Impact of Social Welfare Bill 2012 on Drug Rehabilitation Projects (DRP s) Introduction

Transcription

1 Citywide Drugs Crisis Campaign UPDATE as at Oct 2012 Impact of Social Welfare Bill 2012 on Drug Rehabilitation Projects (DRP s) Introduction The CE Drug Rehab Projects are under serious threat from the combined impact of the Social Welfare Bill 2012 and cuts to their Materials and Training grants in Budget A key priority of the current programme for government is to assist drug users in rehabilitation through participation in the Community Employment DRP s. 1 The DRP s underpin the Government s drug rehabilitation strategy and Citywide are extremely alarmed at the speed with which the waiting lists have declined as a result of the changes in the Social Welfare Bill Citywide have carried out a series of surveys covering the period from January to October 2012 and this paper tracks the cumulative impact of the changes in the Social Welfare Bill 2012 on Community Employment take-up. What are DRP s? The CE Drug Rehab projects are a specific intervention of the National Drugs Strategy and provide 1000 day places for those recovering from drug use. As such they are different from mainstream CE. As the Report of the Working Group on Drugs Rehabilitation 2007 states: The special CE Drug Rehab Projects are designated as special projects in recognition of the fact that they are not operating as a labour market mechanism in the same way as mainstream CE, but rather as a support mechanism through which drug rehabilitation programmes can be delivered. Nine key adjustments have been made which differentiate CE Drug Projects from mainstream CE and these adjustments are based on the needs of the target group of recovering drug users. 1 Towards Recovery; programme for national government

2 Social Welfare Bill Concurrent Payments The following table explains the changes that took place from January 2012 following the introduction of the Social Welfare Bill Before January 2012 After January 2012 a. Payment situation Payment situation CE participants on OPFA or CE participants are no longer entitled to any disability/illness payment were part of their welfare payment and can only entitled to a concurrent payment. claim their CE allowance. This payment was means tested with their CE allowance. b. Welfare Claim Status Welfare Claim Status CE participants could smoothly With the removal of the concurrent payment, transition back to a full OPFA or the link between the person and their OPFA disability/illness payment following or Disability payment is now removed, completion of their programme. resulting in the closure of their claim once a This was aided by the fact that CE place has been accepted. their concurrent payment meant When the CE programme is completed, and their welfare claim remained open in the event they haven t successfully during their time on CE, therefore gained employment, the person is obliged to resulting in little or no delay in re-apply for OPFA or Disability and this is reinstating their benefits. treated as a new application. 2

3 Citywide Surveys SURVEY RESULTS Total numbers surveyed: 37 October 2012 Respondents: 21 (= 57%) March 2012 Respondents: 22 (=59%) Citywide surveyed 37 Drug Rehab Community Employment Projects. The initial survey in March 2012 established a social welfare profile of Drug Rehab Projects CE participants showing that the vast majority (78%) were in receipt of either a Disability Payment (51%) or One Parent Family Allowance (27%). The survey also clearly indicated an immediate negative impact on take-up of CE following changes in the Social Welfare Bill and a serious effect on waiting list numbers for participation in these programmes. Citywide followed us the initial by asking projects for comparative numbers of CE participants on 31 st December 2011, on 31 st March 2012 and again on October 26 th We also asked for comparative information on waiting list numbers. And finally we asked them to make comment on any relevant impacts since the Social Welfare Bill. Take-up of DRP places In December 2011 the twenty two projects responding had 457 T coded 2 Drug Rehab places filled. By March 2012 the number of participants had reduced to 421 a reduction of 8.5% In Oct 2012 twenty one projects responded showing reductions in take up 24% (see figure 1) Figure 1 (Oct 29 th 2012): Reduction in take up 24% T. Code Approval Actual 2 T Code is the FAS/DSP reference used for CE ring fenced Drug Rehabilitation places 3

4 Type of Payment In December 2011, 78% of participants in Drug Rehab Projects were in receipt of either a disability payment or One Parent Family Payment. By October 2012 that percentage had reduced to 65% with a marked drop in those on a disability payment. T. Code (percentage in receipt of March 2012 October 2012 either disability or OPFP) December 2011 Disability: 51% 45% 39% OPFP: 27% 24% 26% Waiting lists Waiting lists December 2011 March 2012 October n93 = - 55% on Dec n74 = -64% on Dec Comments from Drug Rehab Projects All of our participants on Disability or OPF were pre Jan 2012 and therefore kept their benefits. We have had no new clients on Disability or OPF since the changes came into effect. Referrals have dropped off, harder to attract people. Woman especially carers and single parents there is little incentive due to financial loss. Only one T coded participant commenced since January There is no uptake due to loss of disability book and single payment issue. When T coded participants are leaving they cannot be replaced. 4

5 While we are filling places the up take is low, for some the risk involved in handing back a payment is at times too much. There is also a huge drop off in one parent family's applying for community employment. This is unfortunately closing the door for females availing of rehabilitation services. We are still finding it difficult to get new participants. Any new participants have mostly been transfers from people currently on two payments. People are not willing to give up their disability book to come on to C.E., there is too much to lose. The changes to the Social Welfare Bill are acting as a disincentive for people to access much needed services in DRPs. On one hand the state is offering and paying for a service and on the other preventing people from using that same service. Evidence There can be no doubt but that the changes in the Social Welfare Bill 2012 are acting as a disincentive for take up of Drug Rehab Community Employment places. The evidence shows that: Rehabilitation options are a crucial component of all drug treatment. The rehabilitation strategy recognises the contribution of Community Employment to the drugs rehabilitation effort and encourages that the impact of CE be built upon to ensure that the health and educational needs of participants are being properly addressed. 3 Since the introduction of the changes in the Social Welfare Bill 2012, waiting lists for places on drug rehab projects have fallen by 64%. Projects are reporting that people are afraid to forego their DSP claim because they fear they may have their claim rejected when they reapply. As a result they are not taking up offers of a CE place. Recent figures released showing a 61% 3 Report of the Working Group on Drug Rehabilitation

6 rejection rate of those applying for a disability payment would seem to legitimise these fears. In the 16 years that the Drug Rehab Projects have existed there has been no history of a shortage of people wanting to take up a place. The decline in waiting lists is now being interpreted as a failure by projects to attract applicants and projects are being put under extreme pressure to bring their numbers back up or risk losing their allocated places. Recommendations CE is one of the key components of the delivery of the national rehabilitation strategy. In the absence of an alternative day programme model of rehabilitation, it makes no sense to dis-incentivise this programme. The potential collapse of these programmes will have far reaching consequences across communities and society. They provide education, training, stability, structure, personal and family support, care plan management, childcare, addiction and relapse programmes, progression opportunities, health supports, etc and as a result provide a hope and a focus for addicted individuals and their communities. The undermining of these programmes will have serious consequences for the provision of rehabilitation in this country. Citywide recommend that: 1. A live link is maintained by the CE participant to their original DSP Claim during their time on CE programme. This would be a cost neutral measure that would allow the CE participant to effortlessly transition back to their previous payment (if necessary) on the termination of their CE programme time. 2. Reinstate a concurrent, means tested payment (or other incentive mechanism), through the original DSP claim, which would allow participants to offset the costs of childcare or towards equalising the living standards of those with a disability 4. 4 A Social Portrait of People with Disabilities (2011) ESRI and Department of Social Protection 6