Deputy Rabbitte will raise the Minister's plans — future plans — in respect of the drug treatment court. The syntax is not right but I am sure the Deputy understands the matter he submitted.
Adjournment Debate.
Drug Treatment Court.
I would never seek to gainsay the Leas-Cheann Comhairle's syntax. Several weeks ago I had the opportunity to visit the drug treatment court while it was in session and to meet some of the participants in the specially designed programme. The drug treatment court is a progressive innovation aimed at the rehabilitation of persons with addiction problems who have committed non-violent offences. It only deals with clients referred from two postal districts in the north inner city and was established as a permanent court in 2006. The aim of the court is the reduction of crime through rehabilitation of the offender, but it does not exclude punishment should the circumstances so warrant.
In addition to the judge, the drug court team comprises a court co-ordinator, a probation and welfare officer, a garda, a clinical health nurse and an education officer. The court's programme includes the provision of medical attention, counselling and educational and vocational modules. The progress of the offender on the programme is regularly monitored by the court. The judge is expected to give effective leadership and to be a motivator, enforcer and sanctioner. Each member of the team at pre-court meetings, which are held in private, provides verbal reports on aspects of the participants engagement with the programme. This could include urine screens, attendances at clinics, meetings, counselling sessions, assessments, motivation and engagement, family circumstances, medical reports and whether further charges or convictions have been brought. A full picture of the participant gradually becomes apparent to the court.
Initially defendants appear in court every week to account for their progress. Sanctions and incentives are employed by the court on a carrot and stick basis to encourage and reward progress and sanction failure to comply. The prize is avoiding a custodial sentence and having charges struck out on graduation from the programme.
The Secretary General of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform recently stated to the Committee of Public Accounts:
I am disappointed with its low output and am not convinced any longer that is the way we should go. An evaluation is under way and we hope it will be completed by the end of the year. Consultation is also taking place with the Judiciary and we will see where that goes...while it was started with the best of intentions, the production level of the court does not justify extending the model elsewhere. It is not working and we must go back to the drawing board.
Does the Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy John Curran, hold the same view as the Secretary General? Furthermore, I ask whether the evaluation is complete, what its conclusions are and when it will be published.
In so far as I can see, the only reason the throughput is not higher are the obstacles in the way of expanding the remit of the drug treatment court to include the entire city of Dublin. These obstacles pertain to the inability of other agencies, such as the HSE, to provide the necessary support services but they can be resolved if the political will exists to do so. I am sure the drug treatment court is an expensive innovation. However, I am equally sure it is not as expensive as the alternative of custodial care for a majority of drug abusers. Everywhere throughout urban Ireland we see the consequences of drug pushing and drug abuse and the incalculable cost of the damage being done by recidivist abusers.
I thank Deputy Rabbitte for raising this matter. I am responding on behalf of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform who sends his apologies.
The Drug Treatment Court, which originally operated on a pilot basis in the north inner city of Dublin, was placed on a permanent footing and extended to the Dublin 7 area. The court uses a multidisciplinary approach and involves a range of Government Departments and agencies charged with dealing with various aspects of the problem of drug misuse.
The court's mission is to provide supervised treatment, education and rehabilitation for offenders with drug problems, as an alternative to prison. The programme lasts for a minimum of 12 to 18 months. To be successful the participant needs to demonstrate a willingness to become free of non-prescribed drugs and make a permanent change in lifestyle. Assessments carried out to establish suitability for inclusion on the programme take on average ten weeks. The main incentive for participants is the knowledge that outstanding charges will be struck out where the participant successfully completes the programme and does not re-offend in the 12 months following graduation.
The programme operates on a points system designed to encourage the participants towards successful completion of the programme. Follow-up support for participants includes 12 months post-graduation supervision. While a formal procedure is not in place to monitor offences beyond that period, indications are that participation in the programme is linked to a decrease in criminal activity. The court operates with the assistance of an inter-agency team which includes the judge, a probation and welfare officer, an addiction nurse, a Garda liaison officer, an education-training representative and counsellors.
The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform has been carrying out a review of the operation of the Drug Treatment Court. The review is reaching completion and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform was anxious that no decisions regarding the future of the court should be taken without a thorough examination of the facts. There are significant questions over the Dublin Drug Treatment Court relating to the throughput and graduation levels which have not come close to achieving what was intended on the establishment of the programme. Concern about the volume of cases led to the decision to carry out a review of the court's operations. It should be noted that on the establishment of the Drug Treatment Court in 2001, the planning committee had envisaged a potential enrolment of 100 participants in the first year. From establishment to date, a total of eight years, 228 persons have participated in the programme with only 27 graduates. A further 154 persons were referred but found to be unsuitable to participate in the programme.
This is a restorative justice initiative and success of such programmes should not and cannot be assessed simply in terms of throughput. Nonetheless, it appears from the figures that some adjustment of the court's current operations is essential. Having said that, I am sure the Deputy realises the value the Drug Treatment Court brings to the clients who come before it. The supervision is intensive and successive district judges and the court team have done an excellent, painstaking job in helping the individuals in question along the road to recovery. The team's commitment is genuine and wholehearted. The positive outcomes that can be achieved must be taken into account.
It is, therefore, important to recognise that in determining the cost effectiveness of the Drug Treatment Court many other factors come into play, rather than simply a straight comparison between treatment costs in one stream as opposed to another. For example, a participant in the Drug Treatment Court is not legally represented each time there is an appearance before the court. There are, therefore, savings to the criminal legal aid scheme which serve to offset any slight increase in costs. In addition, while people are participating in the programme, their involvement in crime is reduced, even if they do not complete the programme. These types of variable factors are also difficult to quantify.
Improved recidivism rates result in benefits to society in terms of decreases in the number of victims of crimes, in particular, crimes against property. Savings may also be demonstrated in the criminal justice system in terms of Garda time spent prosecuting, as well as court time and prison places.
This issue fits into the overall National Drugs Strategy 2009 to 2016 which I have responsibility for co-ordinating. Drug treatment courts can have a role to play in both the treatment and rehabilitation of offenders and by extension can impact positively in the fight against crime. As I stated, a review has been undertaken to examine the operation of the court, including examining best practice elsewhere to see how the court's low throughput levels could be increased. Officials at a senior level have met with representatives of the Judiciary and other relevant agencies. The report is nearing its conclusion and I will arrange to have the outcome communicated to the Deputy in due course.
Community Development.
Concerns have been expressed to me about a proposal to close a branch office of the Blackwater Avondhu Partnership in Mallow. Some members of the board are concerned about the proposal because the office in Mallow supervises the local development social inclusion programme, LDSIP, and rural transport programme. I attest to the good work done by the office which has been in operation since 1996. I also share the concerns communicated to me by board members about the closure of the office as it will create significant potential for a diminution of the service provided in the Mallow and north Cork region.
I am also concerned that proposals have been made by the Blackwater Avondhu Partnership to instigate a round of voluntary redundancies in advance of any announcement in the budget of a reduction of a ministerial budget line for such groups to provide services. I am further concerned about certain corporate governance issues which arise as a result of the decision to which I refer. At the most recent board meeting of the Blackwater Avondhu Partnership, it was communicated to members that no decision had been made on the closure of the Mallow office or on seeking a round of voluntary redundancies. Despite this, staff have been notified that the office will close and a voluntary redundancy package will be offered. They must give their decisions on the package by next Monday.
Has the Minister given a direction to the partnership that the office in Mallow should close? Has the board or chief executive officer communicated to the Department an intention to seek voluntary redundancies? Has the Department communicated with the partnership about the need to seek redundancies and close one of its operational centres, namely, the Mallow office?
I ask that the Department give the board of Blackwater Avondhu Partnership an undertaking that all rules and regulations pertaining to corporate governance procedures will be adhered to as regards the responsibilities of the board, as distinct from the chief executive officer. I also ask that the Department issue guidance to the board in this respect.
The individuals who communicated with me are board members. While some of them vehemently oppose the closure of the Mallow office, they accept the argument that if rationalisation is required services will be moved to another office in Fermoy. They seek to ensure that the process applied to staff members in the Mallow office is completely transparent, the wishes of board members are observed and no person or persons act in a unilateral fashion. The reason I saw fit to raise this issue is that concern has arisen about the actions of some individuals with regard to the continuation of services in Mallow. I share this concern.
While I accept that we live in constrained times and the amalgamation of two entities sometimes causes one entity to suffer, I am adamant that the LDSIP, a phenomenally successful programme, should continue within the amalgamated structure. The rural transport programme, which delivers excellent services, should also continue, as should the other services such as those at the Mallow office.
The local development social inclusion programme is a series of measures designed to counter disadvantage and to promote equality and social and economic inclusion. The LDSIP forms part of the National Development Plan 2007-2013 but is still being carried out under the guidelines of the 2000-06 programme pending the transition to a new programme in 2010. The new programme, called the local and community development programme, will preserve elements of good practice from the existing CDP and LDSIP programmes and will be rolled out in 2010.
The LDSIP is implemented locally by 37 integrated local development companies and 16 urban partnerships. These are not-for-profit companies that target the areas of greatest need in the country to provide an area-based response to long-term unemployment and to promote social inclusion under three measures: services for the unemployed, community development and community-based youth initiatives. All implementing bodies are companies limited by guarantee, without share capital. Implementing bodies have flexibility to prepare local development plans that respond to local economic and social needs. Each of these bodies prepares a strategic plan setting out objectives, actions and targets across the three measures designed to address poverty and social inclusion in their areas. Actions funded by the LDSIP involve integrated responses to the multidimensional nature of social exclusion which are grouped into these three areas of activity. Since the beginning of 2009, the LDSIP has achieved full county coverage as a result of the completed cohesion process.
The Avondhu-Blackwater Partnership is a newly integrated company following the merger of Avondhu Development Group and Blackwater Resources. The 2009 allocation under the LDSIP programme for the company is €501,270. The area of operation stretches from Ballyclough in the west to Araglin in the east and Carrignavar in the south. The integrated company also includes the newly expanded area for the social inclusion programme of Blarney. The greater Blarney area has a population of more than 27,500 people. The total population of the area of operation for the new company is in excess of 70,000 people.
In 2009, the key areas of work for the local development social inclusion programme include supporting collaborative initiatives to promote access to employment and training, the design of innovative pre-employment training for especially vulnerable unemployed people, and the referral of clients to other supports and services under the services for the unemployed measure. The "equality for all" project in Mallow and the integration project in Fermoy will bring a strong focus to this work.
Under the community development measure, the emphasis is on projects supporting interculturalism, community training, facilitation of groups involved in social inclusion, actions to support volunteering in the community, and the further development of local networks such as the north Cork Traveller forum and the north Cork immigrant forum.
Under the community-based youth initiative measure, the emphasis is on supporting a small number of local collaborations, including an innovative youth arts programme. A further key area of work in 2009 is capacity building in the greater Blarney area. The emphasis will be on developing the capacity of existing and newly emerging community groups and supporting the establishment of new networks.
Rationalisation of the operations, staffing, accommodation and so on of all the companies is at an advanced stage. It is a matter for the board of the Avondhu-Blackwater Partnership, as an independent limited company, to manage within the programme budget allocated to it and to deploy its staff and resources in the most effective way to achieve programme delivery. In advance of decisions in the 2010 budget, it is not feasible to anticipate levels of funding available for the new local and community development programme next year.
Decisions of the type to which Deputy Sherlock referred are quite properly a matter for the board of the company. The Deputy spoke about governance and I will ask officials in my Department to have a look at it. The key decisions to which the Deputy refers are rightly the decisions to be made by the board.
There is great concern that community development projects are being savagely cut. Decisions being taken on the CDPs could undermine the provision of services. The 183 CDPs throughout the country are to be reduced by 35 before Christmas, while the remainder will be transferred from an independent management structure to the area partnerships. That is a radical intervention for people who have been working in these projects for many years and providing services that would not otherwise exist. They operate in disadvantaged areas and most of those employed are local people. They certainly provide an invaluable service to their communities.
The decision to reduce the number of CDPs and subsume the rest was taken without prior consultation with the projects or with the partnerships. This is hardly the way to do business if we are to ensure the cutbacks which take place are not seen to be insensitive and unwarranted. If any new systems are to be put in place, it would be more difficult to integrate them in the future.
I was glad to hear that a meeting took place yesterday at Croke Park between the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, the CDPs and the area partnerships. I am not sure to what extent there was a meeting of minds and whether there was any agreement to move forward in a more democratic fashion. The essential services that have been provided could be eliminated altogether. There would obviously be job losses and this is a serious matter as well. The question as to whether the new structure will be adequate to meet the needs of both organisations is difficult to say. It certainly will not be adequate unless there is a degree of consultation taking place.
We should not introduce cutbacks that are so severe they destroy the entity itself. The only way to ensure such is not the case is to provide for a good level of consultation between the various bodies involved and to find out whether there is more than one solution to the problem. In my constituency we have two partnerships, one of which is in the inner city and one of which is Glasnevin and Cabra. I am not sure whether either of them is enamoured of the proposals. They do not have the structures or staff to take on the role of subsuming the additional projects. One of the projects in the inner city is due to get the chop. I am not sure which project it is or whether the decision has been made. These are matters that affect most Members in every part of the country and they affect rural areas as well as urban areas.
I thank the Deputy for raising this issue. My Department was established against a background of concern at the multiplicity of structures and agencies through which local and community development schemes and programmes are delivered. The Department inherited many local and community programmes that were established and operated under different Departments. There was an inherent danger of fragmentation of services and diffusion of resources. The cohesion process initiated by the Minster, Deputy Ó Cuív, to address these concerns resulted in a dramatic reduction and simplification of local delivery structures for a range of rural development and community development programmes. However, my Department still has a wide agenda of reform to advance. The next phase, now under way, concerns improving and joining up the outputs from programmes, as well as further consolidating structures.
The local development social inclusion programme, LDSIP, and the community development programme, CDP, are my Department's two main social inclusion-community development programmes. Both have a community development element and both are delivered through separate local delivery structures comprising over 230 separate companies. I have already indicated that my strong view is that a single focused programme with a single integrated delivery structure is now needed in order to maximise the impact of these two programmes which serve disadvantaged communities. The Centre for Effective Services has very recently presented a new programme outline to my Department which I have accepted.
The aim of the new programme is to tackle poverty and social exclusion through partnership and constructive engagement between Government and people in disadvantaged communities. This will be underpinned by four high-level goals which are: to promote awareness, knowledge and uptake of a wide range of statutory, voluntary and community services; to increase access to formal and informal educational, recreational and cultural development activities and resources; to increase people's work readiness and employment prospects; and to promote engagement with policy, practice and decision making processes on matters affecting local communities. The new programme will preserve elements of good practice from the existing CDP-LDSIP programmes and will enhance monitoring and evaluation mechanisms. Further work by the centre, on more detailed aspects of the programme, is ongoing in the light of consultations and feedback with various community sector groups.
An implementation strategy involving the stakeholders is under way in preparation for programme roll-out in 2010. This has been discussed with representatives from CDPs and partnership companies at an information session which was held yesterday, 25 November. My Department will continue to oversee the implementation of the new programme and will deal with operational issues as they arise in practical and sympathetic ways. My overall aim is to ensure that, from 2010, disadvantaged communities will benefit from a more focused programme, with clear objectives and simplified and streamlined delivery structures leading to significant administrative savings and impact efficiencies.
In advance of proceeding to establish a single programme across CDPs and partnerships, my Department has initiated an evaluation of individual community development projects. Many of these projects span across two decades, with quite diverse activities. The objective of the review is to identify those projects that produce tangible, appropriate benefits for the communities they serve. Initial indications are that the vast majority of projects fall into this category and funding will be available, subject to budgetary constraints, through the new programme in 2010. For those projects that do not come into this category, continued funding from the Department will not be available. However, an appeals mechanism will be put in place. Again, I hope to have proposals from my Department in the near future.
I envisage that the main elements of the new integrated programme will comprise a small number of unambiguous goals to be achieved through clearly articulated outcomes for disadvantaged communities. Continuous evaluation and measurable targets will also be key features of the new programme, which I hope to launch early next year. While I cannot be specific at this stage about the impact on specific bodies in particular areas, disadvantaged communities will benefit from a more focused programme with clear objectives and simplified and streamlined delivery structures.
Social Welfare Benefits.
Against a background of budgetary constraints and challenges to all sectors of public spending, we must first look for value for money. It is calculated that there are approximately 161,000 carers who provide 3.7 million hours of home care a week and probably no more than 30,000 to 35,000 of those qualify for carer's allowance in the first instance. This represents a saving to the State of €2.1 billion if alternative residential care was to be paid for, and we must bear this in mind as a backdrop in any evaluation.
The Carers Association understands more than anyone the current economic challenges and accepts the need for the Government to make difficult policy and budgetary decisions. The association noted the value of the work it does, as we all understand and value it. All it calls for is that the Government would recognise the contribution of carers and protect what has already been achieved in terms of some modest financial assistance. The fear of the association is that there may be a risk to the continuation of the half-rate carer's allowance on foot of the McCarthy report, which recommended phasing it out.
The half-rate carer's payment is used by carers to cover additional costs associated with caring. The payment, which is worth up to €110 per week, is received by carers who are providing full-time care, which, experience has shown, is often in excess of 60 hours per week. Indeed, when we meet deputations locally, some people cannot get away to meet us because they cannot arrange for somebody else to take care of the person they are caring for. This allowance can often make the difference between the person being cared for in the home or not, which in itself creates a substantial saving for the State. In March, the Minister, Deputy Mary Hanafin, stated that the economic situation makes it difficult to commit to major advances in services for carers. It is understandable, as I have said, and the Carers Association recognises this. This is what lead it to produce a set of cost-neutral proposals, the aim of which is to go in some way towards addressing the lack of essential support services available for family carers.
Many carers feel their role is totally undervalued. Carers are a vital element in keeping people at home. However, the association would foresee the need to form a whole new relationship interface with the State and relevant support services to maintain carers in their caring role. The dual approach of putting appropriate community and home services in place, thereby looking after the well-being of the carers themselves, is essential in the development of an effective strategy for all involved.
I have met the Carers Association in Bray. Over 4,000 carers provide care to members of their family and informally to non-members of the family in Wicklow. I find it very difficult given that Towards 2016 promised to develop a carers' strategy as one of its elements. For many reasons, I believe Towards 2016 was flawed but, in recognition of the role carers play, it seems a dreadful tragedy that the Minister could not see her way to producing that carers' strategy. I plead with the Minister's office to ensure that due recognition is given to carers in her approach to the budget. Specifically, I urge continuation of the half-rate carer's allowance. I would appreciate feedback on the issue.
I thank Deputy Doyle for raising the matter, which I am replying to on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Social and Family Affairs. Budget 2007 provided for new arrangements whereby people in receipt of a social welfare payment, other than carer's allowance or benefit, who are also providing someone with full-time care and attention, can retain their main welfare payment and receive a half-rate carer's allowance. Similarly, people currently in receipt of a carer's allowance, who may have an underlying eligibility for another social welfare payment, can transfer to that other payment and continue to receive up to a half-rate carer's allowance.
The report of the special group on public service numbers and expenditure programmes made a range of recommendations relating to the Department of Social and Family Affairs, including recommendations relating to the half-rate carer's allowance. The Department will consider the report's recommendations as part of the Estimates and budgetary process for 2010. Decisions on all of the issues arising will be a matter for Government. No decisions have been made in regard to the implementation of any of the McCarthy proposals relevant to the Department of Social and Family Affairs. Full consideration will, of course, be given to the impact of all the proposals on the recipients involved. The House should be aware, however, that the purpose of the carer's allowance and the half-rate carer's allowance is to provide income support for carers, not to provide for additional medical support for the care recipient.
The Government is acutely aware and appreciative of the contribution made by carers to people needing ongoing care and support. In recognition of this, considerable improvements have been made in recent years in services and supports for carers. The payment rates for the carer's allowance were increased further in the 2009 budget by €7 to €239 per week for those aged 66 or over and by €6.50 to €220.50 per week for those aged under 66. Recipients of carer's allowance are also eligible for household benefits, free travel and the respite care grant.
The means test for carer's allowance has been significantly eased over the years and is now one of the most generous means tests in the social welfare system, most notably with regard to spouses' earnings. Since April 2008, the income disregard has been €332.50 per week for a single person and €665 per week for a couple. This means that a couple with two children can earn in the region of €37,200 and qualify for the maximum rate of carer's allowance, as well as the associated free travel and household benefits package. A couple with an income in the region of €60,400 can still qualify for a minimum payment, as well as free travel and household benefits. These levels surpass the Towards 2016 commitment to ensure those on average industrial earnings continue to qualify for a full carer's allowance.
From June 2005, the annual respite care grant was extended to all carers who are providing full time care to a person who needs such care, regardless of income. The rate of the respite care grant was also increased to €1,700 per year in respect of each care recipient from June 2008.
During 2008 an interdepartmental group chaired by the Department of the Taoiseach, with secretariat support provided by my Department, undertook work, including a public consultation process, to develop a national carers' strategy. However, it was not possible to set targets or timelines which could be achieved because of the prevailing economic position. In that context, rather than publishing a document which did not include any significant plans for the future, the Government decided not to publish a strategy. This position remains unchanged.
However, supports for carers provided by the Department are continuing and have not diminished in any way. It is estimated that the combined expenditure on carer's allowance, carer's benefit, the respite care grant and half-rate carer's allowance will be €650 million in 2009.
The proposals made by the Carers Association covered a range of Departments, including the Department of Health and Children, the Department of Social and Family Affairs and the Department of Education and Science. Officials from the Department of Social and Family Affairs met with representatives from the Carers Association to discuss the proposals made by the association which fall within the responsibility of the Department. There was agreement that the Department would promote the information that the carer's allowance can be shared by two carers providing care on a part-time basis and the Department's website was changed to reflect this.
The other proposals, however, were not cost-neutral and a number of them had considerable costs. For example, one of the suggestions was the development of a needs assessment model and the creation of a website. It would not be appropriate for me to comment further on budgetary proposals at this stage pending the outcome of these deliberative processes.
The Dáil adjourned at 5.25 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 1 December 2009.