The Greens are under fire with Marama Davidson doubling down on her desire to work with the mob to get positive health outcomes. First there was the photo in the mob headquarters, cha ching, look at us, woo hoo! That was the Greens and Te Pāti Māori MPs popping along to a health hui.  

And when asked about that in faintly judgy tones by the media, Greens co leader Marama Davidson said, "We are open to funding the Mongrel Mob to deliver drug prevention programs. We're open to funding what works. We're an evidence-based party."  And that instead of pushing problems under the carpet, they want to bring problems out into the light, get to the people who are hard to reach, and if that means working with the mob, well, all well and good.  

They have got the receipts already, we will support more of that work. But have they? The thing with receiving government money for pet projects and worthy community initiatives is that you have to show you get results, measured in hard data, before you can get any more dosh. And when it comes to drug rehabilitation and trying to rehabilitate people who are not part of the mainstream, sure, try something different. 

But Labour has tried. Under Jacinda Ardern, they funded the Harry Tam marae-based rehab program for gang members. Harry Tam's a lifelong Mongrel Mob member. The money didn't come from the taxpayer's pocket per se, it came from the Proceeds of Crime Fund, which seemed perverse to critics but logical to supporters: use gang money to rehabilitate gang members.  

But the whole thing boils down to whether or not it worked. And the answer is: who would know? There were 80 participants across nine intakes who went through an eight-week live-in program at Waipawa, followed by two weeks of reintegration and then wrap around support services for six weeks. All of the intakes were drug tested at the beginning, almost all of them testing positive for meth. The program was addiction treatment, then cultural immersion to build self-worth, physical activity programs, and help towards the end of the program with welfare applications, writing CVs and applying for driver's licenses or training courses to make you more employable. 

All very well and good and marvellous, but did it work? Did the graduates kick the meth? Again, who would know? To quote from Derek Cheng's story in the Herald, "an exact figure is not possible from the reports, as only some of them include data for the post program checks, while others have the data redacted." Available data shows that some relapsed at some point, while a minority were using methamphetamine regularly after the program, and this data is caveated as mostly self-reported." And that's the thing, Lynn, as Tom Sainsbury would say. You cannot self-report and rely on anecdotal evidence and reckons if you want more money from the government. You don't get that when you're dealing with the government. They want to know that if they're putting in money, there is a set of measures, there's a set of outcomes, and you have to tick a certain number of them before you can get the money.  

You'll know that if you're working in a not for profit or a community initiative or a community organization. Trying to get funding is really, really difficult, and you have to show that your program works. I feel much the same way about the boot camps.  If they're not working, can them. I don't expect a 100% success rate. You simply won't get that when you're dealing with drug addiction, nor will you get that with lawless kids.  I'm not asking for 100%. You do need a bit more than "it felt really good to talk with the brothers" from the participants. An early evaluation of the program after the first two intakes found of the 22 people who had completed the program, two thirds still used meth, although most said they used less than they used to. 

On the positive side, 65% of those participants self-reported an improvement in their physical health between week one and week eight of the course. Cool. Healthier, fitter, stronger gangsters. And of the 22 unemployed participants who attended the first two intakes, 10 had since found employment of some kind, although whether they're still in employment, who would know.  

Now, if Harry Tam was doing all this through private funders and sponsors, great. Go for it. Show them and see if they want to keep funding the rehab program. If the mob wants to put its members through a rehab program and pay the going rate for a place in a rehab centre for each of the lads, again, go for it. None of our business, good luck, I wish you the best of British. But as every worthy organization reliant on public money needs to know, before we show you the money, you need to show us we're going to get value for it. When Marama Davidson says, hey, we're an evidence-based party," on that level, Harry Tam's rehab program fails. 

The Greens are under fire with Marama Davidson doubling down on her desire to work with the mob to get positive health outcomes. First there was the photo in the mob headquarters, cha ching, look at us, woo hoo! That was the Greens and Te Pāti Māori MPs popping along to a health hui. &nbsp;
And when asked about that in faintly judgy tones by the media, Greens co leader Marama Davidson said, "We are open to funding the Mongrel Mob to deliver drug prevention programs. We're open to funding what works. We're an evidence-based party." &nbsp;And that instead of pushing problems under the carpet, they want to bring problems out into the light, get to the people who are hard to reach, and if that means working with the mob, well, all well and good. &nbsp;
They have got the receipts already, we will support more of that work. But have they? The thing with receiving government money for pet projects and worthy community initiatives is that you have to show you get results, measured in hard data, before you can get any more dosh. And when it comes to drug rehabilitation and trying to rehabilitate people who are not part of the mainstream, sure, try something different.&nbsp;
But Labour has tried. Under Jacinda Ardern, they funded the Harry Tam marae-based rehab program for gang members. Harry Tam's a lifelong Mongrel Mob member. The money didn't come from the taxpayer's pocket per se, it came from the Proceeds of Crime Fund, which seemed perverse to critics but logical to supporters: use gang money to rehabilitate gang members. &nbsp;
But the whole thing boils down to whether or not it worked. And the answer is: who would know? There were 80 participants across nine intakes who went through an eight-week live-in program at Waipawa, followed by two weeks of reintegration and then wrap around support services for six weeks. All of the intakes were drug tested at the beginning, almost all of them testing positive for meth. The program was addiction treatment, then cultural immersion to build self-worth, physical activity programs, and help towards the end of the program with welfare applications, writing CVs and applying for driver's licenses or training courses to make you more employable.&nbsp;
All very well and good and marvellous, but did it work? Did the graduates kick the meth? Again, who would know? To quote from Derek Cheng's story in the Herald, "an exact figure is not possible from the reports, as only some of them include data for the post program checks, while others have the data redacted." Available data shows that some relapsed at some point, while a minority were using methamphetamine regularly after the program, and this data is caveated as mostly self-reported." And that's the thing, Lynn, as Tom Sainsbury would say. You cannot self-report and rely on anecdotal evidence and reckons if you want more money from the government. You don't get that when you're dealing with the government. They want to know that if they're putting in money, there is a set of measures, there's a set of outcomes, and you have to tick a certain number of them before you can get the money. &nbsp;
You'll know that if you're working in a not for profit or a community initiative or a community organization. Trying to get funding is really, really difficult, and you have to show that your program works. I feel much the same way about the boot camps. &nbsp;If they're not working, can them. I don't expect a 100% success rate. You simply won't get that when you're dealing with drug addiction, nor will you get that with lawless kids. &nbsp;I'm not asking for 100%. You do need a bit more than "it felt really good to talk with the brothers" from the participants. An early evaluation of the program after the first two intakes found of the 22 people who had completed the program, two thirds still used meth, although most said they used less than they used to.&nbsp;
On the positive side, 65% of those participants self-reported an improvement in their physical health between week one and week eight of the course. Cool. Healthier, fitter, stronger gangsters. And of the 22 unemployed participants who attended the first two intakes, 10 had since found employment of some kind, although whether they're still in employment, who would know. &nbsp;
Now, if Harry Tam was doing all this through private funders and sponsors, great. Go for it. Show them and see if they want to keep funding the rehab program. If the mob wants to put its members through a rehab program and pay the going rate for a place in a rehab centre for each of the lads, again, go for it. None of our business, good luck, I wish you the best of British. But as every worthy organization reliant on public money needs to know, before we show you the money, you need to show us we're going to get value for it. When Marama Davidson says, hey, we're an evidence-based party," on that level, Harry Tam's rehab program fails.&nbsp;

Join Kerre Woodham one of New Zealand’s best loved personalities as she dishes up a bold, sharp and energetic show Monday to Friday 9am-12md on Newstalk ZB. News, opinion, analysis, lifestyle and entertainment – we’ve got your morning listening covered.

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Kerre Woodham: Government gang rehab programmes need to show us their value

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/9b11f160-c57d-47a1-b11f-b4e50008d859/transcript