Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the Home Office
Has the Government carried out a thorough evaluation
of the FRANK anti-drugs campaign? Do you have any evidence that
it has been effective with those who have actually tried cocaine
or currently use it, as opposed to those who were unlikely to
have taken it anyway?
We know that prevention activity—drugs
education and information campaigns such as FRANK—can be
successful in reinforcing negative attitudes to drugs and drug
use, and thereby preventing experimentation and strengthening
young people's resistance to drugs.
The FRANK service aims to provide honest, reliable,
credible and impartial information about drugs and, as such, it
targets both existing users and non-users. There is a facility,
through the FRANK online and telephone helpline service, for referral
for further sources of support, and it therefore provides help
to those who are already taking drugs and are concerned about
their drug use. In 2008-09, 24% of calls to the FRANK helpline
related to cocaine and, of those, 13% were referred to Cocaine
Anonymous. Due to the need to protect callers' confidentiality
there is no information on the outcomes of any such referrals.
The campaign is not targeted at those who have
more entrenched drug use, but there are very few such users in
the age groups that comprise the target audience. The campaign
is most effective with those who are considering drug use, or
who are "dabbling" in drug use.
It is not possible to establish an economic
value for the impact of the service, as this would require that
we conduct large-scale and costly longitudinal research that would
need to make use of a control group who would not receive the
information and advice provided by such a service. The cost and
ethical issues would preclude us from carrying out such research.
Whilst there is no evidence available about
the impact that FRANK has on behaviour, there is much evidence
that gives us an indication of the impact that FRANK has on attitudes
and awareness. For example, FRANK audience research is conducted
for each discrete campaign and for the FRANK service overall.
Following the first stage of the recent FRANK "Pablo"
cocaine campaign, a survey of 300 young people in the target
audience showed that:
— 88% believed what the ads were saying;
— 60% agreed that cocaine was very likely
to damage health;
— 67% agreed that the ads made them realise
cocaine was more risky than they thought; and
— 62% said the campaign made them less
likely to take cocaine in the future.
Among those who had direct experience of cocaine,
46% agreed that the ads made them realise cocaine was more risky
than they had thought, and 46% also claimed that the ads had made
them less likely to take cocaine in the future. However, as only
35 of the respondents had had any experience with cocaine,
we should be careful not to draw firm conclusions from these results.
How can you demonstrate that disrupting the illegal
supply of cocaine is as much a priority for the UKBA as it was
under HMRC? Surely it is impossible to maintain the focus on goods,
when UKBA overall remains preoccupied with people?
UKBA has taken on the responsibility previously
held by HMRC for the Government's drug strategy commitment to
maintain strong border controls and to tackle the smuggling of
Class A drugs. As a result, UKBA have inherited the following
drug-specific targets for the duration of the current PSAs:
— to make 1,200 seizures of cocaine
a year, totalling 2,400kg;
— to make 70 seizures of heroin a
year, totalling 550kg;
— to meet 98% of SOCA taskings for interdiction;
and
— to meet 96% of requests for assistance
from SOCA.
Tackling the smuggling of heroin and cocaine
therefore remains one of the Agency's top priorities. Bringing
together HMRC Detection and the Border and Immigration Agency
has provided UKBA with an opportunity to create a larger and more
integrated work force, and this will improve the depth and breadth
of protection at the border. Over time, UKBA will deploy a larger
number of staff with a wider range of capabilities to improve
coverage and enhance effectiveness. Currently, all the former
HMRC Detection staff and, increasingly, former Immigration staff,
are carrying out anti-smuggling work at most ports and airports.
On residential treatment:
(a) How many residential treatment places
are available through the NHS for cocaine users?
No residential places are reserved exclusively
for cocaine users, since treatment focuses on the user rather
than the substance. It is also important to appreciate that the
type and duration of treatment will depend on the severity of
the problem, and residential treatment is not suitable for everyone.
In June, the National Treatment Agency (NTA)
announced that an extra £11.8 million was to be invested
in drug treatment. Around a quarter of the additional funds (£2.9 million)
was for residential rehabilitation services to allow them to provide
new beds and resource upgrades and refurbishment of their facilities.
The remaining £8.9 million was allocated following a
bidding process to support improvements in treatment services
in residential, community and prison settings, including young
people's services
(b) How many residential treatment places
are available through the NHS for poly-drug users where one drug
is cocaine?
There are about 200 providers of residential
and in-patient treatment in England, many of them voluntary sector
organisations, but there is no comprehensive list of all available
provision, as some services choose not to provide information
to the NTA on their provision. Information on those services opting
to be included is held in the NTA's national online directory,
which is updated using information sent in by the services. There
are currently over 120 residential services listed with a
total of 2,565 beds in England. Most of the beds are available
for drug or alcohol rehabilitation and therefore cannot be disaggregated.
As some services have chosen not to appear in
the directory, the total number of places will be greater than
this.
The National Drug Treatment Monitoring System
recorded 9,274 clients in inpatient detoxification and 4,673 in
residential rehabilitation in 2008-09, but acknowledged that about
one-third of providers do not submit returns, and some clients
may receive a variety of different interventions over time.
(c) What is the waiting list for a residential
treatment place?
Waiting times for drug treatment fell from over
nine weeks in 2001 to under three weeks now, with most clients
being seen within a week.
The latest figures show that 77% of people accessed
residential rehabilitation in three weeks or less (up from 67%
in 2006-07).
(d) The Minister mentioned evidence that cocaine
users don't always benefit from residential treatment—what
is this evidence?
The National Institute for Clinical Excellence
(NICE) recommends that the most appropriate treatment for cocaine
is psychosocial interventions, which do not require a residential
setting, and the evidence for the success of these talking therapies
is very encouraging.
NICE said in 2007: "Residential treatment
may be considered for people who are seeking abstinence and who
have significant comorbid physical, mental health or social (for
example, housing) problems. The person should have completed a
residential or inpatient detoxification programme and have not
benefited from previous community-based psychosocial treatment."
The Minister promised to write on the breakdown
of proportions of assets seized under POCA 2002 which go
to the Home Office, to HM Treasury and to other agencies.
The distribution arrangements of assets recovered
under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 have been subject to
change over the years. Since 2006-07, the position has been that
50% effectively returns to the Home Office and is included in
the Home Office budget. (The mechanics are that all the recovered
asset receipts are sent to the Home Office. The Home Office then
distributes 50% to the qualifying agencies, and returns 50% to
the Consolidated Fund. The latter is then made part of the Home
Office's financial settlement for the year from the Treasury).
In 2008-09, the distribution of all recovered
asset receipts was as follows:
|
| Amount
| Proportion |
|
| Home Office | £70.70m
| 50% |
| Police Service | £23.87m
| 17% |
| Crown prosecution Service | £10.60m
| 7.5% |
| HM Courts Service | £10.41m
| 7% |
| HM Revenue and Customs | £9.15m
| 6.5% |
| Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office |
£3.69m | 3%
|
| Serious Organised Crime Agency | £6.86m
| 5% |
| Other Government Departments (DWP, BIS, SFO, OFT, etc.)
| £3.59m | 2.5%
|
| Local authorities in England and Wales |
£0.85m | 0.5%
|
| Northern Ireland Agencies | £1.68m
| 1% |
| TOTAL | £141.40m
| 100% |
|
| January 2010 |
| 
