Speaking at yesterday’s Drugs and Alcohol today conference, Paul Hayes said:
 
“We can all be proud of the achievements of the drug treatment field in the last few years.
The number of people in effective treatment has doubled over the last ten years to a record 202,600, the average waiting time has come down to under a week (from more than 2 months in 2001) and four out of five either complete a treatment programme or stay in treatment long enough to gain lasting benefit.
           
All of us can be proud of what we have achieved. Yet we should also ask ourselves, why are some people criticising the treatment system?
 
It would be easy to dismiss criticism as politically-driven, or mischief-making generated by journalists, or the product of faction-fighting among the field.  
 
Yet the reason it has traction is that too often the balance to which we aspire across the system is not always reflected in what many clients experience in treatment.
 
We talk about choice for clients, about a balance of treatment options, and about people progressing through a dynamic system; but we have to recognise that these things are not necessarily what users experience.
 
That reality gives credence to the unfair critique that we are only interested in parking people on methadone, for example.
 
We talk about a balance of options, but in practice are some services more like Hotel California – you check out any time you like, but you never leave?
 
We talk about the personalisation of services, but in many places is it still a case of ‘the doctor knows best’?  Is there insufficient engagement with service users about what they want from treatment?
 
We talk about safety, but in fact does that spill over into risk aversion?
 
Are we so frightened of nasty things that we do not allow good things to happen? Are we so focussed on the crime reduction benefit that we allow people to remain in what some critics call “chemical handcuffs” longer than they need?
 
Too often, I fear, we focus on what is institutionally easy for systems and services, and de-motivating for staff - and not enough on what is structurally challenging for systems and services, or intellectually demanding for staff.
 
So we all need to ask ourselves, are individuals getting enough opportunity to get out of the treatment system, achieve independence, and get on with their lives?
 
The NTA is keen to work together with providers to identify the techniques and tools that keyworkers need to move people forward through treatment.
 
For example the Routes to Recovery suite includes advice on delivering the psycho-social interventions, developed with the British Psychological Society, together with training manuals for the International Treatment Effectiveness Project and Birmingham Treatment Effectiveness Initiative.
 
However there is more we could do to work with our partners to enhance the skills of practitioners, equip them to deliver evidence-based, recovery-focussed interventions, and enable them to be ambitious for their clients.
 
To fully meet this challenge, the process has to involve everyone in the drug treatment field, including users and their families, and be led by the providers and practitioners themselves.  
 
So we will be working much more closely with service providers to identify the skills mix needed to deliver a dynamic, forward-looking, and optimistic treatment system that is focussed on enabling the individual to make the best of themselves, for the benefit of themselves and the rest of society.
 
I am confident we have a treatment system that is capable not just of saving lives and reducing crime, but also of enhancing recovery – both understanding what is the most an individual can get out of the treatment system, and doing our utmost to get it out of them.”