Public needs to know what makes a difference
‘Jacinda seems to trust me. Why wouldn’t you?’’ Hard 2Reach director and honorary Mongrel Mob life member Harry Tam’s pithy remark is probably a top contender for quote of the year. The Government has rightly copped a torrent of ridicule over its ropey release of $2.75 million from the Proceeds of Crime Fund, to a Mongrel Mob-led methamphetamine addiction programme.
Despite the police hierarchy supporting Kahukura’s funding, the Police Association has pilloried the decision. The typically mildmannered Association president, Chris Cahill, captured the mood of most Kiwis with his thunderous evisceration of the Government’s move.
It’s no wonder officers are asking why they should even bother making the high-risk commitment to bring to account gangs who are armed, dangerous, and dealing meth on a monstrous scale, when the money is returned to them.
Cahill is right. It’s galling that the police recently seized $2m in dirty money from the Mob’s Notorious chapter in Hawke’s Bay, yet the Government signs off on dispatching $2.75m in ‘‘clean money’’ to its close connections.
As Cahill remarked, ‘‘One officer likened it to the most successful money-laundering scheme he’d heard. It is difficult to understand how those who promote the need for drug rehabilitation seem blind to the dreadful optics – lining the pockets of key gang leaders.’’
The Kahukura programme’s website claims ‘‘all 10 tane passed drug tests and graduated from the pilot programme. Since completing the course, the police have commented there’s been a reduction in offending amongst the group.’’
The Prime Minister defended her role in granting Kahukura’s funding, arguing the previous government also funded gang-affiliated addiction programmes. However, those two initiatives, Wakatika Ora and Hauora, were both overseen by the Salvation Army – and ultimately, neither were deemed sufficiently effective by the Ministry of Health, axing their funding.
PM Ardern says ‘‘fund what works – fund what makes a difference.’’ It’s an entirely reasonable premise, but is there really solid evidence the Kahukura pilot makes the grade?
From my inquiries, it’s incredibly difficult to establish which treatment providers are delivering tangible, positive and lasting results. It’s a very nebulous picture.
Anecdotally, I have first-hand knowledge of people I know whose lives have been positively transformed by Odyssey House, the Salvation Army Bridge Programme and the Christchurch City Mission.
I approached these established treatment providers in the hope of gleaning some measurable insights on the effectiveness of their programmes. A 12-month evaluation study of people treated at the bridge programme reported that recovery outcomes matched those of leading international treatment programmes.
The head of the programme, Mike Douglas, tells me that harm reduction is the focus. ‘‘Improving physical and mental health wellbeing and reducing the negative consequences of substance abuse are key indicators in assessing effectiveness.’’ But no hard metrics were forthcoming.
PM Ardern says ‘‘fund what works – fund what makes a difference.’’ ... but is there really solid evidence the Kahukura pilot makes the grade?
It’s a similar story with the Christchurch City Mission, which has handled nearly 1400 referrals to its counselling services in the past year. AOD Services manager Jan Spence says ‘‘people travel through their treatment services often more than once with opportunities for valuable insights gained each time they relapse. Successful transition back into the community happens with increased stability and wellness after each intervention.’’
In the past 12 months, the Ministry of Health alone (MOH) has pumped out $186.9m to 46 providers delivering AOD treatment services. A spokesperson tells me ‘‘the ministry maintains relationships with providers to assess performance. There is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ vision of success.
‘‘For some people life-long abstinence may be a realistic goal, while for others a reduction in both use and the associated harm is still a success.’’
How often do non-performing providers lose taxpayer funding? ‘‘We are unable to provide an indication of frequency’’ was the response.
I asked the ministry which programme providers have been adjudged as being the most highly effective. It declined to supply that information. ‘‘As providers deal with a range of needs it is difficult to compare services. What we do know is that services tailored to the individual are more effective in supporting positive health outcomes.’’
Fund what works? The public is entitled to a more reassuring sense of accountability, rigour and open disclosure over what programmes are truly making a measurable difference.