§ Mr. FaberTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) to what degree during (i) the residential, (ii) the therapeutic community-based and (iii) the 12 step prison drug treatment programmes evaluated by PDM Consulting Ltd. prisoners were protected from unsupervised contact with others while in treatment; [45560]
(2) what proportion of prisoners who tested positive for drugs whilst on (i) the residential, (ii) the therapeutic community-based and (iii) the 12 step prison drug treatment programmes evaluated by PDM Consulting Ltd. were removed from the programmes; [45559]
(3) what was the cost (a) per place and (b) per completion of (i) the residential, (ii) the therapeutic community-based and (iii) the 12 step prison drug treatment services evaluated by PDM Consulting Ltd.; [45556]
(4) how often as part of (i) the residential, (ii) the therapeutic community-based and (iii) the 12 step prison drug treatment programmes evaluated by PDM Consulting Ltd., prisoners on the programmes were tested for drugs; [45561]
(5) when the full version of the evaluation by PDM Consulting Ltd. of prison drug treatment services will be published; and if he will make a statement; [45557]
189W(6) what proportion of prisoners on (i) the residential, (ii) the therapeutic community-based and (iii) the 12 step prison drug treatment programmes evaluated by PDM Consulting Ltd. successfully completed the programmes; and what were the reasons for the failure of those who failed to complete them. [45558]
§ Mr. George Howarth[holding answer 15 June 19981: PDM Consulting Ltd. were contracted to monitor and evaluate the first fourteen pilot drug treatment projects. Over the last three years, they have produced a sequence of reports, most of which were intended for internal use only. They contain, for example, sensitive financial information about treatment services at individual establishments provided by external agencies which it would be inappropriate to publish for commercial reasons.
Copies have, however, been provided to the governors of the prison establishments involved and, where appropriate, to the relevant outside agency.
The executive report, which included a summary of recommendations, was published with the new Prison Service drugs strategy on 12 May.
Aggregated performance management data provided by PDM Consulting Ltd. covering 12 months operation of the different treatment programmes are given in table A. Care is needed in interpreting the figures because of variations in the prisoner population, therapeutic content, programme objectives and the length of time they have been established within a custodial setting. They do not all relate to the same 12-month period.
Inmates on these programmes are subject to voluntary drug testing arrangements, the frequency of such testing varies across programme type and between individual prisons. Information about the actual frequency of testing on each programme is not held centrally. In addition, all inmates are subject to mandatory drug testing. There is significantly more voluntary drug testing than mandatory drug testing on these programmes.
Additional costs arising from the pilot programmes are shown in table B. Care is needed in comparing the additional costs of these programmes since the costs incurred vary according to the utilisation of Prison Service staff.
The numbers of those completing and leaving the pilot drug treatment programmes are detailed in table C.
None of the inmates participating in residential, therapeutic community or 12-Step programmes can be fully isolated from other prisoners. Where programmes are delivered in discrete accommodation, it is possible to minimise contact with other inmates, but it is often not practical to make separate arrangements for programme participants during domestic visits, kit change, canteen, association and chapel. A measure of contact is not necessarily undesirable as it will help inmates prepare for the pressures they will face on completion of their treatment.
190W
Pilot drug treatment projects Table A: Proportion of prisoners testing positive Percentage positive Residential Therapeutic community 12 Step Voluntary drug test 22 11 5 Mandatory drug test 20 15 6
Table B: Additional costs arising from pilot drug treatment projects Costs in £ sterling Residential Therapeutic community 12 Step Per annual place 3,606 5,669 8,803 Per completion 4,992 7,570 4,945 Notes:
- 1. Cost per annual place = the total additional cost of the programme to the prison divided by the number of places (i.e. the capacity of the unit)
- 2. Cost per completion = the total additional cost of the programme to the prison divided by the number of inmates completing the programme
Table C: Pilot drug treatment programmes: completions and leavers Reasons for leaving programme percentage Residential Therapeutic community 12 Step Completion 34 13 49 Transfer 1 8 16 Released 0 16 0 Chose to leave 6 11 13 Discipline 13 23 5 Drug use 26 25 17 Other 19 5 2