advisory Council. (Section 3.1.5)
Local Addiction Action Centres, staffed in proportion to local known needs /estimates of problem drug and alcohol users in the area and led by an Addiction Action Coordinator, a former residential or day care drugs CEO/counsellor or addiction psychiatrist, to replace Drugs Action Teams. (Section 3.1.6)
We propose to fund all treatment by abstinence based treatment vouchers. (Section 3.1.7)
One Stop Shops, to provide both the start and continuity through the treatment journey. (Section 3.1.7)
Methadone to be prescribed in the context of ‘change programmes’, as a stepping stone for clients to abstinence. The pharmacy system of dispensing to be discontinued. (Section 3.2)
We recommend that GP’s and DAT Treatment Managers review their patients on methadone and make every effort to offer alternative routes to recovery and treatment. (Section 3.2)
We propose the immediate abandonment of the meaningless and corrupting treatment targets set by the current administration and move towards a system which is needs led and monitored and measured in terms of real outcomes – including abstinence or reduction of substance use, improved mental health and social functioning and motivation. (Section 3.2.1)
Structured Abstinence Based Day Care Expansion supported by treatment voucher. Such services would no longer be subject to commissioning vagaries but to their own outcomes success. (Section 3.2.2)
Residential detoxification and rehabilitation to expand to more realistic levels funded by treatment vouchers. (Section 3.2.3)
Rapid expansion of secondary residential care and dry sheltered accommodation for former offenders who have completed first stage rehabilitation programmes in prisons. (Section 3.2.3)
Support for faith based communities It is of note that some of the most successful and enduring residential rehabilitation centres are faith based, like Yeldall Manor, Victory Outreach and Betel. (Section 3.2.4)
Families with children to be prioritised for treatment – to break cycle of addiction and protect children. (Section 3.2.6)
We propose funding for innovatory community projects, such as the ‘Safer Families Projects’ pioneered in Bolton. (Section 3.2.6)
Immediate family residential service/centre expansion We would suggest that the three proven existing providers (of family residential services), Gilead, Addaction and Phoenix Futures should be supported to expand these services to other areas, increasing the number from 5 back to 15 as soon as possible. (Section 3.2.9)
Training and Qualifications – new degree level courses at University of Bath in counselling to be replicated. (See Section 3.2.9)
A formal adolescent needs assessment to establish the needs of the current 17,000 adolescents in ‘treatment’ and the basis for the governments current targets. (Section 3.6.1)
Immediate review of and assessment of effectiveness of existing adolescent ’substance abuse’ services and needs of 1000 adolescents on Class A drugs (Section 3.6.2)
The development of specialist adolescent residential facilities and programmes for those deemed most in need and at most risk. (Section 3.6.3)
An ‘Adolescent’ Task Force on the National Addiction Trust to formulate and formally trial appropriate community intervention – taking particular consideration of the problem posed by early alcohol and cannabis use – and to introduce a system of accountability. (Section 3.6.3)
Brief Interventions (for alcohol) We propose nationwide training of GPs to provide this proven intervention. (Section 3.2.7)
Promoting and recognising AA and NA. There is evidence to show that ongoing peer support of the type given by the AA and NA fellowships, along with associated support groups such as Families Anonymous, not only is beneficial to the individuals involved but saves statutory services significant costs. We would like to see AA and NA as interrelated with and recognised by all statutory and voluntary ’services’ that have their place in helping someone with any addiction/dependency problem. (Section 3.2.8)
We propose halting the current roll out of Drugs Intervention Programmes – and reviewing and down scaling those currently in operation removing negative and bureaucratically costly targets and associated paperwork. – reverting to practices developed by Darren Worthington and his SMART team in Oxford with their original arrest referral work in approaching and motivating offenders. (Section 3.3.1)
We would propose the introduction of combined drugs and alcohol treatment orders at the discretion of magistrates and following advice from arrest referral workers. (Section 3.3)
Rehabilitation to be made in designated and meaningful settings and be abstinence based (replacing community based DRRs) either highly structured community based abstinence programmes such as that offered by SHARP1 in the community or within the dedicated rehabilitation prison wings, or residential treatment centres. (Section 3.3)
Experimental drugs courts, as in West London, are clearly effective, clearly have great potential and should be continued and replicated but with abstinence orders in meaningful treatment settings as above. (Section 3.3.2)
Our key proposal is that the prison treatment budget, after assessment, should primarily be directed to detoxification in the context of rehabilitation programmes, taking unique advantage of the prison setting and length of sentence. (Section 3.3.3)
A therapeutic community or 12 step programme wing in every prison. We propose an expansion of the existing 16 such dedicated programmes (currently mainly provided by RAPT and Phoenix Futures) to every prison within the estate. (Section 3.3.3)
Our immediate recommendations within the current framework are for:
• Broader HMP KPI targets to reduce target driven pressure on services and incorporate quality indicators.
• The segmentation of audit and inspection from in house drug treatment development, along with an enlarged inspection role.
• The commissioning of a thematic paper by HMCIP to analyse in detail the state of ‘joined up’ services.
• Better research and evaluation of intensive treatment programme.
• Population needs analysis research at every prison establishment in the UK as standard.
• The provision of proper alcohol treatment services in prisons.
• Increased capacity and the specific development and rollout of treatment programmes designed for prisoners whose problem drug is crack cocaine. (Section 3.3.3)
Ongoing outcomes Research is required to see which programmes are most effective in chieving abstinence and how they are achieved. (3.2.12)
Dental Treatment – an urgent need. We would like to see such enlightened initiatives maybe starting at the National Addiction Centre under the direction of the newly amalgamated Action on Addiction. (3.2.12)
An Alcohol Treatment Tax – As well as ignoring treatment needs recent governments have consistently fail to address the most effective way of preventing and reducing alcohol related harm – through taxation. (Section 3.4.1)
A commitment to preventing overall consumption rising further and, preferably, over time, to bringing it down to an agreed lower level, would help to provide a rational goal and focus to the alcohol harm reduction strategy that is presently lacking. Tax policy would be a crucial element of such a strategy. (Section 3.4)
Setting now low (in line with most EU countries) Blood Alcohol Consumption(BAC) limits to 0.5g/L and to 0.2 for inexperienced drivers and large vehicle and dangerous goods. (Section 3.4.2)
A new commitment to controlling supply of drugs. The evidence is that trends in all seizures have dropped since 1998.2 The question has to be asked is whether complex performance management administration has disrupted effective working practices. We recommend they are dropped. (Section 3.5)
Greater attempts to be made to ’size’ the market in order to establish bench marks against which seizures etc can be measured. This can be estimated in relation to street prices and purity. (Section 3.5.2)
A greater commitment to and review of middle level operations and more effective police management is required. We believe that police commitment to tackling drug dealing should be uncompromising. (Section 3.5.4)
Review and Reform Harm reduction and harm minimisation practices that were set up with the clear intent of promoting public health as well as the personal health of addicts are clearly failing. (Section 3.5.5)
Cannabis reclassification to B in the context of a national action plan to confront cannabis use by adolescents. (Section 3.6.5)
Assessing Adolescent Needs – a task force. (Section 3.6.2)
Reviewing Adolescent Substance Services – assessment of appropriateness and effectiveness (Section 3.6.2)
Juvenile Treatment Orders We propose the introduction of juvenile court orders to provide courts with the capacity and authority to order youths to receive drugs and alcohol abstinence treatment in designated residential settings. (Section 3.6.2)
Trialling schools drugs testing. (Section 3.6.6)
Trialling effective addiction education in schools. (Section 3.6.7)
Filed under: Conservatives