1 / 13

Findings of the DIP Review Peter Grime Head of Operations, Drug Interventions Programme, Home Office

UKDWF CONFERENCE. York. 13-14 October 2009. Findings of the DIP Review Peter Grime Head of Operations, Drug Interventions Programme, Home Office. The ground I intend to cover. Impact of DIP on crime and re-offending. Findings from review of the DIP Delivery Model. DIP impact.

Olivia
Download Presentation

Findings of the DIP Review Peter Grime Head of Operations, Drug Interventions Programme, Home Office

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. UKDWF CONFERENCE York 13-14 October 2009 Findings of the DIP Review Peter Grime Head of Operations, Drug Interventions Programme, Home Office

  2. The ground I intend to cover • Impact of DIP on crime and re-offending. • Findings from review of the DIP Delivery Model.

  3. DIP impact (a) Numbers referred to treatment via DIP (000s) Milestones A DIP phase 1 B Intensive drug treatment in prisons C DIP phase 2 D DRR replaces DTTO E DIP phase 3 F IDTS launched in prisons G Tough Choices roll out H 2008 Drug Strategy

  4. 2,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 F B D A C E G H 1,200 1,000 Mar 02 Mar 03 Mar 04 Mar 05 Mar 06 Mar 07 Mar 08 Mar 09 12 months ending DIP impact (b) recorded drug-related acquisitive crime (000s) Milestones A DIP phase 1 B Intensive drug treatment in prisons C DIP phase 2 D DRR replaces DTTO E DIP phase 3 F IDTS launched in prisons G Tough Choices roll out H 2008 Drug Strategy

  5. DIP impact (c) National Indicator 38 • assesses the rate of drug related offending, counting the number of offences (proven by conviction at court) committed by individuals identified as Class A drug users in the course of their contact with the CJS • 19 local authorities have included NI38 within their Local Area Agreements • Not Just a local and national outcome target – cohort analysis can be used for local problem solving

  6. DIP impact (c) National Indicator 38 performance – one area example • Cohort of 234 • Actual offences – 577 • Predicted offences – 426.3 Just 18 individuals account for the difference between actual and predicted

  7. DIP review findings: the good news • The Programme has already achieved a huge amount and we have a lot to be proud about. The Review found: • DIP has pioneered a ground-breaking offender-centred hub • CJS sanctions to grip offenders and ensure they face tough choices are comprehensive • DIP has driven significant improvement in system capability and services • And it makes a difference:  “ (DIP) saved my life”

  8. DIP review findings: some of the challenges • The quality of case management is important to offenders and needs to be given more emphasis in the delivery of DIP • The intensity of case management is variable between areas • More emphasis is needed on developing life skills to help prevent relapse into drug misuse and offending • Greater clarity needed on Roles and responsibilities of partners

  9. DIP review findings: some (more) of the challenges • Performance management not focused on reducing crime and offending • Allocation of DIP funding needs to be overhauled • DIP’s purpose is clear to DIP leads, but understanding and ownership is more variable beyond them. • Government is providing effective leadership of DIP… • …but we all could do more to support local areas

  10. The case forIOM DIP review : where are we now? Taking forward the findings in six workstreams: • DIP Delivery Model • Funding and Value for Money • Commissioning and Practice Guidance • Performance Management • National and Regional Leadership and Support • Communications - maximise positive outcomes for the community?

  11. DIP Review – Delivery Model • Framework of the Model • Identification • who takes priority? • identification by enforcement • identification by pro-active engagement • Assessment • what are the needs? • type – initial, follow-up, relevant or as a result of pro-active engagement or self referral • Case management • how to achieve and deliver outcomes

  12. DIP Review: Delivery Model • What’s difference: • better identification in the custody suite • emphasis on challenging offending behaviour • more effective case management • each client will have a CJIT case manager • clear expectations of the client • ensure client attends appointment and assertive outreach for those who don’t • clear pathways for clients who disengage despite assertive outreach

  13. DIP Review – Funding review and VFM • Developing a new funding model based on zero based costs: • fixed costs • variable costs • allowances • Purpose of this will be to remove the differences in costs across the difference areas

More Related