Select Committee on Home Affairs Minutes of Evidence

Supplementary memorandum submitted by the Home Office

  When I appeared before the Committee on 4 December there were a small number of matters on which I promised to provide further information. I enclose the below; response in fulfilment of the commitments I gave.


  Margaret Moran MP asked about how we have evaluated the FRANK Campaign Question 19). The Frank campaign is robustly and regularly evaluated for effectiveness and has a range of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to track and evaluate its performance. They are monitored through a number of performance management measures including a nationally representative campaign tracking survey, a stakeholder satisfaction survey and helpline, website and online stats.

  KPIs include:

    1. Levels of awareness of FRANK service and advertising.

    2. Levels of Stakeholder Satisfaction.

    3. Perceptions of drug users—so that users are not seen as aspirational.

    4. Perceptions of the risk of drugs—so that more people perceive drugs as a significant risk.

    5. Drug Norms—so that taking drugs is not seen as the norm.

    6. Resistance skills—so that more people feel comfortable saying "no" to drugs if they want to.

  I attach at Annex A more detail on the various evaluations of the campaign and the accompanying findings.


  Margaret Moran MP also asked about private sector involvement in drug treatment and the regulation of those services (Question 20). The Government no longer holds or allocates drug treatment funds centrally. They are directly allocated to drug treatment providers by Drug Action Teams (DATs) partnerships on the basis of local needs assessments. Therefore, local DATs partnerships are responsible for ensuring that services are in place to meet the demand for treatment and operate to appropriate standards.

  Each DAT partnership is monitored and performance managed by the National Treatment Agency (NTA), which is a Special Health Authority responsible to the Department of Health.

  The NTA ensures that each local DAT partnerships plans and oversee the commissioning of all drug treatment services for drug users in their area. It is the responsibility of each DAT partnership to ensure that as part of its routine commissioning cycle and drug treatment planning process that commissioners should check whether providers, including private sector providers, can be registered with either the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) or the Health Care Commission (HCC). If this is not possible, then DAT partnerships should ensure that some form of external regulation is in place eg Supporting People Quality Assessment Framework (QAF) or an independent accreditation scheme.

  CSCI currently has the remit to inspect and regulate individual establishments, agencies and institutions for which registration as care homes is required. The standards specifically apply to care homes for people with alcohol or substance misuse problems and cover choice of home, individual needs and choices, lifestyle, personal and healthcare support, concerns, complaints and protection, environment, staffing, and conduct and management of the home. They also specify the national occupational standards for staff. In order to meet registration criteria, staff and managers are required to have relevant TOPSS NVQ qualifications, or demonstrate they are working towards them.

  If the drug treatment service offered is detoxification, then the provider may also be registered as a care home with nursing by CSCI. Alternatively, if the provider is an independent hospital then the provider will be registered with the Healthcare Commission (HCC). Inspection reports can be obtained from the CSCI or HCC websites. These reports provide information on the quality of certain aspects of care, such as care planning and assessments, as well as premises and staffing.

  The regulation of drug treatment services is included in the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse's recent guidance document "Improving the quality and provision of Tier 4 services as part of client treatment journeys" (June 2007).


  David Davies MP asked about stop and search powers (Question 29). The exercise of the powers to search an individual are based on reasonable grounds to suspect that the person is carrying stolen or prohibited articles. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984 and the associated PACE Code of Practice A makes clear that that the exercise of these powers must be based on reasonable suspicion. That suspicion cannot be based on generalisations or stereotypical images of certain groups or categories of people as being more likely to be involved in criminal activity. The only exceptions in relation to the individual exist under section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order 1994 in relation to powers to stop and search in relation to violence and under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

  Mr Davies referred to cases where a person has been stopped in connection with a "minor" offence. But it is not the nature of the offence which is the issue here; it is rather whether a constable considers that the person may be carrying stolen or prohibited articles. If so, he or she may search that person. The threshold of reasonable suspicion seeks to provide a proportionate response and is set down by Parliament.

  A constable may search a person arrested under section 32 of PACE. In order to exercise those powers, a constable must have reasonable grounds for believing that the person to be searched may present a danger to himself or others or may have concealed on him anything which he might use to escape from lawful custody or which might be evidence of an offence. The powers are exercisable when the officer considers that there are sufficient grounds to arrest the person and that the search criteria would be met.

  Karen Buck MP helpfully suggested that I should provide statistics on stop and search. The table below shows the figures from 1996-97 to date.

1998-991,080, 700

1 Source:   Table PA Statistical Bulletin: Arrests for Recorded Crime (Notifiable Offences) and the Operation of Certain Police Powers under PACE, England and Wales 2005-06. Published by Ministry of Justice/Office of Criminal Justice Reform October 2007:

18 December 2007

Annex A



Description of research:

  An annual quantitative study is conducted and used to measure the effectiveness of the campaign (including many of the KPIs), and the advertising in particular.

  1,022 young people aged 11-21, and 471 parents of 11-18s were interviewed in March 2007. The sample is randomly selected and has been weighted to be nationally representative (England only).

Key findings

    —  89% of young people recognised a FRANK advert (94% of 15-18 year olds) and 79% of parents—the highest ever levels.

    —  83% of young people are aware of the helpline and 54% aware of the website and 69% of parents aware of the helpline—the highest ever levels.

    —  86% of young people trust FRANK "a great deal" (49%) or "fair amount" (37%) to provide them with reliable information and 78% trust FRANK to give them both sides of the story.

    —  70% of young people are "very" (22%) or "quite likely" (48%) to call FRANK if needed information in the future. Once again the highest ever levels.

    —  81% of young people would recommend FRANK to friends.

Performance of "Brain Warehouse" cannabis campaign

    —  69% of young people recognised the Brain Warehouse TV advert.

    —  54% spontaneously said the core message of the TV advert was that "cannabis affects your brain" and 34% said "cannabis messes with your mind".

    —  Number of young people agreeing it was "very likely" that cannabis will damage the mind of someone using it went up from 45% in 2006 to 57% in 2007. This was even more marked amongst 15-18 year olds—from 45% in 2006 to 61% in 2007. This shows a massive shift in the perception of risk which we know is linked to drug-taking behaviour.


Description of research:

  A regular quantitative study used to measure the effectiveness of the stakeholder engagement part of the FRANK campaign. Stakeholders include frontline workers from health, education, treatment and criminal justice sectors.

  256 telephone interviews were carried out in March 2007 with a cross-section of stakeholders and local organisers throughout England.

Key findings:

    —  93% of FRANK stakeholders are "very" (41%) or "fairly" (52%) satisfied with FRANK and the support they receive, stating reasons including:

      —  comprehensive FRANK service;

      —  good quality and free publications;

      —  strong brand;

      —  positive client feedback; and

      —  excellent "street marketing".

    —  60% are using FRANK in their local activities with an average of 83% saying it had been successful.

    —  79% would recommend the FRANK helpline to a client and 94% would recommend the website.

    —  85% aware of FRANK advertising and 76% think it's effective.

    —  91% think there's no need for any improvement to the customer service they receive from FRANK.


  The FRANK campaign (via local stakeholders) uses young people (street marketers) to communicate important drug messages to vulnerable young people where face to face and interactive communications are much more effective than traditional broadcast communication. To help engage the vulnerable young people in a discussion about drugs, the street marketers are given a range of FRANK branded merchandise such as scratch cards, badges and dog tags to give out. The young "ambassadors are visible in town centres, youth centres and areas where their peers "hang out".

  Feedback from the street marketing activity in 2006107 was through completed questionnaires with the stakeholders involved.

Key findings:

    —  Peer-to-peer activity in 43 High Focus Areas involving 526 young volunteers over 143 days.

    —  Around 479,000 FRANK branded items were distributed.

    —  81% of stakeholders taking part were satisfied with the activity.

    —  64% believed it had helped to raise awareness of FRANK to vulnerable young people.


  124 calls made to the helpline, including young people aged 16-19yrs, adults acting as parents, and clients from drug treatment agencies. Calls covered 23 different scenarios.

    —  83% of callers saying it was "very" (67%) or fairly (16%) easy to get through to a FRANK adviser.

    —  57% of callers say their experience was "very" (25%) or fairly (32%) good.

    —  However 19% of callers said the experience was "very" (8%) or "fairly" (11%) poor.

    —  Encouragingly 68% of callers do say they would be "very" (35%) or "fairly" (33%) likely to call FRANK again.

  —  69% would recommend calling FRANK to someone else.


  This was a quantitative survey that ran on the website during April 2007. Website users were asked to fill in an online survey when they visited the site. Data was collected from young people (across the age range 11-24), parents and stakeholders. Over 1,000 online questionnaires were completed.

Key findings:

    —  67% of visitors are aged between 11-18 yrs with the vast majority accessing the site from home with an average repeat visit rate of 4.2 times.

    —  On average, 63% of 11-24 yrs say that the website is "excellent" (22%) or "very good" (41%) Way above the UK government average of 50%.

    —  As a result of visiting the website 30% of 11-15 yrs would say no if they were offered drugs. The figures falls to 13% for 16-18's and 19-24's.

Online Advertising:

    —  Awareness of the campaign online rose from 21% to 35%.

    —  Prompted recognition of rose from 24% (pre-campaign) to 51% (post campaign).

    —  Over 400 million impressions (the opportunity for someone to see an ad) generated nearly 900,000 clicks and 13.8million interactions (the number of people who engaged 1 interacted with the ad).

    —  On average each 11-18 year old in the UK saw 9 ads each month.

  As well as the research and surveys we also monitor the activity of the helpline and website, tracking levels of use and trends. A clear picture emerges between advertising and PR activity and increased calls to the helpline and visits to the website.

previous page contents

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2008
Prepared 24 January 2008