Working with young people: A profile of projects funded by the Partnership Drugs Initiative
Chapter 1: Introduction
This report provides interim findings from an evaluation of projects funded by the Partnership Drugs Initiative (PDI) to work with young people. The research was funded as part of the Scottish Executive's Drug Misuse Research programme. The report describes the work of 17 projects funded in 2001. The final report in 2005 will present results from a process and outcome evaluation of a selection of these projects.
The PDI (involving Lloyds TSB Foundation for Scotland, Atlantic Philanthropies - a U.S. based charitable trust - and the Scottish Executive) was launched in Scotland in April 2001 to support voluntary sector work targeted at three groups:
children and young people in families where parents are misusing drugs
preteen children who are at high risk of developing patterns of problem substance misuse and
young people who have already developed a pattern of problem drug use.
By the end of 2003 the PDI had funded 52 projects across Scotland.
The focus upon these three groups is highly topical within Scotland. For example, the Scottish Executive has recently published the Getting Our Priorities Right guidance (Scottish Executive 2003) for services working with families affected by parental drug and alcohol misuse. In addition the Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs has just released its report Hidden Harm (ACMD 2003) on the impact of parental drug use on children. Both of these reports have highlighted the importance of meeting the needs of children in drug using families.
It has been estimated that there may be between 40,000 and 60,000 children in Scotland with one or both parents with a serious drug problem and between 80,000 and 100,000 whose parents have a serious alcohol problem (Scottish Executive 2003). Recent research has highlighted the multiple ways in which parental drug use can have a profoundly destabilising impact upon virtually every aspect of children's lives including their development, their relationships with parents and peers, their education and their self esteem (Barnard 1999, 2003, Barnard and Barlow 2003, Barnard and McKeganey 2004).
Research has shown that in some parts of Scotland between 6 and 10 percent of 10 to 12 year olds may have started to use illegal drugs (McKeganey and Norrie 1999, McKeganey et al 2004). Although most of the illegal drug use identified involves cannabis, in a very small proportion of cases children between 10 and 12 have started to use heroin. Research carried out with a representative sample of 10 to 12 year olds in state schools in Glasgow estimated that there may be as many as 60 children in this age range in the city who have already used heroin (McKeganey et al 2004). This research also estimated that around a third of children aged 10 to 12 have been exposed to illegal drugs, either in the sense of having been offered them or of having been in situations in which they were being used (McIntosh et al 2003). The importance of meeting the needs of preteen and teenage drug users has been highlighted in research from the United States which has shown that an early age of onset of drug use is one of the strongest predictors of the development of longer term drug problems (Kandel and Yamaguchi 1993).
Collectively, this research and these policy statements have underlined the importance of meeting the needs of young people affected by their own and others' drug use.
The research described here builds upon a series of EIU reports which present evidence of effective working in relation to young people and substance misuse. These reports include: Integrated Care for Drug Users: Principles and Practice (EIU 2002); Drug Treatment for Young People: A Research Review (EIU 2002); and, Services for Young People with Problematic Drug Misuse: A Guide to Principles in Practice (EIU 2002). Collectively these reviews have identified the importance of developing services that are appropriate for young people and which avoid a narrow focus on illegal drugs in working with them.
In this report we describe the work of projects within the PDI, including their success in contacting clients, the views and experiences of staff, the source of referrals to projects and the links the projects have established with other agencies in their area. The final report of this research will look at the impact of a selection of PDI projects on client outcomes.
Methods
For the descriptive profiling, the following methods were used: analysis of key documents, quantitative analysis of project databases, and qualitative interviewing of agency staff.
We reviewed all of the original applications for funding submitted to the PDI. We also reviewed the routine monitoring information which projects submitted to the PDI as part of their funding requirements as well as the records of additional contacts between projects and the funding body.
It was clearly important in this stage of our evaluation to obtain information on the number of clients projects had managed to contact and work with. Projects were initially contacted to seek their views on whether they would prefer the research team to extract the relevant data from their records or whether they themselves would prefer to provide the team with the information that was required. Since most projects preferred the latter the research team developed a standard pro-forma which agencies were asked to complete for all clients, both current and previous. This form sought information in each of the following areas:
Date of birth.
Sex.
Ethnicity.
Disability.
First contact (Date).
Last contact (Date).
Source of referral.
Services received.
All but three of the 17 projects provided the research team with this information. In the case of two agencies, it was possible to undertake interviews with project staff but not to obtain the statistical data. A further project did not have any clients when the research team undertook the interviews.
To obtain detailed information on the experiences of staff working within the PDI, semi-structured interviews were undertaken with staff in all 17 of the profiled agencies. These interviews encompassed both management positions and front line workers within the projects. In total 76 interviews were carried out with project staff. In these interviews staff were asked to talk in detail about the following areas of their work: the aims of the interventions, their client group, their use of assessment tools, consistency between the approaches used now compared with those proposed in the original application for funding, their caseloads, staff recruitment and support, referral routes, arrangements for monitoring and evaluation, relations with the host agency, links with partner agencies, and any wider impacts upon the project. All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. Following the period of fieldwork within each agency the research team prepared a detailed profile report. The present report is based upon an analysis of those profiles and the various documents associated with each agency, together with the statistical information the agencies provided to the research team.