Author of new report on drug misuse in British prison's interviewed

TalkingDrugs conducts an  interview with Max Chambers author of  Coming Clean, Policy Exchange's new report that criticises the overuse of methadone as a form of  drug treatment in the British prison system.

Q. The average cost of keeping someone in prison is about £30000, however this cost is still unable to provide a drug free environment for prisoners. How do you propose the government does this without increasing expenditure?

A. I don't think anyone is naïve enough to imagine that the Government can ensure that every prison is entirely drug-free. Despite this, there are things the Government could do that would make a real difference, but the  last Government spent millions on security measures that have never been evaluated - such as CCTV cameras (which are often left unmanned) and BOSS chairs (which are being used to prop open doors). In many prisons, the bulk of drugs come in through staff - and we know that the Metropolitan Police estimates that there 1,000 corrupt staff across the country. In this context, does it really make sense for the Ministry of Justice to devote so little attention to rooting it out? A Corruption Prevention Unit does exist, but it's little more than a research and policy directorate based in Whitehall. We think it would make much more sense to tackle corruption by having dedicated investigation and tactical units, able to run operations inside prisons. It wouldn't cost very much more money (say an extra £5 million), but it would make a real impact.

Of course, we should also ensure that being a member of prison staff does not become a job for life with a golden cage of accruing pension entitlements and other benefits. By having a manageable but reasonable staff turnover you help prevent corruption and the potential ghettoisation of staff groups who have evolved their own norms and behaviours over many years.

Q. The report suggests that the existence of mandatory drug testing in prison has encouraged prisoners to use harder drugs such as heroin instead of cannabis as it is less detectable. How do you suggest the government should address this problem?

A. We have argued that MDT rates and punishments for a positive test make no distinction whatsoever between hard drugs and softer drugs. This incentivizes the use of harder drugs which are more difficult to test for as they remain traceable for much shorter periods. But it also means that the Prison Service is incentivised to treat all drugs as the same, which is clearly a ridiculous position.

One answer might be to recast MDT and the performance indicator in such a way as to give greater emphasis to the fight against harder drugs; this could be done either by setting a target for harder drugs alone, or by setting a separate sub-target for harder drugs within the overall target.

But we think MDT is actually an unhelpful measure - and certainly an unhelpful target. We would rather see the introduction of 'prevalence testing', with a much greater proportion of prisoners tested. Changing the system will require political will because naturally politicians tend to like measures which show that progress is being made (even if the reality is somewhat different).

Q. According to your latest report 21.5% of prisoners have used heroin in prison. If methadone treatment is reduced do you not think there will be an increase in HIV rates in prison considering prisoners have no access to clean needles?

A. No - heroin is smoked in prisons; prisoners don't have access to needles and this is not the way HIV is transmitted in prison. 

Q. According to the report up to 55% of new receptions in prison are problematic drug users ((PDU), the majority of whom are serving sentences of less than 12 months. Is this the most effective policy in addressing the problem of acquisitive crime caused by people with drug dependency issues?

A. No-one would pretend that it is hugely effective - the re-offending rates of short-sentenced, addicted prisoners demonstrate that. But at the moment, there is often little alternative for sentencers; most of this group have a string of previous convictions, have reoffended while on community sentences, haven't responded to drug treatment in the community and are still using drugs and offending to feed their habits. All a short prison sentence does is give the community some respite and give the individual a chance to have a break from their normally chaotic lives.  Until you change what happens in the community and give these people the wraparound services they require, sentencers won't have the confidence to keep using non-custodial sentences.

Q. Do you think that if used effectively methadone could still fulfil an important role in drug treatment within the prison system?

A. Yes - our report doesn't say that methadone shouldn't be part of the approach - merely that it has become the default option and that needs to change. What is clear is that there is no good reason for inmates sentenced to more than 6 months imprisonment (of which they will serve 13 weeks or less) to be maintained on methadone as they would be in the community - it must only take place in the most exceptional of circumstances.