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.
1. Levels of awareness of FRANK service and advertising.
2. Levels of Stakeholder Satisfaction.
3. Perceptions of drug usersso that users
are not seen as aspirational.
4. Perceptions of the risk of drugsso
that more people perceive drugs as a significant risk.
5. Drug Normsso that taking drugs is not
seen as the norm.
6. Resistance skillsso 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"
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
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.
SEARCHES OF PERSONS OR VEHICLES UNDER SECTION
1 OF THE POLICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1984 AND OTHER LEGISLATION1
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
18 December 2007
EVALUATIONS OF THE FRANK CAMPAIGN
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
89% of young people recognised a FRANK advert
(94% of 15-18 year olds) and 79% of parentsthe highest
83% of young people are aware of the helpline
and 54% aware of the website and 69% of parents aware of the helplinethe
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
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 oldsfrom 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
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;
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
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.
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
This was a quantitative survey that ran on the talktofrank.com
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.
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.
Awareness of the campaign online rose from 21%
Prompted recognition of tafktofrank.com 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.