TIME TO GET IT SORTED:
THE POLITICS OF INEFFECTIVE
DRUG EDUCATION IN THE UK
__________________________________
ZOË VICTORIA LANCELOTT
MASTER OF PHILOSOPHY
2011
1
2
Acknowledgements
The author would like to acknowledge the individuals without whose patience,
support and advice, this would not have been possible.
Thanks to Professor David Turner, Dr Martin Graff, Professor Chris James and
especially Dr Peter Mayer for their professional advice, guidance and support
and their much appreciated company.
Thanks to Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council for their financial
support for this study and their ongoing commitment to the provision of
substance misuse education. And to Steve Lamb, who first mentioned ‘PhD’.
Grateful thanks to the members, past and present, of the ‘Get Sorted’ team for
trusting my non-conventional approach and ideas, their belief in and
commitment to the project and their ability to persist and succeed in the face of
challenge.
Special thanks to Victoria Jenkins, Ceri Watts and Dafydd Baker for their
professional and personal insights and their willingness to explore with me the
darker recesses of my mind in order to find out exactly why we do the jobs we
do. To Ian Cole for maintaining my motivation during the write up stage and
Victoria Jenkins for teaching me the true value of the apostrophe. Heartfelt
thanks to Josie Rhisiart for her computer genius, unconditional friendship and
keen proof reading eye and Shelley Davies for regularly helping me to find the
funny side of things.
Thanks to my family for their tremendous support including proof reading;
boosting my confidence when it all seemed too much; and for babysitting my
husband and son and separately housing my laptop and me, so that I could
write.
And eternal thanks to my long suffering husband Dan, without whose love,
encouragement and never-ending support I wouldn’t be. And to my son Dylan,
who has given me a truly unique perspective on life, the universe and the
question ‘why?’. I promise we’re going to Legoland now, bach.
For Dan and Dylan, and now Ffia, in memory of the last 7 years of our lives……
3
Abstract
This study examines the reasons behind the ongoing delivery of ‘ineffective’
school-based substance misuse education in the UK (ACMD, 2006). Historical
documentary analysis explores the development of substance misuse education
policy, and documents the issues surrounding attempts to measure the
effectiveness of subsequent practice over the last 30 years. The research also
evaluates the impact of the ‘Get Sorted’ project in establishing an infrastructure at
a local authority level to co-ordinate a range of approaches to the delivery of
substance misuse education within Rhondda Cynon Taf. The creation of the ‘Get
Sorted’ project was informed by the findings of the documentary analysis and is
concerned with reducing the practical limitations faced by educators in order to
support them to improve the effectiveness of the education they deliver.
The research makes use of three sources of evidence; documentary analysis
findings, quantitative data collected to meet the practical monitoring requirements
of the ‘Get Sorted’ project, and qualitative research data collected to evaluate the
impact of the ‘Get Sorted’ project. The analytical strategy combines the data
derived from these three data sets through the application of Stake’s
Countenance Theory of Educational Evaluation (1967).
The findings of the study demonstrate a conflict between the ‘prevention’ and
‘harm reduction’ approaches to substance misuse education. The assumptions
that underpin these paradigms are analysed in conjunction with Burrell and
Morgan’s (1979) subjective-objective dimension of assumptions, offering an
original contribution to the debate about the efficacy of substance misuse
education. The criteria used to define the ‘success’ of education programmes are
shown to be unrealistic and not governed by evidence. This study shows that
shifting the focus from measuring the effectiveness of individual programmes to
the creation of a local authority infrastructure promotes collaboration between
providers, improving the effectiveness of the education they deliver. Establishing
an infrastructure, the ‘Get Sorted’ project has improved communication between
practitioners and policy makers; implemented a consistent approach to the
delivery of substance misuse education across a range of education providers
and programmes; and ensured practice was informed by research.
4
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................3
Abstract
..............................................................................................................4
Table of Contents.....................................................................................................5
List of Tables..........................................................................................................14
List of Figures ........................................................................................................15
Chapter 1: Overview ..............................................................................................17
1.1 Introduction ...........................................................................................17
1.2 Background to study..............................................................................17
1.2.1 Documentary Analysis .............................................................19
1.2.2 Evaluation of the ‘Get Sorted’ Project ......................................20
1.3 Context ..................................................................................................22
1.4 Structure of thesis .................................................................................23
1.5 Chapter summary ..................................................................................27
Chapter 2. Rationale for Methodology and Analytic Approach ...............................28
2.1 Introduction ...........................................................................................28
2.2 Rationale for the choice of methodology ...............................................30
2.2.1 Data set one: historical documentary analysis – rationale for
methodology ..........................................................................30
2.2.2 Data set two: project related data – rationale for methodology 33
2.2.3 Data set three: evaluative research data – rationale for
methodology ..........................................................................36
2.3 Rationale for analytic approach .............................................................40
2.3.1 Analysis of the data corpus......................................................40
2.4 Stake’s Countenance Theory of Educational Evaluation (1967) ...........47
2.4.1 Application of Countenance Theory to this study.....................49
5
2.4.2 Presenting the findings of Stake’s (1967) analysis ..................51
2.5 Ethical considerations ...........................................................................55
2.6 Chapter summary ..................................................................................56
Chapter 3. ‘Government policy regarding drug education: development,
dissemination and debate.’..................................................................57
3.1 Introduction ...........................................................................................57
3.2 Methodology – data set one: documentary analysis .............................58
3.2.1 Data collection .........................................................................58
3.2.2 Data selection and analysis .....................................................60
3.3 Policy developments between 1985 – 1989 ..........................................62
3.3.1 Demand reduction through drug education .............................62
3.3.2 Limitations of primary prevention based policy ........................64
3.3.3 Mass media campaigns ...........................................................64
3.3.4 The effectiveness of mass media campaigning .......................66
3.4 Policy developments between 1990 – 1999 ..........................................67
3.4.1 Drug education in schools .......................................................69
3.4.2 ‘Tackling Drugs Together’ (1995) ............................................70
3.4.3 The role of practitioners in the development of policy guidance71
3.4.4 Recommendations for schools from the Department for
Education ...............................................................................71
3.4.5 Strategy implementation ..........................................................72
3.4.6 The situation in Wales – ‘Forward Together’ (1996) ................72
3.4.7 The UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator..............................................74
3.4.8 ‘Tackling Drugs to Build a Better Britain’ (1998) ......................75
3.5 Policy developments since 2000 ...........................................................76
3.5.1 ‘Tackling Substance Misuse in Wales: A Partnership
Approach’ (2000) ...................................................................76
6
3.5.2 ‘Tackling Drugs to Build a Better Britain’ Update (2002) ..........77
3.5.3 Review of drug education policy ..............................................78
3.5.4 ‘Working Together to Reduce Harm’ (2008) ............................83
3.5.5 ‘Drugs: Protecting Families and Communities’ (2008) .............84
3.5.6 Policy and the media ...............................................................85
3.6 Chapter summary ..................................................................................87
Chapter 4. ‘Approaches to drug education: practice, predominance and
problematics.’ ......................................................................................89
4.1 Introduction ...........................................................................................89
4.2 Methodology – data set one: documentary analysis .............................89
4.3 Types of drug education approaches ....................................................89
4.3.1 Overview of Information Based Approaches............................90
4.3.2 Overview of Life Skills and Values Deficit Approaches ............91
4.3.3 Overview of Resistance Training .............................................91
4.3.4 Overview of Alternatives Based Approaches ...........................93
4.3.5 Overview of Peer Education ....................................................93
4.4 Who should deliver drug education? .....................................................94
4.4.1 Delivery by teachers ................................................................94
4.4.2 The role of the police ...............................................................95
4.4.3 Parents as educators ...............................................................97
4.4.4 Partnership delivery .................................................................98
4.5 Effectiveness of drug education ............................................................99
4.6 Chapter summary ................................................................................104
Chapter 5. ‘The role and use of research in the provision of drug education:
existence, efficacy and evaluation.’ ...................................................107
5.1 Introduction .........................................................................................107
5.2 Methodology – data set one: documentary analysis ...........................108
7
5.3 Assumptions that underpin the prevention and harm reduction
paradigms .........................................................................................108
5.3.1 Assumptions within the prevention paradigm ........................109
5.3.2 Assumptions within the harm reduction paradigm .................110
5.3.3 Analysis of assumptions ........................................................112
5.3.4 The subjective-objective dimension of assumptions ..............113
5.4 Terminology ........................................................................................115
5.5 Modes of research within the prevention and educational intervention
paradigms .........................................................................................116
5.5.1 Quantitative methods in evaluating drug education ...............117
5.5.2 Qualitative methods in evaluating drug education .................118
5.6 The role and use of research in shaping policy and the provision of
drug education ..................................................................................121
5.6.1 Research within the political arena ........................................121
5.6.2 Research and drug education practice ..................................123
5.6.3 Challenges of evaluation .......................................................126
5.6.4 Evaluation within the health and educational agendas ..........127
5.7 Chapter summary ................................................................................128
Chapter 6. The ‘Get Sorted’ Project. ....................................................................130
6.1 Introduction .........................................................................................130
6.2 Background to the strategic responsibilities of local authorities in Wales131
6.3 Profile of Rhondda Cynon Taf .............................................................133
6.4 Strategic action in Rhondda Cynon Taf in 2002 ..................................136
6.5 The Development of the ‘Get Sorted’ Project in RCT ..........................137
6.6 Methodology – data set two: project related data ................................140
6.6.1 Initial consultation with schools..............................................141
6.6.2 Initial consultation with young people ....................................144
6.6.3 ‘Get Sorted’ entry and exit assessment questionnaires .........147
8
6.6.4 Substance misuse incidents in schools database..................150
6.6.5 ‘Get Sorted’ Project performance monitoring .........................151
6.6.6 Findings .................................................................................152
6.7 Key providers of substance misuse education in Rhondda Cynon Taf 152
6.8 Key drivers ..........................................................................................153
6.8.1 Financial implications ............................................................154
6.8.2 Stakeholder agendas .............................................................155
6.8.3 Political interest and environment ..........................................155
6.8.4 Good practice research .........................................................156
6.8.5 Identified local needs and pre-existing issues .......................157
6.8.6 Implementation of local strategy ............................................157
6.8.7 Existing and emerging national policy ...................................158
6.8.8 Existing capacity ....................................................................159
6.9 Chapter summary ................................................................................159
Chapter 7. Qualitative evaluation of the ‘Get Sorted’ project ...............................160
7.1 Introduction .........................................................................................160
7.2 Methodology – data set three: evaluative research data .....................160
7.2.1 Interviews with school staff ....................................................161
7.2.2 Interviews with stakeholders ..................................................167
7.2.3 Parent and pupil focus groups ...............................................171
7.3 Data analysis .......................................................................................175
7.3.1 Analysis of data set three ......................................................175
7.3.2 Analysis across the data corpus ............................................180
7.4 Presentation of findings .......................................................................188
7.5 Chapter summary ................................................................................189
Chapter 8. Stake’s (1967) Analysis Part One: The Description Matrix .................190
9
8.1 Introduction .........................................................................................190
8.2 Antecedents ........................................................................................191
8.2.1 Concern for the level of substance misuse ............................192
8.2.2 Sense that there was no clear-cut approach .........................192
8.2.3 Contentment with the status quo ...........................................192
8.2.4 Perceived lack of resources...................................................193
8.2.5 Lack of knowledge / confidence.............................................193
8.2.6 Denial of responsibility ...........................................................194
8.2.7 Perceived lack of parental support ........................................195
8.2.8 Level of pupils’ knowledge .....................................................195
8.3 Contingency ........................................................................................196
8.3.1 From antecedents to transactions .........................................196
8.3.2 From transactions to outcomes .............................................197
8.4 Partnership working.............................................................................197
8.5 Communication ...................................................................................203
8.6 Approach .............................................................................................211
8.7 Knowledge and confidence of educators.............................................219
8.8 Co-ordination and consistency ............................................................233
8.9 Policy and strategy ..............................................................................240
8.10 ‘Get Sorted’ as a Council resource ....................................................249
8.11 Chapter summary ..............................................................................255
Chapter 9. Stake’s (1967) Analysis Part Two: The Judgement Matrix .................257
9.1 Introduction .........................................................................................257
9.2 Standards ............................................................................................258
9.3 Partnership working.............................................................................260
9.4 Communication ...................................................................................262
10
9.5 Approach .............................................................................................265
9.6 Knowledge and confidence of educators.............................................266
9.7 Co-ordination and consistency ............................................................269
9.8 Policy and strategy ..............................................................................271
9.9 ‘Get Sorted’ as a Council resource ......................................................274
9.10 Chapter summary ..............................................................................277
Chapter 10. Discussion ........................................................................................279
10.1 Introduction .......................................................................................279
10.2 Research questions...........................................................................280
Documentary Analysis ....................................................................280
10.2.1 How has Government policy on drug education been
informed in the last 30 years? ..............................................280
10.2.2 What have been the predominant approaches to drug
education over the last three decades? ...............................281
10.2.3 How has drug education developed over the last 30 years?283
10.2.4 How has public perception and media coverage affected the
provision and content of drug education over the last 30
years? ..................................................................................284
Evaluation of the ‘Get Sorted’ Project .............................................285
10.2.5 Has the initiative improved communication between key
stakeholders regarding substance misuse education? ........286
10.2.6 Has the support for schools in the delivery of substance
misuse education improved? ...............................................287
10.2.7 Has the support for schools in the management of substance
misuse incidents improved?.................................................289
10.2.8 Has the initiative increased the confidence of teachers in
addressing the substance misuse education needs of pupils?291
10.2.9 Can the initiative as a model for cultural change be replicated
in other areas to address other issues faced by a local
authority? .............................................................................293
10.3 Methodological considerations ..........................................................296
11
10.4 Considerations for practitioner research............................................300
10.5 Considerations for substance misuse education ...............................304
10.6 Considerations for further research ...................................................309
10.7 Chapter summary ..............................................................................312
References ..........................................................................................................314
Appendix i: Critique of mass media campaigns ...................................................335
Appendix ii: DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) ......................................337
Appendix iii: Initial consultation with schools: Key findings ..................................343
Appendix iv: Stake’s Countenance Theory of Educational Evaluation (1967) ......346
Appendix v: School Consultation June/July 2003 ................................................351
Appendix vi: Initial consultation with young people: Key findings .........................353
Appendix vii: Entry Assessment Form .................................................................354
Appendix viii: Exit Assessment Form ...................................................................361
Appendix ix: Incident Recording Form .................................................................368
Appendix x: Participant Consent Form .................................................................370
Appendix xi: Parental Consent Form ...................................................................371
Appendix xii: Semi-structured interview questions for Head teachers..................372
Appendix xiii: Semi-structured interview questions for PSE teachers ..................373
Appendix xiv: Semi-structured interview questions for Stakeholders ...................374
Appendix xv: Focus group questions for parents .................................................375
Appendix xvi: Focus group questions for pupils ...................................................376
Appendix xvii: Data set three: Thematic Analysis themes and sub themes .........377
Appendix xviii: Approaches to drug education .....................................................379
Appendix xix: NACRO Report (2002) Key issues for substance misuse education387
Appendix xx: Key providers of substance misuse education and initiatives in
Rhondda Cynon Taf ..........................................................................388
12
Appendix xxi: Welsh Assembly Government Circular 17/02 ‘Substance Misuse:
Children and Young People’..............................................................393
Appendix xxii: Get Sorted Communication Strategy Action Plan .........................394
Appendix xxiii: RCT Harder To Reach Communication Strategy Action Plan ......398
Appendix xxiv: Incident Data ................................................................................400
Appendix xxv: Key Message For Substance Misuse Education...........................403
Appendix xxvi: Standards ....................................................................................405
Appendix xxvii: Key Partners of the ‘Get Sorted’ project ......................................418
Appendix xxviii: Recommendations from ‘Get Sorted’ Cabinet Report ................419
Appendix xxix: Rhondda Cynon Taf Substance Misuse Action Plan 2003 ...........420
13
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Analysis of themes cross-referenced with ‘Get Sorted’ project
objectives as intents ............................................................................53
Table 2.2 Analysis of themes cross-referenced with research questions as a
measurement of success ....................................................................54
Table 3.1 Data collection – data set one ................................................................59
Table 5.1 Comparison of assumptions underpinning the prevention and harm
reduction paradigms ..........................................................................112
Table 5.2 Comparison of prevention and harm reduction assumptions within the
subjective-objective dimension (Burrell and Morgan, 1979) ..............114
Table 7.1 Demographic data of school sample ....................................................164
Table 7.2 Demographic data of stakeholder sample ............................................169
Table 7.3 Demographic data of parent focus group sample ................................172
Table 7.4 Demographic data of pupil focus group sample ...................................173
Table 7.5 Organisation of the oral data by question within interview categories ..177
Table 7.6 Organisation of the oral data by question across interview categories 178
Table 7.7 Data extract with codes applied ...........................................................178
Table 7.8 Observation themes cross referenced with ‘Get Sorted’ project
objectives ..........................................................................................182
Table 7.9 Objectives of the ‘Get Sorted’ project cross-referenced with internal
and external standards ......................................................................184
Table 7.10 Observation findings cross-referenced with internal and external
standards ..........................................................................................186
Table 7.11 Analysis of observation findings cross-referenced with research
questions ...........................................................................................187
14
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 The realist evaluation cycle (Pawson and Tilley, 1998, p84) ................42
Figure 2.2 Stake’s (1967) matrix for data analysis (adapted) .................................48
Figure 2.3 Stake’s (1967) modified description matrix for data analysis ................51
Figure 3.1 Policy developments between 1985 - 1989 ..........................................62
Figure 3.2 Policy developments between 1990 - 1995 ..........................................68
Figure 3.3 Policy developments between 1996 - 2000 ..........................................69
Figure 3.4 The strategic structure in England ........................................................73
Figure 3.5 The strategic structure in Wales ...........................................................74
Figure 3.6 Policy developments between 2000 - 2005 ..........................................76
Figure 3.7 Policy developments between 2006 – 2009..........................................83
Figure 6.1 Welsh strategic structure 1996-2001 ..................................................132
Figure 6.2 Welsh strategic structure 2001 onwards .............................................133
Figure 6.3 Qualification attainment in Rhondda Cynon Taf (NafW, 2008) ...........135
Figure 6.4 Literacy and numeracy levels in Rhondda Cynon Taf (NafW, 2007) ..135
Figure 6.5 Number of young people NEET in Rhondda Cynon Taf (Careers
Wales, 2007) .....................................................................................136
Figure 6.6 Service offered by the ‘Get Sorted’ project .........................................140
Figure 6.7 The links between key providers in RCT .............................................153
Figure 7.1 Data set three thematic map ...............................................................180
Figure 8.1 Comparative ease of accessing consistent SMED prior to and post
input ..................................................................................................207
Figure 8.2 Comparative ease of accessing up to date SMED prior to and post
input ..................................................................................................208
Figure 8.3 Comparative ease of accessing relevant SMED prior to and post
input ..................................................................................................209
Figure 8.4 Percentage of respondents feeling confident in responding to
incidents ............................................................................................215
15
Figure 8.5 Percentage rating incident management as good or fairly good prior
to and post input................................................................................216
Figure 8.6 Comparative levels of satisfaction with delivery prior to and post input224
Figure 8.7 Comparative levels of knowledge prior to and post input ....................225
Figure 8.8 Comparative levels of confidence prior to and post input....................226
Figure 8.9 Comparative levels of planning confidence prior to and post input .....227
Figure 8.10 Number of substance misuse incidents reported each year .............243
16
Chapter 1: Overview
1.1 Introduction
This study is concerned with the delivery of substance misuse education in the
United Kingdom over the last 30 years. It aims to look at the reasoning behind
the judgement that school-based substance misuse education is ineffective
(ACMD, 2006). It also aims to offer potential solutions to the issues identified,
and measures the impact of a local authority initiative that provides an
infrastructure to support the delivery of consistent and co-ordinated substance
misuse education in Rhondda Cynon Taf (RCT).
1.2 Background to study
The issue of substance misuse has, for some years, been viewed by politicians
as ‘one of the most important problems, if not the most important, facing
society, not just in this country but in the Western World’ (Hansard, 1989(b)
Col.479). Statistics from recent years show that whilst levels of use for young
people in England and Wales would appear to be on the decrease (24.1% in
2006-2007 down from 25.2% 2005-2006), consumption of Class A drugs
between 1998 and 2007 remains stable (WAG, 2008b). Whilst it is largely
accepted amongst professionals working in the field that the main role of
substance misuse education is to prevent and reduce drug related harm, it can
be argued that, traditionally, the benchmark of its effectiveness is its ability to
prevent drug use (Cuijpers, 2003). Government policy has cited drug education
as the key to prevent drug use, despite research suggesting that this is an
unrealistic outcome (Cohen, 1992; ACMD, 2006). The role of education has
therefore, in the past, been limited and unrealistic in its aims and intended
outcomes (Beck, 1998), rendering it a less than effective tool in meeting the
needs of individuals and Governments alike (ACMD, 2006).
Whilst the issues of availability and treatment have always had centre stage
within Government policy, only relatively recently has education been given the
realistic foothold it needs within formal policy to make a valuable contribution
towards addressing the issue of substance misuse in its wider context (Home
Office, 1998; WAG, 2008b). Attitudinal change has played a major role in
17
improving access to substance misuse information for young people; however
substance misuse education still lacks co-ordination and consensus regarding
its fundamental aims, rendering it ineffective (ACMD, 2006).
During the 1980’s the United Kingdom (UK) saw an explosion of hard-hitting
media campaigns and an emergence of Government plans for substance
misuse education for young people which focused on the dangers of illegal drug
use. In order to provide effective future educational provision it is important to
examine the environment at this time and explore the Government policies and
media coverage that have shaped the design and delivery of, and methodology
behind, the provision of drug education and prevention initiatives since the
1980’s. Despite the numerous programmes in use today there still exists some
confusion and conflict between policy makers, providers and the general public
regarding the value and merit of different approaches (ACMD, 2006). It is
possible to identify two discernable trends in drug education over the last 30
years, prevention and harm reduction. Despite significant development in both
areas, this study evidences that neither has achieved full predominance as the
most effective.
The overall aim of this study is to seek to identify reasons behind the ongoing
delivery of what is deemed ‘ineffective’ school-based substance misuse
education in the UK (ACMD, 2006). Taking a step further, this study also
evaluates an attempt to reduce the barriers to the effective provision of
substance misuse education within a Local Authority setting, in the form of the
‘Get Sorted’ project.
Firstly, through historical documentary analysis, the research examines the
predominant approaches to drug education and the development of these
approaches. It explores how Government policy has been informed, as well as
the role of public perception and media coverage in the shaping of its content
and provision, and the use of research in providing an evidence base for
developments.
Secondly, it evaluates the ‘Get Sorted’ project as an infrastructure that focuses
on addressing the findings of the documentary analysis in practice within a
Local Authority setting. This research assesses the impact of the ‘Get Sorted’
18
project in supporting and enabling an effective partnership approach to the
delivery of consistent substance misuse education in schools in RCT.
1.2.1 Documentary Analysis
Documentary analysis commenced in 2003 and sought to explore and analyse
the available literature regarding policy, practice and research relating to
substance misuse education in the UK over the previous three decades.
Documentary analysis was selected as the method that would best answer the
research questions, the product of which consolidated existing research from
various sources. This part of the study also sheds light onto the nature of the
confusion and conflict that exists between policy makers, providers and the
general public regarding the value and merit of differing approaches to drug
education (ACMD, 2006) by providing an historical account of the significant
developments in this area and a broader understanding of the philosophies
behind such developments. The rationale for this methodology can be found in
chapter two and details of the process can be found in chapter three.
Initial review of the relevant literature revealed a lack of objective studies that
coherently documented and analysed the history of school-based drug
education for young people in the UK. The review also illustrated a lack of
exploration of the theories behind the prevention and harm reduction
approaches to drug education (Dusenbury and Falco, 1995; Beck, 1998;
McBride, 2003) and provided no evidence of previous discussion regarding their
underpinning assumptions.
Analysis of the literature identified three main components that contribute to the
current situation regarding drug education: Government policy and the media;
approaches to drug education; and research. This documentary analysis details
the predominant themes and issues within each of these components whilst
setting them within an historical framework.
Findings from the documentary analysis concluded that evaluative research into
the effectiveness of drug education tends to be concerned with outcomes alone
and pays little attention to its implementation (Dorn and Murji, 1992; Jansen et
al., 1996; Allot et al., 1999). Demonstrating success is only part of an
19
evaluation; to assess the full impact of drug education programmes researchers
need to study how they have been delivered (Dorn and Murji, 1992; Jansen
Glynn and Howard, 1996; Allot Paxton and Leonard, 1999) and whether the
providers of drug education have been adequately supported prior to the
implementation of such programmes. From this analysis, it became evident that
many of the current problems within the field of substance misuse education are
attributable to lack of coherent communication networks at a local level. This
part of the study concluded that the development of a recognised infrastructure
to support these much needed communication networks would assist in
addressing existing problems, whilst engaging stakeholders to encourage a coordinated partnership response to addressing local issues.
1.2.2 Evaluation of the ‘Get Sorted’ Project
This process of documentary analysis and its findings informed the author’s
professional practice, which led to the development of the ‘Get Sorted’ project in
2003, and its implementation in 2004, as an infrastructure hosted by the Local
Education Authority (LEA) to support the delivery of substance misuse
education in Rhondda Cynon Taf.
The aims and objectives of the ‘Get Sorted’ project were informed by the
findings of the documentary analysis in attempting to improve the learning
experience of substance misuse education for young people by improving the
partnership approach to its delivery. The objectives of the ‘Get Sorted’ project
were also informed in response to strategic priorities and local need.
The project was designed and established by the author, in their capacity of Coordinator for Substance Misuse Education for RCT, to provide an infrastructure
to bridge the gap between policy makers and practitioners, and bring
consistency and co-ordination to the delivery of substance misuse education to
children and young people in a wide range of settings. This infrastructure aims
to ensure that those providing drug education are adequately skilled, informed
and confident to do so, in order to improve the consistency of messages given
to young people.
20
The role of the ‘Get Sorted’ project is two-fold in addressing the needs of RCT.
Firstly, the ‘Get Sorted’ project focuses on improving substance misuse
education as an educational experience for children and young people. It does
this through the provision of direct team-teaching support for educators in the
delivery of substance misuse education, in order to increase their knowledge of
the subject area, and their confidence to approach it. This project is not a
programme; it does not tell teachers what to teach, instead, it is a support
mechanism that gives teachers the skills, knowledge and confidence with which
to teach. The ‘Get Sorted’ project aims to address young people’s varying
needs through the improvement of their learning experience, rather than their
involvement in a substance misuse education programme that - whilst it may be
delivered in school - has little in common with other school processes. It aims to
meet the needs of young people through affecting cultural change, rather than
curriculum change. The nature of the project seeks to change attitudes and
perceptions of educators, rather than beneficiaries of substance misuse
education, and nurture the view of substance misuse education as an
educational process, rather than purely a substance misuse intervention.
Secondly, the ‘Get Sorted’ team provides a central point of contact for
practitioners and policy makers, whilst providing open and effective
communication channels between the two. Policy, strategy and guidance are
swiftly and effectively disseminated, and responses from a grass roots level fed
back. The ‘Get Sorted’ project is in a position to actively encompass all aspects
of the Welsh Assembly Government guidance circular 17/02 (WAG, 2002a;
ESTYN, 2007), including policy development, the sharing and monitoring of
good practice, and the management of substance misuse related incidents.
For these reasons, a qualitative approach to evaluating the impact of the ‘Get
Sorted’ project was selected to best answer the research questions posed. A
further level of analysis was also applied to evaluate the impact of the project
from a number of angles, using data from both qualitative and quantitative
perspectives. The rationale for this choice of method and analytic approach is
offered in chapter two. Chapter seven provides the detail of the procedure
undertaken to gather and analyse the data.
21
1.3 Context
In response to the gaps in literature, the historical documentary analysis sought
to provide an overview of the dominant themes in the literature and research
regarding drug education over the period 1975-2009. The literature looked
predominantly at education regarding illegal drugs rather than legal drugs.
Public perception and fear of illegal drugs during the 1980’s is reflected in
Hansard materials of the time (Hansard, 1989 c), which has resulted in the main
emphasis of many education programmes in recent years focusing purely on
educating young people about the dangers of illegal drugs (HASC, 2005). Legal
drugs, such as alcohol, despite their obvious inherent health risks, have only
relatively recently become of significant concern for policy makers in terms of
the threat to society (HM Government 2007; WAG, 2008b). However, legal
drugs continue to be generally viewed as more socially acceptable and
controllable, hence seen as posing less of a threat to young people than illegal
drugs.
The notion that one set of drugs poses more of a risk than another has led to
clear differentiation in the way in which young people are taught about them and
their use (WAG, 2008b). This differentiation has allowed for legal drug use by
young people to be deemed as more acceptable and at the same time has
endorsed the dangerous assumption that young people have reasonable
knowledge of legal drugs and no knowledge of illegal drugs (ibid.). It has also
led to inconsistent education about illegal drugs, with professionals lacking
confidence about their own knowledge in this area, employing simplified ‘shock
horror’ or ‘just say no’ approaches for fear of parental reprisals (ACMD, 2006).
The use of the term ‘substance misuse’ is a more recent development, initiated
with the development of Government strategies in the late 1990’s, intended to
encompass illegal and legal drugs as well as prescribed and over the counter
medicines, in order to discourage differentiation. Therefore, throughout this
study ‘substance misuse’ relates to education on all drugs (including alcohol),
and ‘drug education’ relates to illegal drugs.
In the context of substance misuse education, the education itself has been
seen as a simple transferring of information from adults to young people
22
(Cohen, 2005). This simplified approach to education assumes that young
people are passive in the process and are able and willing to digest and use the
information given to them to make informed healthy choices about drugs and
drug use (ibid.; Wragg, 1992; SCRE, 2000). Within learning theory,
constructivist approaches oppose the passivity of learners, encouraging greater
focus on the processes of learning, and emphasising the importance of learners
playing an active role within the process. If learners construct their own
understanding rather than mirror what they are given (Von Glasersfeld, 1989), it
is important that the pedagogy employed seeks to generate cognitive activity in
learners during the learning process (Mayer, 2004). The simplified approach
also assumes that all adults are drug experts with the confidence to impart their
knowledge and guide young people in making these informed choices. An
obvious contradiction for school based drug education is that no other school
subject assumes that young people passively absorb all information given to
them or that any adult can impart that information without the necessary training
(McWhirter, BBC News 2006). Yet, Government policy places the responsibility
for the provision of drug education with schools as the education specialists
(Leitner Schapland and Wiles, 1993; WAG, 2002a, DfES, 2004b; Cohen, 2005)
without sufficient recognition that there is a need for specialised training and
support regarding drugs for teachers to deliver it (McWhirter, BBC News, 2006).
Schools have tended to turn to specialist drug agencies to provide drug
education; however, whilst drug specialists may have expert knowledge about
drugs, often they are not education specialists and need training in this area.
Whilst drug education continues to be delivered by inadequately trained staff
employing inappropriate teaching methodologies (RSA, 2007), it remains
isolated from both school and drug agency agendas. Throughout this paper
‘practitioner’ refers to drug educators with specialist knowledge of both drugs
and education and ‘drug educational intervention’ refers to practice employed
by practitioners.
1.4 Structure of thesis
Chapter two discusses the rationale for the research methodology employed for
this study and the analytic approach taken. It clearly sets out the three data sets
within this study; documentary analysis (data set one), project related data (data
23
set two) and evaluative research data (data set three). The rationale for the
methods chosen to gather and analyse data in order to best answer the
research questions posed within each data set is given in this chapter. The
rationale for the application of Stake’s (1967) Countenance Theory as an
approach to analysing the data corpus is also included in chapter two alongside
details of the other approaches considered. Ethical considerations are also
explored in this chapter.
Chapter three is the first of three chapters that present the research findings
from data set one. It analyses the development and effectiveness of
Government policy over the last three decades. The Government were slow to
recognise their role in the development of a co-ordinated approach to
addressing the increase in drug use experienced in the 1980’s. Their
inappropriate response in the form of mass media campaigning was not
adequately researched prior to its implementation (Bagnall and Plant, 1987;
Anderson, 1988). This response contributed to the early creation of a climate of
fear amongst the general public, whose negative reaction to alternatives to
shock tactics continued to hamper attempts to positively engage the media in
policy awareness and implementation (Anderson, 1988; HEBS, 2003). This
climate of fear is still perpetuated by the media, which leads public opinion to
criticise less hard hitting, non-fear based approaches as being lenient on drugs
and their use (Tones, 1981; Beck, 1998; HEBS, 2003). Drug education
practitioners have also suffered from the placement of drug education in the
political and media arenas. The provision of drug education has been heavily
influenced by ill-informed public opinion and subject to changes in focus as
successive Governments have each sought to set their own agenda (Beck,
1998). This chapter explores how Government policy can best be developed
and disseminated and the media’s role in the generation of positive policy
debate. The methodology chosen to undertake research within data set one and
the procedure of documentary analysis is detailed within this chapter.
Chapter four is the second of three chapters that present the research findings
from data set one. It details the five discernible approaches to drug education:
Information Based; Life Skills and Values Deficit; Resistance Training;
Alternatives Based; and Peer Education. Whilst each is promoted as a separate
24
approach, quite often drug education programmes employ a number of these
approaches. Despite the wealth of evidence to support and deny each
approach’s claims regarding its effectiveness, there is still very little consensus
on what works. There is no conclusive evaluative evidence that any of these
approaches to drug education meets the success criteria as set by the
Government and public opinion. This chapter identifies the theoretical
underpinnings of practice; highlights issues regarding predominance; and
discusses the problematics of measuring effectiveness.
Chapter five is the third and final chapter concerned with presenting the
research findings from data set one. The role of research is detailed and
analysed in this chapter. The conflict between the two discernable trends,
prevention and harm reduction, has contributed to the unstable grounding
research has experienced in attempting to evaluate effective drug education.
These philosophical differences have also created a climate of suspicion, which
has hindered the positive use of research in this field. Both camps have, in the
past, used research findings as weapons to disprove the value of the other
approach. The analysis of the harm reduction and prevention paradigms in
conjunction with the subjective-objective dimension of assumptions within the
study of social sciences (Burrell and Morgan, 1979) offers an original
contribution to the debate. This analysis illuminates the reasoning behind the
employment of certain research methodologies. This chapter examines the
existence of research and efficacy of research methodology in the evaluation of
drug education approaches and provision.
Chapter six presents a comprehensive background to the development of the
‘Get Sorted’ project in response to the findings of the preceding chapters. This
chapter provides an outline of the County Borough of Rhondda Cynon Taf, and
the strategic responsibilities of Local Authorities in Wales. It also identifies the
local drivers that shaped the creation of the ‘Get Sorted’ project, in order to
contextualise the environment in which the project was established, and
operates. Chapter six provides details of the methods chosen and the
procedure undertaken to collect and analyse project related data within data set
two.
25
The method employed to undertake qualitative evaluative research of the ‘Get
Sorted’ project as part of data set three is detailed in chapter seven. The
sampling strategy used is clearly presented and the procedure of undertaking
semi-structured interviews and focus groups set out. The rationale for
undertaking thematic analysis to analyse data within data set three can be
found in this chapter as well as the process of applying the matrices within
Stake’s (1967) Countenance Theory as a further level of analysis in order to
analyse data across the data corpus.
The research findings related to Stake’s (1967) description matrix are presented
in chapter eight. The chapter includes exploration of the antecedents, vital in
contextualising not only the project, but also the environmental, political,
practical, financial and situational influences and the opinions, values and
involvement of stakeholders. These findings are discussed within the
parameters of seven observation themes resulting from the data analysis stage,
namely, partnership working; communication; approach; knowledge and
confidence of educators; co-ordination and consistency; policy and strategy;
and ‘Get Sorted’ as a Council resource. Within these themes, congruence
between initial intentions for the ‘Get Sorted’ project and what was observed
predominantly through the semi-structured interviews (data set three) is
identified and discussed.
Chapter nine is concerned with research findings related to Stake’s (1967)
judgement matrix. These judgements are based on the findings from the
previous chapter measured against identified standards that offer a wider
context in which the merit of the ‘Get Sorted’ project can be assessed. These
standards include both ‘external’ standards in the form of national policy and
strategy documents and ‘internal’ standards in the form of local strategy that
governs the practice based monitoring of the ‘Get Sorted’ project. The
judgements are presented within the seven themes that organised the
discussion of findings in the preceding chapter, which have been crossreferenced with the research questions.
26
Chapter ten offers a concluding discussion of the findings and subsequent
judgements made of the effectiveness of the ‘Get Sorted’ project in creating and
maintaining an infrastructure to support substance misuse education in RCT. A
summary of evidence is given in answer to the research questions posed in
chapter two, alongside discussion of areas of the project requiring future
development. This chapter also offers insight into the practical challenges of
undertaking practitioner research, and discusses methodological considerations
and considerations for substance misuse education and further research. It
concludes with a summary of the original contribution this study makes to the
substance misuse education debate.
1.5 Chapter summary
This study seeks to investigate the underlying causes of ineffective substance
misuse education, and to identify and offer solutions to the difficulties
experienced by practitioners of substance misuse education. This investigation
led to the hypothesis that establishing an infrastructure to support co-ordinated
and consistent substance misuse education in line with policy and delivered by
a range of knowledgeable and confident educators would alleviate identified
difficulties. This study details the testing of this hypothesis. It also details the
application of Stake’s (1967) Countenance Theory as an analytic approach that
enables evidenced judgements to be made regarding the effectiveness of
substance misuse education initiatives within a wider educational context.
27
Chapter 2. Rationale for Methodology and Analytic Approach
2.1 Introduction
This chapter is concerned with providing a rationale for the choice of research
methodology and the analytic approach employed for this study. The
methodological and analytic approaches for each of the three data sets are
outlined in this chapter as well as the rationale for a further level of analysis
across the data corpus. This further level of analysis was achieved through the
use of Stake’s (1967) Countenance Theory and the rationale for its use is
detailed here. This chapter offers a rationale based overview of the data used in
this study and the details of the procedure undertaken to collect and analyse
data can be found alongside associated findings in subsequent chapters.
The data corpus for this study consisted of three main data sets:

Data set one: documentary analysis

Data set two: project related data

Data set three: evaluative research data
Each of these data sets required different methodological approaches to data
collection and analysis.
The first data set is the documentary analysis data. This data was collected to
provide the historical context for the study. Data sources included books,
journals, articles, documents, reports, studies, policy documents and literature
regarding the provision of drug education for young people in the United
Kingdom over the last 30 years. In particular the data is concerned with policy,
practice and research relating to substance misuse education.
The second data set consists of operational, project related data sources that
had been collected prior to the establishment of and over the lifespan of the
‘Get Sorted’ project. The data within this data set is both quantitative and
qualitative in nature. This project related data was gathered in line with the
performance and monitoring requirements of the Local Authority, WAG and the
Home Office and the methods utilised were chosen based on their suitability to
28
meet these requirements.
The final data set is evaluative research data, of a purely qualitative nature,
collected for the purpose of answering specific research questions. This was
collected specifically to assess the impact of the ‘Get Sorted’ project as an
infrastructure to support a consistent approach to the delivery of substance
misuse education across a local authority. For this reason this is referred to as
the primary data set within this study and the findings of analysis are discussed
in detail in chapter seven.
Data sources within each of these sets were analysed firstly within the particular
data set to which they belonged. Following this individual analysis, all data sets
were subject to an additional analysis stage in order to report findings across
the data corpus. Stake’s (1967) Countenance Theory of Educational Evaluation
was used to provide the framework for this final analysis across the data
corpus. This framework enabled synthesis of evidence from all three data sets
providing a rich understanding of the situation from a number of angles.
Data from data set one is derived from documentary analysis. This historical
documentary review reflected not only what had been thought of or written
about the topic but also what had been implemented in terms of drug education
policy. Therefore, it differed from a traditional literature review as it produced
evidence of how the situation had been created. Documents analysed within
this data set include books, journals, articles, documents, reports, studies and
policy documents. Literature was sourced from ERIC and BEI databases;
Drugscope’s database of academic research papers ‘Drugdata’; Hansard
materials; published research findings; both educational and substance misuse
specific journals; and substance misuse specific publication archives (e.g.
Druglink) and the Internet.
Across data sets two and three a total of 62 interviews and 16 focus groups
were undertaken involving a total of 209 participants. Including those
completing project related questionnaires, the total number of participants
involved in this study is 298. Detail of the sampling strategies employed and the
procedure undertaken to collect and analyse data is given in chapters six and
29
seven.
Therefore, this chapter provides a rationale for the choice of research
methodology employed for this study. Specific detail of the data collection and
analysis procedures for each data set is given alongside the findings in
subsequent chapters. An overview of Stake’s (1967) Countenance Theory of
Educational Evaluation used as the framework for data corpus analysis is also
given in this chapter, which concludes with ethical considerations.
2.2 Rationale for the choice of methodology
The methodology employed to collect and analyse data differed for each of the
data sets. From the standpoint of practical researcher, the approach to selecting
the methodology was to select appropriate methodology for the research
undertaken by making an appropriate match of the method to the research
questions. For each of the data sets, the method employed was deemed most
appropriate to best answer the research questions posed.
The following sections outline the research questions and provide the rationale
for the choice of research methodology within each of the three data sets in
order to best answer the research questions.
2.2.1 Data set one: historical documentary analysis – rationale for
methodology
The formulation of the initial research questions was important to identify the
field of study and set its boundaries. The questions were designed to
encompass a wide range of factors in order to take an holistic approach to data
collection (Cohen et al, 2000) the analysis of which would provide an historical
context to the study:

How has Government policy on drug education been informed in the
last 30 years?

What have been the predominant approaches to drug education over
the last three decades?

How has drug education developed over the last 30 years?
30

How has public perception and media coverage affected the
provision and content of drug education over the last 30 years?
These research questions were devised to provide an historical context to
answering the overall aim of the study and required a methodology that could
provide an historical account of events as well as a meaningful representation
of drug education over the last 30 years.
There were a range of research methods available that could have been
employed to answer the initial research questions that were devised. There are
arguments for the use of methods like case studies, surveys and ex-post facto
research, to provide an historical account of events as well as a meaningful
representation of drug education over the last 30 years. However, these
methods would not have provided the holistic approach to data collection
necessary to create a broad enough picture from which to select and analyse
relevant data and, in turn, achieve the research aim. To answer fully the
research questions posed, it was necessary to undertake historical research,
drawing on the analysis of documents and records from both qualitative and
quantitative sources, whilst being mindful of the relevant paradigms and origins.
Therefore, the approach taken for this research can be characterised as
documentary analysis.
Historical research differs from other scientific research, as it cannot operate the
principle of the manipulation of cause and effect, independent of other
variables. However it has been argued that it can subscribe to the same
standards that characterise scientific research (Mouly, 1978) in that it can be
systematic and objective (Borg, 1963). Borg (1963), cited in Cohen, Manion and
Morrison, (2000) describes it as:
“systematic and objective location, evaluation and synthesis of
evidence in order to establish facts and draw conclusions about past
events” (Cohen et al, 2000 p158).
The key element or characteristic of this method is the reconstruction of events
through the faithful representation of a previous age, the conclusions from
which provide an informed insight into the events that contributed to the current
landscape regarding substance misuse education. Lowden and Powney (2000)
31
successfully used historical research to plot drug education in Scotland over
three decades, in order to set the scene and inform the future drug education
research of the Scottish Council for Educational Research.
Criticisms of documentary analysis stem from how documents are used and
tend to question document selection and whether the social context of their
construction has been taken into account by the researcher (May 1998). It is
therefore important that the researcher is aware that,
“History, like all social and natural sciences, is amenable to
manipulation and selective influence. In undertaking documentary
research we should be aware of these influences and not assume
that documents are simply neutral artefacts from the past.” (May,
1998, pg.176).
In support of this caution from May (1998), it is important to be aware of the
philosophical approaches behind, and the social context in which, previous drug
education research has taken place. Over the last decade, historical research
regarding drug education approaches has tended to be undertaken mainly by
supporters of the harm reduction approach, in attempts to undermine the
effectiveness of primary prevention (Cohen, 1992; Rhodes, 1990). Further
discussion regarding the two main approaches, prevention and harm reduction,
and the role and use of research within them can be found in chapter five. Allot
et al., (1999) warn that despite numerous evaluations into drug education, this
type of evaluative research has its weaknesses. The authors offer low
participation rates and inappropriate choices of outcome measures as possible
reasons for the limited conclusions that can be drawn from such studies.
Whether it is documentary evidence or statistical data, it is necessary to ensure
that careful selection of documents has taken place, and that the range of data
available from them is sufficient to ensure a qualitative analysis that is both
comprehensive and trustworthy. It is also important for researchers to be aware
and open about their own philosophical standpoints, and the influence this may
have on their selection of documents for inclusion or the number of comparative
steps undertaken to ensure rigorous analysis of their historical relevance and
validity (Kirk and Miller, 1986; Miles and Huberman, 1994).
32
A number of benefits of historical research are identified by Hill and Kerber
(1967, cited in Cohen et al, 2000) including allowing the researcher to offer
solutions found in the past to contemporary problems; identifying trends; and
revealing interactions within society. Historical research can also provide
opportunities to re-evaluate historical data in relation to theories, hypotheses
and generalisations currently held.
The opportunity to re-evaluate historical data relating to substance misuse
education within contemporary paradigms, throws light onto the nature of the
current conflict within the substance misuse field regarding the content and
provision of this type of education (ACMD, 2006). In-depth analysis of the
available data also provides a coherent, faithful and objective historical
representation of the research undertaken and developments made in drug
education over the last 30 years. This historical representation identifies
developing research paradigms and methodology, reveals trends and common
factors relating to public perception and media coverage, as well as track the
role of research in developing Government policy.
Therefore, documentary analysis as a research method was deemed the most
appropriate to answer the initial research questions most effectively. The steps
taken to ensure the careful selection of documents to minimise criticisms of this
method as identified by May (1998) is detailed in chapter three, section 3.2.2.
2.2.2 Data set two: project related data – rationale for methodology
The findings of the first stage of study informed the development of the
objectives for the ‘Get Sorted’ project:

Provide ‘hands on’ support for staff dealing with substance misuse
incidents in both schools and the youth service.

Provide specific training and classroom support for professionals
delivering substance misuse education, encompassing drug
information and teaching methodology, to increase knowledge and
confidence.
33

Provide guidance on age appropriate information for children and
young people at each Key Stage.

Develop new strategies for engaging hard to reach children and
young people, in substance misuse education.

Support parental and community awareness raising initiatives, to
support a consistent approach to substance misuse education, and
its key messages.

Develop effective communication networks, to facilitate the sharing of
best practice, and assist the monitoring and review of substance
misuse education throughout the County Borough.

Implement a multi-agency approach to meeting the strategic
objectives relating to substance misuse education within the
Rhondda Cynon Taf Substance Misuse Action Plan.
The collection of project related data was directed by the requirement to monitor
the progress of the ‘Get Sorted’ project against these stipulated objectives.
The project related data in data set two was gathered with the sole purpose of
meeting the performance and monitoring requirements of the funders of the
project. These funders included the Local Authority, the Welsh Assembly
Government and the Home Office. Each of the funders utilised different
progress reporting mechanisms to reflect their particular areas of interest. For
this reason both qualitative and quantitative data methods were selected in
order to best meet the reporting requirements of the project. The RCT Local
Authority required project performance data that was statistical in nature as well
as a qualitative insight into the environment in which substance misuse
education was being provided. Their objective was to acquire a better
understanding of the issues facing schools and the perspectives of head
teachers, classroom teachers, non-school based stakeholders involved in the
delivery of substance misuse education and young people. The Welsh
Assembly Government requested statistical data on the input and outputs of the
‘Get Sorted’ project (e.g. number of support sessions undertaken, number of
beneficiaries etc.). The interest of the Home Office was the number of
substance misuse related incidents within schools in RCT and their stipulations
34
for reporting were again statistically based. As a result, the methods utilised to
collect and analyse the data within data set two were chosen based on their
suitability to meet these practical requirements.
There are five sources of project related data within this data set, which in this
study enhance the qualitative research data and provide context. The rationale
for methods used for each data source is outlined here. The full details
regarding the application of these methods can be found in chapter six.
Initial consultation with schools (qualitative)
Interviews were chosen to capture the data required to provide a current picture
of provision. Semi-structured interviews were employed to collect information
that could be compared across schools as well as provide the opportunity for
participants to share their own perspectives and opinions. Full details are
presented in chapter six, section 6.6.1.
Initial consultation with young people (qualitative)
Focus groups were chosen as the method to gain understanding from a young
persons perspective of their experiences, perceptions and needs regarding
substance misuse education and compare their perceptions and opinions with
those of head teachers. A semi-structured interview approach was taken to
designing and asking questions during the focus group sessions. Full details are
presented in chapter six, section 6.6.2.
‘Get Sorted’ entry and exit assessment questionnaires (quantitative)
Entry and exit assessment questionnaires were formulated at the start of the
project as a tool for measuring self reported changes in knowledge, confidence
and attitudes of participants, as a means of assessing the impact of the ‘Get
Sorted’ project at an individual beneficiary level. Full details are presented in
chapter six, section 6.6.3.
Substance misuse incidents in schools database (quantitative)
A recording form and reporting form were devised to provide statistical data in
line with the statutory requirement from the Home Office to collect and report
35
information on substance misuse related incidents. Statistical data was required
on a quarterly basis on the following: the numbers of incidents in schools; the
geographical area of the school; the type of incident (e.g. possession, supply);
and the gender and age of the pupils involved in each incident. The incident
data recording form (to be completed and stored by the school) and the
reporting form (for schools to collate anonymised data and send to the LEA)
were based on the template recording system identified in WAG Guidance,
Substance Misuse: Children and Young People (WAG, 2002a). Full details are
presented in chapter six, section 6.6.4.
The ‘Get Sorted’ project performance monitoring (quantitative)
Project performance data was gathered in order to provide the statistical data
requested by the funders. This facilitated an ongoing record of project delivery
and was designed to collect a range of data produced by the team including
hours spent in different sectors (e.g. secondary school, primary school, youth
club); number of professionals worked with; number of new contacts made; type
of support offered; number of hours spent offering each type of support; and
number of visits undertaken. All ‘Get Sorted’ project activity was recorded
alongside the date it occurred allowing for a high level of detail to be available
for use. Statistical reports were produced on a regular basis from this source.
Full details are presented in chapter six, section 6.6.5.
2.2.3 Data set three: evaluative research data – rationale for methodology
The research questions posed for the evaluation of the ‘Get Sorted’ project
focused on key themes that had arisen from the literature analysed during the
documentary analysis in data set one. These questions were also designed to
incorporate the use of project related data in data set two:

Has the initiative improved communication between key stakeholders
regarding substance misuse education?

Has the support for schools in the delivery of substance misuse
education improved?
36

Has the support for schools in the management of substance misuse
incidents improved?

Has the initiative increased the confidence of teachers in addressing
the substance misuse education needs of pupils?

Can the initiative, as a model for cultural change, be replicated in
other areas to address other issues faced by a local authority?
These research questions were designed to assist in the evaluation of the ‘Get
Sorted’ project as an infrastructure for the supported delivery of school-based
substance misuse education. The methodology employed stemmed from the
identification of these research questions.
The nature of the ‘Get Sorted’ project and the nature of evaluative research
within the substance misuse education field both had bearing on the
consideration of an appropriate research methodology for this data set.
The ‘Get Sorted’ project is not an educational programme and as such, the
evaluation of its impact required a methodology that could reflect the nature of
the project itself. The nature of the project seeks to change the perceptions and
practice of educators, rather than beneficiaries of substance misuse education.
In essence, the ‘Get Sorted’ project is an intervention that aims to improve the
effectiveness of substance misuse education, by focusing on improving the
educational experience for learners. In order to do this the project aims to
address the practical difficulties of applying policy to practice on behalf of
educators, allowing them to focus on the delivery of substance misuse
education. It diverts the focus of debate from the content of programmes and
the pedagogies of delivery and refocuses on reducing the practical limitations of
provision such as underdeveloped communication between partners. It is the
educators themselves who are the beneficiaries of the ‘Get Sorted’ project.
This study was not concerned with the traditional substance misuse education
evaluative measurements of knowledge acquisition, knowledge retention and
behaviour change in young people. Instead it was concerned with the impact of
an infrastructure to supported educators to deliver substance misuse education
more effectively. Therefore, the method required was one that could elicit the
37
perceptions of educators and stakeholders regarding the impact of the ‘Get
Sorted’ project from their experience.
In order to inform the development of an appropriate evaluative methodology it
was also important to consider the nature and place of evaluative studies within
the substance misuse field. The use of evaluative studies had been identified as
problematic in the analysis of literature in data set one (as discussed in chapter
five).
Substance misuse education evaluations have traditionally tended to focus
upon the impact on individual attitudes and behaviour regarding substance use,
rather than measure the educational experience itself (Beck, 1998). As such,
evaluations have not sought to explore the wide range of variables, such as the
knowledge and confidence of educators, that impact on that educational
experience (Clements, Cohen and O’Hare, 1988). In this respect it can be
argued that evaluations of this nature fail to capture the complex nature of
substance misuse education as a process of cultural change. Evaluative
research into the effectiveness of drug education, tends to be concerned with
outcomes alone, and pays little attention to its implementation (Dorn and Murji,
1992; Jansen et al., 1996; Allot et al., 1999). Demonstrating success is only part
of an evaluation; to assess the full impact of drug education programmes,
researchers need to study how they have been delivered (Dorn and Murji, 1992;
Jansen et al, 1996; Allot et al, 1999) and whether the providers of drug
education have been adequately supported prior to the implementation of such
programmes (HEBS, 2003; DCSF, 2008). It can be argued that many qualitative
substance misuse education evaluations have limited future application, as
narrow data collection and analysis methods rarely allow a judgement of worth
to be made (Coggans, Haw and Watson, 1999). Many focus upon measuring
the worth of programmes against the desired and assumed outcome of longterm behavioural change (Beck, 1998). Such behavioural change, championed
by funders and policy makers, can be seen as an unrealistic expectation of any
isolated educational intervention, especially one as contentious as substance
misuse education (Dorn and Murji, 1992; Jansen et al, 1996; Beck, 1998; Allot
et al, 1999).
38
For these reasons, an approach was sought that could reflect the findings of
data set one and the nature of the ‘Get Sorted’ project most appropriately, as
well as complement the project related data that had been collected in data set
two, in order to answer the research questions.
It was acknowledged that some of the project related data could be used to
assess the impact of certain elements of the ‘Get Sorted’ project. However, the
methods of collecting this operational data had been designed with the intention
to measure very specific, mainly quantitative, elements of the ‘Get Sorted’
project. The research questions demanded a wider analysis of the impact of the
‘Get Sorted’ project in creating a local authority infrastructure, which the project
related data could not wholly provide.
On reviewing the methodological approaches taken during the gathering of
project related data, the qualitative approaches had provided the most insightful
data. The method of semi-structured interviews, employed to undertake the
initial operationally based consultation exercises with schools and young
people, had provided interesting data. For this reason the choice was made to
expand the qualitative dimension of the study in order to produce original
research that was separate to the project related data. Therefore a qualitative
method was selected to provide the best chance of answering the research
questions. Qualitative methods would best answer specific research questions
concerned with communication between stakeholders and improvements in
support given to schools in terms of delivery of substance misuse education and
the management of substance misuse incidents. It is important to note that had
the quantitative data within data set two, given as good an insight, or provided
as good a chance of answering the research questions; then a quantitative
methodology would have been adopted for this data set.
Both action research and a standard case study were considered as possible
methodological approaches. However, after deliberation it was decided that
both of these methods would limit the data collected to a particular school or a
particular element of the ‘Get Sorted’ project, rather than offer a perspective
across schools within the region. Without the wider perspective, answers to the
research questions would remain narrow, as findings would not be sufficient to
39
draw broader conclusions regarding the impact of the ‘Get Sorted’ project
across the region.
Therefore the methodological approach chosen for data set three was to use
qualitative methods based on semi-structured interviews. Interviews were
selected to elicit the perceptions and opinions of stakeholders as to the impact
of the ‘Get Sorted’ project and to provide the qualitative primary research data
for this study.
2.3 Rationale for analytic approach
The strategy employed was to combine the documentary analysis, quantitative
and qualitative data to enable convergence on the research questions from
different methodological perspectives. This approach to the study from a range
of perspectives rather than from one angle would reveal every possible facet of
the subject of the study. In order to do this, a way of combining these data sets
for analysis was required. In order to best synthesise the views provided from
different methodological approaches it was decided that a further level of
analysis would be undertaken to provide as broad a picture as possible of the
impact of the ‘Get Sorted’ project. In utilising findings from all data sets it was
anticipated that this would meet the differing interests of both the academic and
operationally based target audiences of this study.
2.3.1 Analysis of the data corpus
In examining the available methodological approaches and tools for analysing
the data corpus, various approaches were considered:
Constructivist approach (Guba and Lincoln, 1989)
The constructivist approach of Guba and Lincoln (1989) in Pawson and Tilley
(1998), in many ways matched the requirements of this study. In this context the
constructivist approach is concerned with the process of negotiating between
the different standpoints of stakeholders. Guba and Lincoln’s (1989) principle of
‘conceptual parity’ between stakeholders reflects the challenge of partnership
working that the ‘Get Sorted’ project has attempted to address, of creating a
culture of equity between the various members of the stakeholder partnership
40
and their frequently conflicting priorities. However, Guba and Lincoln’s
statement that ‘no accommodation is possible between positivist and
constructivist belief systems’ (Pawson and Tilley, 1998 p.20) showed that a
constructivist approach would limit the judgements made that could satisfy
stakeholders favouring a positivist interpretation of findings such as funders and
policy makers. Quantitative elements of the project related data would also have
had to be excluded from the wider analysis. Also, the constructivist standpoint
that evaluation can only be understood in context undermines a central pillar of
the ‘Get Sorted’ project. The purpose of the evaluation of the ‘Get Sorted’
project for the local authority was to demonstrate the applications of this
approach to partnership working in a variety of contexts. This refusal to make
generalisations across contexts and its’ anti-positivist standpoint made a
constructivist approach to this evaluative study unsuitable as it fails the test of
satisfying key members of the target audience.
Pragmatic approach (Weiss, 1987; Patton, 1982)
The pragmatic approach of researchers such as Weiss (1987) and Patton
(1982) also offer some superficial parallels with this research study. The focus
on the utility of policies and the use of a wide variety of tools (e.g. interviews,
questionnaires and data analysis techniques) are similar to the approach taken
for this study. Weiss’ (1976) view of policy creation as a gradual process is also
similar to the organic development of the ‘Get Sorted’ project. However, the role
of the policy-maker (in this case Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council)
in shaping the nature of the study, inherent in the pragmatic approach to
evaluation, does not meet the criteria for a suitable method for the evaluation of
the ‘Get Sorted’ project. Firstly, given the mutual hostility of the political
environment in which the ‘Get Sorted’ project operated, involvement by the
policy maker in shaping the evaluation would inevitably have led to accusations
of bias and the questioning of the study’s impartiality. Secondly, the lack of
clearly defined goals at the outset of the project (as the outcomes were
dependant on the level of participation of stakeholders) made it impossible for
the policy-makers to have had input into how the study should be focused.
41
Realistic evaluation (Pawson and Tilley 1998)
The realistic evaluation of Pawson and Tilley (1998) offered many benefits for
the analysis of the data corpus of this study. The reiteration of positivist
principles of empiricism from a perspective that tries to take into account the
complex nature of ‘reality’ satisfies the need for a process that produces
judgements acceptable to both positivist and subjectivist paradigms. The
approach also enables the researcher to examine the interplay between
individuals and the structures within which they work. This relationship is key to
the creation of effective partnership working. The mutual incomprehension and
suspicion between individuals and the smaller individual organisations for which
they work (e.g. voluntary sector agencies and schools) and the more monolithic
structures which try to organise partnerships (e.g. local authorities and
Government departments) was a clear theme in the evaluation of existing
strategies prior to the creation of the ‘Get Sorted’ project.
Figure 2.1 The realist evaluation cycle (Pawson and Tilley, 1998, p84)
What works
for whom in
what
circumstances
Mechanisms
Contexts
Outcomes
Theory
Program
specification
Multi-method
data collection
and analysis on
M, C, O
(M)
(C)
(O)
Hypotheses
Observations
What might work
for whom in what
circumstances
Figure 2.1 depicts Pawson and Tilley’s (1998) development of Wallace’s ‘Wheel
of Science’ (1971) to illustrate with how realistic evaluation applies scientific
empiricism to complex social phenomena. However, one of the corner stones of
Pawson and Tilley’s scientific approach is the maintenance of a ‘laboratory
42
environment’, i.e. that once the researcher has activated the mechanism of
change (in this case the ‘Get Sorted’ project) external factors are prevented
from interfering with the development of the programme. In a political situation
such as local Government this had not been possible. The possibility of a
change in local Government causing a fundamental change in the substance
misuse education policy was something that needed to be taken into account.
(This situation almost occurred after the 2004 local Government elections, when
the majority party in Rhondda Cynon Taf changed. Fortunately for the study,
there was no significant change to substance misuse policy).
Another consideration in discounting Pawson and Tilley’s (1998) realistic
evaluation model as an approach to complex evaluation was the need to create
the perception of robustness. As has been noted, the study was for the
consumption of interested parties from academic and non-academic
backgrounds. As Pawson and Tilley (1998) themselves say ‘evaluation is a
young discipline.’ (p1). For many outside the academic world, the validity of
evaluative models is still questionable. In order to provide judgements that
would stand up to academic scrutiny, realistic evaluative methodologies would
have proved useful, however, it could not be guaranteed that stakeholders
without a background in academic research would have shared the same
confidence in an evaluative methodology that is still relatively untested.
Countenance Theory of Educational Evaluation (Stake, 1967)
Stake’s Countenance Theory of Educational Evaluation (1967) offered potential
solutions to the considerations identified without the limitations of the above
approaches. Countenance Theory offered a good fit for this study for the
following reasons:

encourages documentation of implementation rather than just
outcomes;

encourages the use of a wide range of data collection tools;

able to provide a framework to analyse both qualitative and
quantitative data;

encourages practitioner research;
43

recognises the culture and climate in which what is being studied
exists and the impact of external forces;

enables stakeholders to set the agenda;

and offers the means to provide evidenced judgements of worth
through the measurement of findings against external standards.
Stake’s (1967) provision of the ‘description’ and ‘judgement’ matrices to support
data selection for analysis offered a structured framework within which both
qualitative and quantitative data could co-exist as well as offering a systematic
approach to the analysis of data. In this way, countenance theory reflected the
research paradigm as well as accommodating the differing perspectives of
stakeholders regarding the role and aim of substance misuse education. In
suggesting that research data was organised between what the stakeholder
intended and what the researcher observed, Stake’s (1967) theory recognised
the multi-faceted nature of the environment that shaped the creation and
implementation of the ‘Get Sorted’ project and that its development was
dependant on the engagement and participation of stakeholders.
Stake’s Countenance Theory (1967), as a framework for the analysis of
complex data, has recent currency and is still in use by researchers. Two
studies were of particular interest following exploration of previous research that
had utilised Stake’s (1967) Countenance Theory. Consideration of these studies
led to the application of what Stake more recently describes as a theoretical
‘persuasion’ rather than a theory (Stake, 1981; Nevo, 1983) to this study as a
means of supporting systematic data analysis from diverse sources to produce
findings across the data corpus.
Shapiro’s (1985) evaluation of a worksite program, discussed his application of
Stake’s (1967) notion of contingency and congruence. Stake (ibid) defines
contingency and congruence as the two principle ways of processing
descriptive evaluation data. Contingency is concerned with the ‘relationship’ or
‘link’ between stages and congruence is concerned with the comparison
between what was intended and what was observed (see Figure 2.2). What was
interesting was Shapiro’s (1985) identification of the value of establishing the
logical contingency of conceptualisation, and the congruence between this
44
conceptual model and empirical data constituting sufficient conditions for
validating evaluative inference of goals attained (p. 47). Shapiro’s (1985)
explanation of failure also had resonance with issues identified in the literature
regarding the lack of theoretical underpinning the development and delivery of
drug education (Beck, 1998; McBride, 2003). Whilst Suchman (1976) attributes
‘theory failure’ to a lack of logical contingency and ‘programme failure’ to a lack
of congruence, Shapiro (1985) interprets this as theory failure occurring when a
programme is based on unsound theory, and programme failure when the
programme does not reflect the underlying theoretical model. With this
differentiation between theory and programme, appropriate responses to failure
can be identified and actioned.
Shapiro’s (1985) application of Stake’s (1967) Countenance Theory raised
some potential difficulties for this study. Whilst Shapiro’s (1985) experience
would be relevant to the statistical project related data within data set two, the
primary data set was for this study was to be qualitative in nature. Therefore in
order to remain in a position to validate whether goals have been attained, one
must rely on the reality that the data is in fact a mutually negotiated
understanding of a dynamic situation. Also, in terms of theory and programme
failure, this study was not concerned with a single programme, therefore the
process of distinguishing possible failure to attain goals was less
straightforward. Only the goals that relate to the elements of the ‘Get Sorted’
project that rely on empirical contingency (e.g. the creation of lesson plans and
materials) could be subject to this process of reasoning. However, where to
some extent Shapiro’s utilisation of Stake’s (1967) model remains helpful to this
study is in the utilisation of rich descriptive data in uncovering indirect reasons
for insufficient attainment of identified goals and the recognition of the
attainment of initially unidentified goals.
Deepwell’s (2002) evaluation of the implementation of a virtual learning
environment across a higher education institution offered a current and positive
perspective on the use of Stake’s (1967) countenance theory to study an
evolving educational development. Deepwell (2002) employed Stake’s (1967)
countenance model of evaluation in order to support the study of an evolving
programme over time; adapting it and combining it, with ‘action evaluation’
45
(Rothman & Friedman, 2002) to make it fit for purpose. Having undertaken an
eclectic approach to data collection, Deepwell (2002) relied on this data
collection to be undertaken by ‘internal agents who are active and reflective
participants in the development’ [of the subject of the study] (p.85). Deepwell
(2002) asserts that utilising both Stake’s (1967) countenance model and action
evaluation is assisting, in the long term ongoing evaluation.
“Stake’s countenance framework, combined with the stakeholder
participation inherent in action evaluation is helping us to achieve a
long range view of the development. A view that expresses multiple
voices and permits a range of data sources and enables us to
observe and contrast the actual findings with stated intentions in an
iterative and dynamic cycle.” (Deepwell, 2002 p. 85)
Deepwell’s (2002) successful utilisation of the basic elements of countenance
theory as a framework to support the observation and comparison of actual
findings with stated intentions led to the serious consideration of the application
of Stake’s (1967) matrices for this study.
The main limitation of applying Stake’s (1967) Countenance Theory to this
study was the fact that the ‘Get Sorted’ project was not a programme of
education. This limitation was recognised at the outset and led to the
acknowledgement that necessary adjustments would have to be made to
accommodate this, which would include the possible modification of the
matrices. The modification of the description matrix to reflect the nature of the
‘Get Sorted’ project is illustrated in Figure 2.3.
Another consideration was the currency of Stakes’ (1967) work and further
investigation was undertaken into more recent modifications of the original
Countenance Theory. Investigation found that Stake has, over the years,
developed and adapted his original Countenance Theory (Stake, 2004) to
reflect his own philosophical shift towards a more subjective research paradigm.
However, the description matrices and judgement matrices designed in 1967
remain the same within his more recent discussions of ‘standards based’ and
‘responsive’ evaluation (Stake, 2004).
46
The comparative merits of using Stake’s (1967) matrices as a framework tool to
bring order to the analysis of the data corpus and present findings were deemed
to outweigh the modifications necessary to overcome the identified limitations.
Therefore, the methodological approach to analysing the data corpus was the
application of Stake’s (1967) modified Countenance Theory. This was chosen
over the approaches offered by Guba and Lincoln (1989), Weiss (1976), Patton
(1982) and Pawson and Tilley (1998) as the most appropriate to answer the
research questions and in turn achieve the research aim.
2.4 Stake’s Countenance Theory of Educational Evaluation (1967)
Stake’s Countenance Theory of Educational Evaluation (1967) approach
promotes a multi-faceted approach to data collection and selection that best
reflects the complex nature of the aims of the ‘Get Sorted’ project. The ethos of
the ‘Get Sorted’ project is to ensure the delivery of a single agreed message
across stakeholders’ territories. The agendas of stakeholders create different
perspectives of the single message; therefore the measurement of the impact
the ‘Get Sorted’ project has had on stakeholders’ perceptions and agendas is
central to the evaluation of its success. Stake’s (ibid.) matrices also provide a
systematic method of data analysis that seeks to identify the differing priorities
and intents of stakeholders. This ‘illuminative evaluation’ approach urges
broader contextual description, which is necessary to fully explain the nature of
the ‘Get Sorted’ project. The project itself is not a substance misuse education
programme that informs teachers what to teach – rather, it is a support
mechanism that gives teachers the skills, knowledge and confidence with which
to teach. Stake’s (1967) description and judgement matrices also support the
evolution of ongoing interventions through the focus on both original and
feedback antecedents, including unwanted side effects and incidental gains.
47
Figure 2.2 Stake’s (1967) matrix for data analysis (adapted)
INTENTS
OBSERVATIONS
STANDARDS JUDGEMENTS
Congruence
Antecedents
Rationale
Logical
Contingency
Empirical
Contingency
Congruence
Transactions
Logical
Contingency
Empirical
Contingency
Congruence
Outcomes
DESCRIPTION MATRIX
JUDGEMENT MATRIX
Stake’s (1967) Countenance Theory was conceptualised following his dismay at
what he perceived to be the narrow data selection used for formal evaluation
purposes, and formulated for curriculum studies in the late 1960’s. Believing in
the importance of contextual description and discussion, and identifying durable
relationships (Cronbach, 1963) and the need for the evaluator to provide
judgement of worth (Scriven, 1965), Stake’s Countenance Theory presents a
matrix that allows for a wealth of data to be analysed, to provide a fully
illuminative, yet responsive evaluation.
“Folklore is not a sufficient repository. In our data banks we should
document the causes and effects, the congruence of intent and
accomplishment, and the panorama of judgements of those
concerned. Such records should be kept to promote educational
action, not obstruct it. The countenance of evaluation should be one
of decision-making, not trouble-making” (Stake, 1967, pg.538).
In this respect the process of evaluating is as important as the outcome (Dorn
and Murji, 1992; Jansen et al., 1996; Allot et al., 1999), to inform and support
future developments, and promote the need for more appropriate meaningful
evaluation in the field of substance misuse education (Beck, 1998).
The matrix is in fact a description matrix and judgement matrix which, when
employed together, allow for the evaluator to record antecedent, transaction
48
and outcome stages within four classes; intents, observations, standards and
judgements (see Figure 2.2 above). Countenance Theory aims to capture the
complexity of educational change or innovation through the measurement of
congruence between these classes, and the exploration of contingency
between each stage, to provide the basis for judging worth. It effectively
encourages holistic evaluation, allowing for latitudinal and longitudinal
comparisons of attitudes, confidence and perceptions to be made at
antecedent, transaction and outcome stages, therefore providing a clear
structure for practice analysis. It enables the evaluator to separate the intents
from what was observed, and place both within the context of standards in order
to make a valid judgement of worth. Further theoretical detail can be found in
Appendix iv.
2.4.1 Application of Countenance Theory to this study
Within this study, the ‘intents’ and ‘observations’ of the description matrix, and
the ‘standards’ and ‘judgements’ of the judgement matrix refer to the following:

‘Intents’ are the operational objectives of the ‘Get Sorted’ project;

‘Observations’ are the findings from data set two (project related
data) and data set three (evaluative research data);

‘Standards’ refer to both external and internal standards. External
standards include the key substance misuse strategy, policy and
good practice documents identified within the findings of data set one
(documentary analysis) as well as national policy documents relating
to children and young people. Internal standards refer to the local
strategic plans and documents that guided the operational
development and monitoring of the ‘Get Sorted’ project.

‘Judgements’ refer to the overall findings of the analysis of the data
corpus against the initial research questions.
Within the description matrix, the ‘observations’ are measured against the
‘intents’ to ascertain the level of congruence between the two. This level of
congruence is referred to as the ‘observation findings’ and is discussed within
seven discussion themes as explained further in section 2.4.2 and presented in
49
chapter eight of this thesis. Within the judgement matrix the observation findings
are mapped against the standards, which provide both internal and external
benchmarks to evidence and substantiate the observation findings. Comparison
of the substantiated observation findings with the research questions provides
the judgements. Stake’s (1967) description and judgement matrices facilitate
meaningful analysis of research data in terms of both research questions and
practice standards.
Some difficulties in applying Stake’s (1967) countenance theory to the
evaluation of the ‘Get Sorted’ project were experienced during the testing of the
matrices. This was due to the wealth of data available and the fact the ‘Get
Sorted’ project was not a programme of education, as had been acknowledged
at the outset. The difficulties experienced centred on the rigidity of Stake’s
description matrix in compartmentalising the intents and observations at the
antecedent, transaction and outcome stages (see Figure 2.2; Appendix iv).
Although Stake’s (1967) description matrix attempts to capture the complexity of
the data, to employ it as designed to evaluate an educational ‘programme’ still
forces the data to be interpreted in linear structures - the horizontal
measurement of congruence and the vertical measurement of logical and
empirical contingency. Due to the nature of the data sources, and the ‘zigzag’
(Eriksen, 1995) interdependency between theory and data, there was inevitable
overlap between intentions and observations at all stages, as well as the
antecedent, transaction and outcome stages themselves.
When analysing data within the antecedent stage, it became obvious that the
retrospective nature of stakeholder perceptions (as gathered in data set three)
was causing a ‘blurring’ between the intents and the observations. There was
also a ‘blurring’ between the transactions and outcomes stages in the data
collected and analysed, making subsequent findings in data set three
impossible to categorise within these stages. This therefore made the
organisation of data within the description matrix as directed by Stake (1967)
impracticable. The situation was further compounded by issues associated with
the inherent conflict for practitioners undertaking research into their own
situations (which is discussed further in chapter ten).
50
For these reasons the description matrix was modified to reflect intents and
observations as a whole rather than at the transaction and outcome stages
(Figure 2.3). This allowed for data pertaining to the transaction and outcome
stages to be analysed as intents and observations due to the high level of
contingency between the stages. The nature of the data pertaining to the
antecedent stage allowed for discussion of this stage to be more in keeping with
Stake’s (1967) original framework. In the modified matrices, discussion of the
antecedents replaced the ‘Rationale’ within Stake’s (1967) original matrix as it
offered the contextual background to what was being studied. (see Figure 2.3
below). The impact of the necessary modification of Stake’s (1967)
Countenance Theory in order to address the difficulties experienced is
discussed further in chapter ten section 10.3).
Figure 2.3 Stake’s (1967) modified description matrix for data analysis
INTENTS
OBSERVATIONS
ANTECEDENTS
TRANSACTIONS
TRANSACTIONS
AND
OUTCOMES
AND
OUTCOMES
The difficulties experienced were overcome by modifying the description matrix
and using the same key themes for focus and discussion as had been produced
during the thematic analysis process to analyse data within data set three.
2.4.2 Presenting the findings of Stake’s (1967) analysis
In order to provide clarity for the reader, the findings from analysis of the data
corpus have been grouped under the following themes for presentation and
51
discussion:

Partnership working

Communication

Approach

Knowledge and confidence of educators

Co-ordination and consistency

Policy and strategy

‘Get Sorted’ as a Council resource
These themes are the output of the thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006)
of interview responses within data set three, which was undertaken in
consideration of the research questions. Presenting findings within these
themes addresses the need to provide consistency and clarity when discussing
findings within both Stake’s (1967) description matrix and judgement matrix
(Appendix iv).
Within the context of the description matrix, findings within these themes (as the
‘observations’), when mapped to the ‘Get Sorted’ project objectives as the
‘intents’), provide a format for comparing what was observed with what was
intended (see Table 2.1 below).
52
Table 2.1 Analysis of themes cross-referenced with ‘Get Sorted’ project
objectives as intents
‘Get Sorted’ as
a Council
resource
Policy and
strategy
Co-ordination
and
consistency
Knowledge and
confidence of
educators
Approach
Communication
Partnership
working
OBSERVATIONS
‘Get Sorted’ Project Objectives
(INTENTS)
Provide ‘hands on’ support for staff dealing
with substance misuse incidents in both
schools and the youth service.
Provide specific training and classroom
support
for
professionals
delivering
substance
misuse
education,
encompassing drug information and
teaching
methodology,
to
increase
knowledge and confidence.
Provide guidance on age appropriate
information for children and young people at
each Key Stage.
Develop new strategies for engaging hard
to reach children and young people, in
substance misuse education.
Support parental and community awareness
raising initiatives, to support a consistent
approach to substance misuse education,
and its key messages.
Develop effective communication networks,
to facilitate the sharing of best practice, and
assist the monitoring and review of
substance misuse education throughout the
County Borough.
Implement a multi-agency approach to
meeting the strategic objectives relating to
substance misuse education within the
Rhondda Cynon Taf Substance Misuse
Action Plan.















Table 2.1 provides the framework of analysis within the description matrix and
identifies areas of congruence between the intents and observations. Findings
within the description matrix are discussed and presented in terms of the
outcomes of this process of cross-referencing and are detailed in chapter
seven, section 7.3.2.
Within the context of the judgement matrix, the cross-referencing of these
themes (as the ‘observation findings’ of the description matrix), against the
research questions, enable judgements to be made (Table 2.2 below). These
judgements are concerned with the success of the ‘Get Sorted’ project in terms
of the original hypothesis made following the documentary analysis.
53
The separate cross-referencing of key strategy, policy and good practice
documents (as analysed in data set one) as ‘standards’ (Stake, 1967) against
the ‘observation findings’ provides a method of evidencing the judgements
made and is detailed in chapter 7, section 7.3.2, Figures 7.9 and 7.10.
Table 2.2 Analysis of themes cross-referenced with research questions as a
measurement of success
FINDINGS
‘Get Sorted’ as
a Council
resource
Policy and
strategy
Co-ordination
and
consistency
Knowledge and
confidence of
educators
Approach
Communication
Partnership
working
(Congruence between intents and observations)
Research Questions
(MEASUREMENT OF SUCCESS)
Has the initiative improved communication
between key stakeholders regarding
substance misuse education?
Has the support for schools in the delivery
of substance misuse education improved?
Has the support for schools in the
management of substance misuse incidents
improved?
Has the initiative increased the confidence
of teachers in addressing the substance
misuse education needs of pupils?
Can the initiative, as a model for cultural
change, be replicated in other areas to
address other issues faced by a local
authority?







In effect, these themes allow for a consistent and focused approach to
identifying and evidencing the research findings and subsequent judgements
made regarding merits of the ‘Get Sorted’ project. The measurement of the
extent to which the findings answer the research questions and whether this is
supported by external standards, places the evaluative judgements within a
wider context. This increases the future replication of the principles of the
practice of the ‘Get Sorted’ project and the methodology employed for this
study.
Where segments of text have been selected to illustrate themes and evidence
arguments, particular care has been taken to ensure that quotations have not
been taken out of context and have not been used to reinforce preconceptions.
54
2.5 Ethical considerations
During this study, the researcher’s primary concern was to ensure that no harm
came to the participants (Green and Thorogood, 2004) through their
involvement in the study. The location of the interviews undertaken had been
chosen by the participants (mainly at the participants’ place of work), and for
logistical and practical reasons the focus groups were held at schools. All
participants had entered into the study voluntarily, having been made aware of
its purpose by letter and face to face explanation and discussion and had
signed consent forms (parental consent forms were issued for the pupil focus
groups) prior to their involvement in the study (Appendices x & xi). The nature of
the study was clearly outlined through a verbal explanation of its purpose,
outlining the confidential nature of participation and explaining that pseudonyms
would be used to maintain anonymity. Arrangements for the storage of data in
accordance with the Data Protection Act (electronic data to be password
protected including sound files from the digital recordings of interviews and
paperwork, and electronic back up measures to be kept in locked storage), and
its subsequent use were also confirmed at the outset, to support the assurance
of confidentiality. The opportunity to conclude involvement in the study at any
point up to publication was also stressed, including the exclusion of data that
had been given by individuals wishing to cease involvement from the study.
Participants were asked at the start of the interview if they objected to being
recorded. Again, the researcher re-iterated that the digital sound files would be
securely stored, under password protection and saved under an anonymised
reference system created by the researcher rather than under respondents’
names. In a conscious attempt not to exploit the need to encourage trust and
disclosure from respondents during the interview process, care was taken not to
betray trust or to ask questions that could be subject to misinterpretation. Due to
the emotive nature of the topic discussed, emotional consequences of
involvement in the study were also considered and legislation and respect for
participants’ views, rather than the pursuit of data was put foremost. No
emotional responses or disclosures were experienced during this study and
none of the participants exercised their right to withdraw their involvement from
this study.
55
Following consideration of the ethical aspects, informed consent was sought
from all participants, including approval from parents and schools for younger
participants (BERA, 2004, p. 7). As a qualified teacher and enhanced policechecked employee of RCT Local Education Authority, the researcher complied
with the legal requirements in relation to working with school children (BERA,
2004 p. 7). All information obtained remained confidential and the study
conformed to the BERA recommendations and guidelines for the ethical
conduct of educational research (BERA, 2004), and the University of
Glamorgan Non-Specialist Ethical Guidelines for Research. Ethical approval for
this study was also granted by both the University of Glamorgan’s Humanities,
Law and Social Sciences School Ethics Committee, and the Senior
Management Team within Rhondda Cynon Taf Local Education Authority.
2.6 Chapter summary
This chapter has outlined the methodological approach taken to enable the aim
of this study to be met and appropriately answer the research questions posed.
It has detailed the rationale for the choice of methodology within the research
paradigm and offered insight into the type of data within each of the data sets.
Maintenance of a critical examination of the role of both practitioner and
researcher throughout the research process has been essential. A commitment
to remain as objective as possible was imperative in order to ensure
comprehensive data collection and meaningful analysis and to be more
receptive to participants’ answers during interviews. Difficulties in undertaking
this were experienced at times during this study, due to the dual role of
practitioner and researcher. These difficulties stemmed from both roles having
already formulated preconceptions, through experience, on the existing
situation and what was needed to address weaknesses and are discussed
further in chapter ten, section 10.4. Methodological considerations for this study
are reflected upon and discussed further in chapter ten, section 10.3.
Detail of research methods used, including the sampling strategies employed
and the procedure undertaken to collect and analyse data within data sets one,
two and three, is given in chapters three, six and seven respectively.
56
Chapter 3. ‘Government policy regarding drug education: development,
dissemination and debate.’
3.1 Introduction
Prior to 1985 there was no linked Government approach to drug treatment,
education, community safety, availability or supply. The responsibility for drugs
lay with the Home Office as the lead Government department, with the main
focus on the enforcement agenda (Drugscope, 2004). In response to growing
public and political concerns regarding drugs and their use in the UK the Home
Office published the first version of its ‘Tackling Drug Misuse’ document in 1985
(Home Office, 1985). Often portrayed as the first UK strategy, it was in reality a
description of what was being done by the Government to address the issue of
drugs in the areas of health, education and crime. Drug education policy at this
time was mainly in the form of mass media campaigning to promote primary
prevention anti-drug messages (Drugscope, 2004).
Research findings into the effectiveness and impact of mass media campaigns
fuelled the debate of the 1990’s regarding the merit of drug education policy
based upon prevention only strategies (Clements et al 1988; Rhodes, 1990;
Cohen, 1996b). The role of drug education based upon harm reduction
philosophy became more accepted (ibid.), and this period saw a new focus on
drug education within Government policy and drug strategy (Home Office,
1998). The implementation of ‘Tackling Drugs Together’ (1995) prioritised the
provision of drug education and encouraged drug education practitioners to
experiment with a range of approaches and programmes. Since 2000,
Government policy has attempted to promote programmes based on research
findings of ‘what works’ in drug education (HASC, 2005), and has funded a
large scale research based project called Blueprint (Blueprint, 2009).
This chapter will detail and analyse the developments in drug education policy
over these three discernible periods, 1985–1989; 1990–1999; 2000–2009. The
nature of mass media anti-drug campaigns will be explored, and the merit of
their use as a tool to implement Government policy and consolidate public
opinion examined. Issues relating to the effective development, dissemination
57
and implementation of Government policy are addressed in the conclusion.
3.2 Methodology – data set one: documentary analysis
The presentation of findings from the documentary analysis have been
separated into three themes (one per chapter) that are discussed in this chapter
and the two following chapters. This method of documentary analysis and the
process undertaken applies across the findings identified in this chapter which
is concerned with Government policy regarding drug education; chapter four is
concerned with the key approaches to drug education; and chapter five is
concerned with the role and use of research in the provision of drug education.
To avoid repetition, details regarding the methodology employed to undertake
the research in data set one will only be set out in this chapter and the reader
will be referred to this section in chapters four and five.
3.2.1 Data collection
Data sources included books, journals, articles, documents, reports, studies and
literature regarding the provision of drug education for young people in the UK
over the last 30 years. The first phase of data collection was concerned with
specific drug education programmes and campaigns, to give an outline of the
dominant approaches to provision and their origins and development over this
time. The second data collection looked at Government policy over the last
three decades and the close link with media coverage and public perception of
drug education. Throughout both collections available research findings relating
to each research question were recorded.
The collection of data was from a range of sources including the ERIC and BEI
databases and Drugscope’s database of academic research papers Drugdata,
Hansard materials, published research findings, both educational and
substance misuse specific journals and substance misuse specific publication
archives (e.g. Druglink) and the Internet. Hansard materials were collected to
provide insight into ‘current issues’ within the political arena over the last three
decades and where cited in this study are done so to illustrate the dominance of
public subjective opinion on the development of policy and practice and provide
context for policy developments. Substance misuse publications for
58
practitioners (e.g. Druglink), with a wide range of contributors, were also used to
provide insight into the dominant issues for practitioners and provide context
and a counterbalance to Government funded and published research papers
and academic papers.
Standardising search terms on a number of databases enabled access to
relevant documents from a number of sources. Standardised search terms,
relating to the specific research questions, also allowed for the preliminary
boundaries of data collection to be set. The lists produced from searches were
sifted for promising titles and abstracts were referred to, to check suitability. The
data collection was also widened as necessary, by the use of references cited
in already identified sources.
Table 3.1 Data collection – data set one
Research question
How has Government
policy on drug
education been
informed in the last
30 years?
Type of data
Government reports, records,
publications, policy and strategy
documents, guidance circulars
Hansard materials
Government commissioned research
What have been the
predominant
approaches to drug
education over the
last three decades?
Educational materials
Documents – good practice guidance
Articles – peer refereed journals,
substance misuse specific publications
Research findings – Evaluations, case
studies, meta-evaluations
Research findings – Reviews, good
practice
How has drug
education developed
over the last 30
years?
Educational materials
Documents – good practice guidance,
policy and strategy documents and
reports
Articles – peer refereed journals,
substance misuse specific publications
Research findings – Evaluations, case
studies, meta-evaluations
Research findings – Reviews, good
practice
Research findings - Case studies,
reviews
Articles – journals, magazines –
substance misuse specific and general
interest
Campaign materials
Letters to newspapers
Materials from media interviews
How has public
perception and media
coverage affected the
provision and content
of drug education
over the last 30
years?
Source of data
Drug data - Drugscope
database / journal holdings
Journals (e.g. Policy
Studies / Drug Policy)
Internet – Google / Google
Scholar
Government websites
BEI & ERIC
Drug data - Drugscope
database / journal holdings
Journals (e.g. Primary
Prevention / Institute of
Health Education /
Education)
Internet – Google / Google
Scholar
BEI & ERIC
Drug data - Drugscope
database / journal holdings
Journals (e.g. Drug
Education / School Health)
Internet – Google / Google
Scholar
Drug data - Drugscope
database / journal holdings
Journals (e.g. Addiction /
Drug Issues)
Internet – google / google
scholar
Newspaper archives
59
3.2.2 Data selection and analysis
Once the data was organised, verification and validation of this data took place.
Rigorous assessment of the research data during the selection process was
essential to support its verification and validation and details of how this was
undertaken follows.
The first step was to review the contents of documents and to scan the index for
key words. Notes were then made on the relevant chapters and also on
references cited in the document. Sources of data were then classified
according to whether they are primary or secondary sources. The computer
reference package Endnote was used to support the organisation of the data in
a number of simultaneous ways, including chronological and by key themes in
line with the research questions. There were a number of issues that need to be
addressed at this next stage of the process to ensure that the research data
was robust enough to allow for meaningful analysis. Each piece of data was
subject to the following questions, based on those identified by Blaxter, Hughes
and Tight (2001):

Who are the authors?

What is their position / biases?

When, where and why was the document produced?

How was it produced? For whom?

In what context was the document produced?

What are its underlying assumptions?

What does the document say and not say?

How is the argument presented?

How well supported and convincing is its argument?

How does this document relate to previous / later ones?

What do other sources have to say about it?
The answering of these questions was essential for critical analysis and
ascertaining the relevancy, validity and usefulness of individual documents from
60
a wide range of sources. This process encompassed both stages of historical
criticism - external criticism to establish the authenticity or genuineness of data,
and internal criticism to evaluate the worth and accuracy of the data. This was
used as the criteria for evaluating the quality of documents in relation to their
authenticity, credibility, representativeness and meaning. Assessment of the
purpose, methodology and epistemology behind research was necessary to
give a true indication of its usefulness and where it ‘fitted’ in relation to other
data. Epistemology was important to assess in order to identify the research
paradigms from which documents were produced in order to identify
assumptions held by their authors (see chapter five section 5.2). These
questions also provided a standardised framework for selection and analysis, to
support objectivity, and played an important role in establishing the
trustworthiness of the study. In turn this ensured faithful representation was
achieved and the conclusions drawn from the selected data were accurate. This
framework of questions has also been utilised in the identification, analysis and
citing of documents and research to substantiate assertions and provide
counterbalance arguments throughout this thesis. The use of this framework
proved particularly helpful in the identification of standards (Appendix xxvi) and
their subsequent use as an external benchmark against which the findings in
chapter eight were measured (chapter 7, section 7.3.2) to produce the
judgements identified in chapter nine.
It was necessary to draw on the analysis of documents and records from both
qualitative and quantitative sources. By ensuring that all sources were subject
to the same scrutiny during selection and analysis, the value of empirical
evidence from quantitative sources, and subjective understanding from
qualitative sources, contributed equally to the holistic aims of this study. Reevaluation of historical data in relation to current theories and approaches
highlighted the significance of both qualitative and quantitative findings that
when first published had been overlooked or dismissed due to the methodology
employed.
61
3.3 Policy developments between 1985 – 1989
Little Hansard material pertaining to drug education exists prior to 1989.
Specific debates in the House of Commons in June and July 1989 sought an
approved consensus on future action and policy formulation regarding drug
education. It is documented that this was a subject that was rarely debated and
its inclusion for debate was greatly welcomed (Hansard, 1989b). A subsequent
debate in December 1989 was heralded as ‘historic’ (Hansard, 1989d).
Government policy regarding drug education during this time period was largely
focused on the employment of mass media campaigns; however the
establishment of drug education in schools became a growing priority
(Drugscope, 2004).
Figure 3.1 Policy developments between 1985 - 1989
“Tackling
Drug Misuse”
Policy
Action
‘Reduction in
Demand’ focus
achievable through
drug education:
Needs identified –
nominated primary
prevention
programme and
practitioner input in
policy development
Drug education
focus – Dept.
for Education
and Science
Circular 6/86
1985
1986
‘Heroin
Screws You
Up’
Campaign
Drug Education
Co-ordinators
(England) to
support in-service
training for
teachers and youth
workers
1987
‘Smack isn’t
Worth It’
Campaign
1988
£2M spent on
anti-drug
campaigning
1989
1990
£7M to
Schools given
develop drug
primary function education in
in the provision of
schools
drug education
‘Don’t Inject AIDS’
Campaign
‘Drug Use
Kills’
Campaign
‘Just Say No’
Campaign
£1.5M to develop local services to provide drug
education
3.3.1 Demand reduction through drug education
By 1989, the Government had identified that a high priority for them was to
develop a nominated drug education programme for young people (Allot et al.,
1999). A review of policy issues was initiated in December 1988 and concluded
62
that if a significant ‘reduction in demand’ [for drugs] was to be achieved through
education, then continuation of funding for Drug Education Co-ordinators in
each Local Education Authority in England and the formation of a plan for
schools had to be a main priority for the Government (Drugscope, 2004). The
Government saw the schools as having a primary function in providing drug
education for young people and teachers, with the responsibility of tackling the
subject of drugs at every available opportunity. This view was endorsed by
comparison with the United States (US). Throughout this time, the Hansard
literature highlights comparisons with the way in which the US had dealt with
their drugs problem five years previously, from availability to education
(Hansard 1989b). Within Hansard materials the US is heavily criticised for not
having equipped its young people, through education, to reject drugs.
It was suggested that a broad based policy was essential in order to address
the various elements of the problem (ibid.), and one that promoted a coordinated health education programme to support the work of schools (Hansard,
1989a). This educational programme would include coverage of the dangers of
illegal as well as legal drugs; ‘clearly explained, but not shockingly presented’
(Hansard, 1988d).
A ten point plan for health education was proposed in May 1989, in an attempt
to formalise and standardise school based health education that would
encompass education on drugs, alcohol and AIDS. This was in line with the
development of the National Curriculum and the provision of Personal and
Social Education (PSE). The main aspects of this ten point plan included
examining the effectiveness of existing health education and international good
practice, improved training and curriculum materials for teachers, funding for
successful programmes, information for parents, and general publicity for a
clear consistent health message for young people; ‘Stay healthy, stay in control’
(Drugscope, 2004; Hansard, 1989a).
The introduction of the Government’s ten point plan raised questions over the
direction which health education would take. Point five of the plan sought to
encourage investment from the private sector in the form of financial support for
drug education programmes. Concerns were raised over the possible conflicts
63
of interest that might arise and the restrictions that could be placed on
programmes by funders, as well as possible agendas that might lead the private
sector to invest in drug education (Hansard, 1989a).
3.3.2 Limitations of primary prevention based policy
Despite this new emphasis on education, Government policy regarding drug
education during this period was subject to heavy criticism of its aims and focus
(Bagnall and Plant, 1987; Anderson, 1988). The Government’s belief in the
effectiveness of primary prevention was said to be too simplistic as it is based
on the flawed assumption that primary prevention effects behaviour change
(Clements et al, 1988; Rhodes, 1990; Cohen, 1992; POST, 1996). It was
asserted that most young people who use drugs are not influenced by drug
education, as it does not examine perceptions or attitudes, therefore the focus
needed to be placed upon secondary prevention strategies (Clements et al,
1988; POST, 1996). Clements et al, (1988) stated that drug education needed
to move away from the negative, victim-blaming approach that encouraged the
use of stereotypes and ‘isolates and castigates drug users as deviants’ (ibid;
Rhodes, 1990). Drug education was also criticised for focusing on the expertise
of the educator rather than the experience of children and young people
(Lowden and Powney, 1999) - therefore in its current form, Government policy,
with primary prevention at its core, was not achieving its aim to reduce demand
(Clements et al, 1988; Allot et al., 1999).
By 1989 the Government had identified the need for practitioners to input into
policy formulation, and the local education authorities to be seen as partners
(DfE, 1995; Drugscope, 2004). Failure to use the skills of the LEAs in the drug
education work they were already doing was predicted by politicians to be
disastrous for prevention as a whole (Hansard, 1989d).
3.3.3 Mass media campaigns
‘Heroin Screws You Up’ (1985)
Throughout the period 1985-1988, it can be argued that Government policy
regarding drug education was largely mass media campaigns (Drugscope,
2004). One of the most prominent Government anti-drug campaigns launched
64
in the UK was the ‘Heroin Screws You Up’ campaign of 1985. The
Government’s aim for this mass advertising and poster campaign was quite
simply to ensure that heroin was viewed by both users and non-users as a
‘dirty’ drug that wasn’t desirable (Cohen, Clements and Kay, 1990; Rhodes,
1990). This therefore would result in ‘demand reduction’. Subsequent
evaluations of this campaign were mixed (Wallack, 1985; Qualitative Research
Unit, 1986; Research Bureau Limited, 1986; Dorn, 1986; Power, 1989; Rhodes,
1990). It was deemed successful in that it ‘fostered and reinforced negative
attitudes and beliefs about heroin use’ (Rhodes, 1990); however, other research
provided evidence that this campaign had been unsuccessful as there was
evidence to show that it had gone some way in glamorising the drug for young
people (Druglink, 1988; Hansard, 1989d). Rhodes argues that in order for such
a campaign to be effective in discouraging drug use, it needs to confirm existing
public belief (whether correct or not) about heroin and heroin users in order to
establish the common ground needed to communicate the message.
The 1986 Research Bureau Limited Evaluation confirmed that the ‘Heroin
Screws You Up’ campaign had indeed intensified and consolidated negative
views about heroin and heroin users. In 1986 the Qualitative Research Unit (on
behalf of the Department of Health and Social Security) provided evaluative
research to support extension of the ‘Heroin Screws You Up’ campaign, despite
a number of conflicting research findings including research published in the
British Medical Journal in 1985, amongst others.
‘Smack Isn’t Worth It’ (1987)
Despite the criticisms of the ‘Heroin Screws You Up’ campaign, the ‘Smack Isn’t
Worth It’ campaign was launched in 1987 and reinforced the messages
conveyed in the previous campaign. Its aim was to show the threat of heroin
use to the family. Rather than the usual sole focus on the health of the user, this
campaign aimed to show people the effects of heroin use on a range of societal
issues. It is argued that in attempting to address non-users as well as users, the
messages and images used alienated drug users, making them less responsive
to official sources of information and help (Rhodes, 1990).
65
Parallels were drawn with the Government’s AIDS campaigns of the same era,
criticising the lack of research prior to the launch of such campaigns and
evaluation following them. Bagnall and Plant (1987) asserted that there was no
evidence to show that shock tactics worked at any level, and that the implied
‘Heroin Screws You Up’ theme was therefore counter productive.
In 1987 the Department of Health and Social Security published ‘The Next
Phase of the AIDS Publicity and Drug Prevention Campaigns’, that identified
further mass media campaigns, despite the criticisms of this method of
education. Literature from 1985-1987 shows evidence that Government strategy
was missing the point (Dorn and Murji, 1992; Cohen, 1996a), and yet in each of
these years the Government continued to plough money into something that
had already been shown not to work (Power, 1989; Drugscope, 2004). The
Government is also criticised for committing itself to this media strategy when it
would be impossible to evaluate (Anderson, 1988).
3.3.4 The effectiveness of mass media campaigning
By 1989 it was widely accepted by ministers that the evaluative evidence
proved that anti-drug campaigning was ineffective, and that the money used to
fund these campaigns (£2 million in 1988 alone) would have been better spent
on other forms of drug education (Hansard, 1989a). Despite this acceptance it
was still perceived that there was some merit in national campaigns being
launched in line with local campaigns (Hansard, 1989b).
Most commonly, mass media campaigns are based on factual information
regarding the effects of particular drugs, or fear arousal approaches (HEBS,
2003). In 1984 the Government’s Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs
(ACMD) advised against the use of fear arousal approaches and national mass
media campaigns that aimed to reduce drug use and misuse (ACMD, 1984).
The committee concluded that if mass media campaigns were to be used they
should be part of a wider, well planned strategy, aimed at informing rather than
scaring, in order to have a cumulative influence on public opinion (HEBS, 2003).
The main reason behind the use of mass media campaigning is the influence
this method can have on the reinforcement of beliefs (Budd and McCron, 1981).
However mass media anti-drug campaigns have been criticised for reinforcing
66
negative beliefs regarding drugs and drug users, and manipulated for the
purpose of agenda setting (Tones, 1981).
The effectiveness of mass media campaigns as a tool to implement policy and
consolidate public attitudes is limited. An evaluation of the Scottish Health
Education Group 1985 Drug Abuse Campaign highlighted that the two major
elements of the campaign were flawed (Leathar Hastings and Squair, 1985).
The campaign targeted three groups - 13-16 year olds, 17-20 year olds and
parents of 13-20 year olds - through television advertising and a booklet
distributed with popular magazines. The television advert was found to have
attracted more attention to the issue; however, the research found that public
attitudes towards drugs were already negative and so were not largely affected
by the campaign (ibid.). It concluded that there was little need for mass media
campaigns aimed at shocking the general public to elicit negative responses,
although the research was largely positive about the campaign itself. It also
highlighted the need for research that looked for attitudinal change (ibid.).
Usually mass media drug campaigns focus upon short term behaviour change
despite the evidence that this is ineffective, (De Haes and Schuurman, 1975;
Dorn and Murji, 1992). The ways in which campaigns can affect behaviour is
complex and this is often not reflected in evaluation design (Hornik and
Yanovitzky, 2003). This leads to many evaluations not being able to detect the
full impact of campaigns (ibid.). Policy makers need to,
“develop a theory of the campaign that respects how behaviour can
really be affected and evaluate the campaign consistent with that
theory of effect”. (Hornik and Yanovitzky, 2003, pg. 222)
Effective campaigns need to be properly targeted and show an awareness of,
and respect for, different lifestyles and personal priorities in order to build upon
pre-existing motivating factors in reducing drug use (Dorn and South, 1983;
HEBS, 2003).
3.4 Policy developments between 1990 – 1999
It wasn’t until 1995 that the UK had a recognised drug strategy in terms of a
formal strategic document identifying it as a cross cutting issue for a number of
67
Government departments. Substance misuse had evoked political interest and
the drugs agenda had become of significant political importance for it to be
recognised as a cross cutting theme (HM Government, 1995). This increased
discussion and awareness had started to generate interest from a number of
departments. In April 1994, the Department of Health set up a Task Force to
review services for drug users across the UK. Their findings led to the
Government’s green paper in October 1994 (Home Office, 1994) and the
establishment of the Central Drugs Co-ordination Unit (CDCU). Whilst the
proposed Scottish strategy took the controversial step of endorsing safer drug
use advice for young people as a legitimate approach (Scottish Office, 1999),
the English strategy emphasised the services available to young drug users,
namely abstinence based services (Druglink, 1994b).
Figure 3.2 Policy developments between 1990 - 1995
Policy
Curriculum
Guidance on
Health
Education
(including
drug
education)
1990
Action
Government Green
Paper
Funding for
Drug
Education
Co-ordinators
ceased
National
Curriculum
Science Order
1991
1992
1993
Establishment of the
Central Drugs Coordinating Unit
(England)
1994
Responsibility
for drug
education
placed within
Personal and
Social
Education
“Tackling
Drugs
Together”
Dept. of
Education
Prevention
Circular
(methods
focus)
1995
£6M for drug
prevention
Welsh Drug
and Alcohol
Unit
established
(Wales)
68
Figure 3.3 Policy developments between 1996 - 2000
Change in
Government
Administration
“Forward
Together”
(Wales)
Anti-drugs Coordinator appointed
1996
1997
Policy
“Tackling Substance
Misuse in Wales: A
Partnership
Approach” (Wales)
“Tackling Drugs to
Build a Better
Britain” (UK)
Shift in terminology
from ‘drugs and
alcohol’ to
‘substance misuse’
Anti-Drugs Coordination Unit
replaces CDCU
£1.4B spent on drugs
agenda
Action
1998
1999
2000
Dept. of Education identifies
need for research and
evaluation role in the
planning of drug education
3.4.1 Drug education in schools
During this period there were significant developments in drug education policy
within the educational arena. Drug education became a statutory order for the
National Curriculum for Science in 1991 in England and Wales. Curriculum
Guidance 5: Health Education (NCC, 1990) was issued in 1990 and extended
drug education beyond the statutory requirements of outlining the physiological
effects of drugs, to exploring the link between drugs, society and behaviour. In
response to research findings pertaining to patterns of drug use, the
Government issued a number of reports regarding primary prevention, and the
ACMD also recommended the establishment of prevention policy and practice
for schools (Allot et al, 1999).
After the termination of funding for Health Education Co-ordinators in England in
1993, the Government was under intense pressure to address drug education.
Education and prevention were set to be growth areas within Government policy
making; however, conflict existed between Michael Howard (Conservative
Home Secretary) and John Patten (Conservative Secretary of State for
69
Education) regarding the nature of schools based drug education. Howard
believed that the priority should be the teaching of the dangers of drugs, whilst
Patten warned that gory images could glamorise drug use and that teachers
were already stretched delivering the National Curriculum. The National
Curriculum was the reason given by the Government for not distributing the
ACMD drug education report for schools, despite the Home Office calling for its
dissemination. Drug education was central to Tony Blair’s (then Leader of the
Opposition) assault on Tory drugs policy, with head teachers and police calling
for more input. In response, the Home Office and the Department of Health
expressed frustration with the Department for Education for being a missing
partner in a cross-departmental approach (Druglink, 1994a). Gillian Shephard
(who had taken over as Education Secretary) announced that drugs education
would be a priority for the Education Department, pledging six million pounds for
drug prevention for 1995/1996 (Druglink, 1995b). The focus of drug education
was to enable young people to resist pressures to use, through the provision of
information regarding the risks, and ‘say no’ peer resistance techniques
(Druglink, 1994a).
3.4.2 ‘Tackling Drugs Together’ (1995)
The publication of ‘Tackling Drugs Together’ in 1995 encouraged the
involvement of other Government departments; however, responsibility still lay
with the Home Office. The strategy focused upon three main agendas, crime,
young people and public health. The new strategy proposed a revised emphasis
on drug education and prevention. The Department for Education (DfE) and
later the Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) produced a number
of publications aimed at teachers (DfE 1995; DfEE/SCAA, 1995; DfEE, 1997).
The guidance supported teachers in the delivery of drug education, and clearly
restated the statutory position of schools in the provision of drug education.
Government research had concluded that drug education was the general
public’s first choice for dealing with the drug problem, and that the responsibility
for delivery lay with the Government and schools (Leitner et al, 1993). The
research also stated that the media and drug educators did not accept the
defence used by schools that sufficient drug education took place within the
science curriculum. It was argued that its place was within Personal and Social
70
Education - PSE (Druglink, 1994a).
3.4.3 The role of practitioners in the development of policy guidance
The argument whether drug education should seek to prevent drug use or be
part of a broader ranging curriculum is illustrated in the development of the DfE
prevention circular, the first draft of which was written by drug education
specialists. The School Curriculum Assessment Authority (SCAA) then revised
this draft and their revision shifted the focus of drug education from the original
broad educational approach to the effects of drugs and the associated health
risks, as well as removing a number of associated contextual issues. These
associated issues included the history of drugs, the social and cultural role of
drugs, stereotyping and the media, dispelling myths, understanding the reasons
for use and exploring the benefits of drug use. Criticisms of these omissions
included the contradiction of previous advice within the circular that called for
pupils to be given ‘a realistic account of their [drug’s] attractiveness’ (Druglink,
1995a). The original drafts commitment to ‘unbiased’ information was replaced
with the need to reinforce key messages throughout all phases. Drug education
specialists commended the retention of warnings against the use of frightening
images; however, they criticised the statement that the crucial role of schools
was to warn young people about the dangers which drug use poses. This
criticism stems from the lack of evidence to support the notion that highlighting
drug dangers will prevent drug use (Druglink, 1995a).
3.4.4 Recommendations for schools from the Department for Education
The recommendations of all the DfE documents could be grouped into three
categories. Documents prior to 1998 were concerned with agencies providing
drug education, and specific methods for provision of drug education, and from
1998 also the importance of research and evaluation in the planning and
reviewing of drug education (Allot et al, 1999). The principal recommendation
regarding the provision of drug education was that it should be teacher-led with
support from a number of agencies - including specialised drug workers, the
Police and others - that involved teachers in their delivery (DfE, 1995; HMSO,
1998). It was recommended that the method of delivery should be needs based,
interactive, and provide information whilst teaching decision making skills in a
71
programme that is integrated into the curriculum and maintained across a
pupil’s school career (NCC, 1990; ACMD, 1993; DfE, 1995; DfEE/SCAA, 1995;
HMSO, 1998). However, Dorn and Murji (1992) warned of problems
surrounding prescriptive methods of delivery of drug education due to lack of
research into specific method and their long-term effectiveness. The key
recommendation regarding research and evaluation of drug education was that
provision should be needs based and its effectiveness evaluated. Schools need
to establish the effect that drug education is having on pupils’ knowledge, skill
development and attitude change (DfEE/SCAA, 1995). A report by OFSTED in
1997 criticised schools in this arena, commenting that schools were not taking
the evaluation of drug education seriously.
3.4.5 Strategy implementation
Following the launch of the ‘Tackling Drugs Together’ strategy, Drug Action
Teams (DATs) were set up across the UK to monitor the implementation of the
strategy at a local level. In a report produced by the Task Force in July 1996 the
DAT’s were recommended to employ an evidence based approach to strategy
implementation and to give particular focus and attention to the outcomes of
treatment services. This latter recommendation set the measure of successful
strategy delivery, which almost a decade on still remains the dominant theme.
3.4.6 The situation in Wales – ‘Forward Together’ (1996)
In June 1995, David Hunt (the acting Welsh Secretary) announced the
allocation of £0.4 million to establish the Welsh Drug and Alcohol Unit (WDAU)
following a spate of drug related deaths in the South Wales Valleys. The Unit
was set up to guide and co-ordinate drug and alcohol misuse prevention,
treatment, rehabilitation and training across Wales. In May 1996, the Welsh
strategy ‘Forward Together’ was launched. The most notable differences to the
English strategy were that the Welsh strategy outlined proposals for the next
five years, rather than three years and included alcohol throughout. Four
objectives were identified to prevent the misuse of drugs and alcohol by young
people: education in schools; prevention activity in the youth service; national
and local campaigns; and prevention activity which other agencies in contact
with young people were urged to undertake. The Welsh structure, like the
72
English structure, included the establishment of regional Drug and Alcohol
Action Teams (DAATs); however local teams were established as Local Action
Teams (LATs) rather than the English Drug Reference Groups (DRGs).
Figure 3.4 The strategic structure in England
Central Drugs Coordinating Unit
(1994-1997)/ AntiDrugs Coordination Unit
(1997-2001)
Advisory Committee
on the Misuse of
Drugs (ACMD)
Advise DAATs via WDAU on
strategy and national
priorities
Drug Action
Teams (DATs)
Drug Reference
Groups
Implementation of strategy in
local terms
The Welsh structure, unlike England, also included a completely new tier of
strategy management in the form of Local Implementation Teams (LITs). Set up
by the DAATs, the multi-agency LITs were charged with implementing the
strategy in local terms, so that the LATs became an advisory body to both the
LITs and the DAATs.
73
Figure 3.5 The strategic structure in Wales
Welsh Advisory
Committee on Drug
and Alcohol Misuse
(WACDAM)
Welsh Drug and
Alcohol Unit
(WDAU)
Advise DAATs via WDAU on
strategy and national
priorities
Drug and Alcohol
Action Teams
(DAATs)
Local
Implementation
Team (LIT)
Multi-agency group to
oversee the implementation
of strategy in local terms
Local Action Team
(LAT)
Advisory group for DAATs
and LIT
The role of the WDAU, and the re-convened Welsh Advisory Committee on
Drug and Alcohol Misuse (WACDAM), was to advise the five DAATs in Wales
on strategy and the development of national prevention programmes and
campaigns. In 1999 WACDAM, with its 35 members, was disbanded in favour
of a smaller 12 member Substance Misuse Advisory Panel (SMAP), charged
with overseeing the implementation of the new strategy, ‘Tackling Substance
Misuse in Wales: A Partnership Approach’, launched in 2000 (NafW, 2000a).
This new strategy was developed to reflect the aims of the English strategy,
whilst offering a Welsh perspective.
3.4.7 The UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator
The change of administration in 1997 led to a number of changes in the
implementation of the UK drug strategy. That November the newly elected
Labour party employed the UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator, or Drug Czar, to hold
non-ministerial responsibility and established the UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordination
Unit to replace the Central Drugs Co-ordinating Unit. The role of Keith Hellawell
as the Drug Czar was to co-ordinate all departments concerned with the drug
74
agenda and report on progress directly to the Cabinet Office and the Prime
Minister. The role was intrinsically linked to the comprehensive spending
review, with the view that to co-ordinate people led to the co-ordination of
money (Baker, 1998). Hellawell supported the application of soundly based
good practice in the provision of drug education, commenting that despite lots of
initiative, insufficient evaluation led to negative impact (Baker, 1998).
Questioning whether drug education should seek to change behaviour or impart
knowledge, Hellawell concluded that to believe that young people who have
received drug education will never take drugs is unrealistic. Both Hellawell and
Trace, the Deputy Drug Czar, supported the notion of drug education within a
general life-skills framework that would allow for the achievement of realistic
targets,
“Education as an awareness raising method is important in its own
right. There’s a bit of an over-emphasis in the treatment field that any
education or young people’s initiatives have got to stop people using”
(Baker, 1998, pg.11).
3.4.8 ‘Tackling Drugs to Build a Better Britain’ (1998)
1998 saw the launch of the new 10 year strategy; ‘Tackling Drugs to Build a
Better Britain’, the development of which was informed through the consultation
with the field that was undertaken by Hellawell and Trace. Young people,
communities, treatment and availability became the four main strands of the
1998 strategy. Again, the strategy reinforced the emphasis on drug education
and prevention and was incorporated in the young people strand. The focus for
drug education was on prevention activities in the promotion of healthy
lifestyles. The responsibility for drug education was widened to include both
formal and informal education settings and the involvement of parents in the
process; however, guidance on the content was very much health agenda led,
focusing on educating young people about the risks and consequences of drug
use. The first comprehensive spending review announced that £1.4 billion had
been spent in 1997-1998 to tackle drugs.
75
3.5 Policy developments since 2000
Figure 3.6 Policy developments between 2000 - 2005
Anti-Drugs
Co-ordinating
Unit
abolished
and AntiDrugs CoPolicy
ordinator
post removed
“Tackling Drugs
to Build a Better
Britain” update
(UK)
Welsh Assembly
Government
Guidance
Circular 17/02
2001
Action
Welsh Drug
and Alcohol
Unit becomes
Substance
Misuse Branch
in Welsh
Assembly
Government
2002
ACMD
publish
‘Hidden
Harm’
Drugs:
Guidance for
Schools
(England)
UK
Government
review of
drug policy
2003
2004
2005
Focus on ‘what
works’ theme –
Refocus upon drug
classification
education
of cannabis
programmes with
proven
effectiveness in
reducing drug use
and associated
£7.5M investment in Blueprint research project
harm
3.5.1 ‘Tackling Substance Misuse in Wales: A Partnership Approach’
(2000)
The Welsh Strategy ‘Tackling Substance Misuse in Wales: A Partnership
Approach’ launched by the devolved National Assembly for Wales in 2000 and
the Advisory Panel on Substance Misuse (APoSM), was formed with
representatives from a range of fields and Assembly officials. APoSM was
charged with advising the Assembly on strategy dissemination and the
implications of policy implementation. At the same time the Welsh Drug and
Alcohol Unit was assimilated into the Assembly. In 2002 the 5 Welsh DAATs
were abolished and the statutory responsibility for strategically managing
substance misuse issues at a local level was transferred to the newly
established Community Safety Partnerships in each of the 22 unitary Authority
regions of Wales. The LATs became the Substance Misuse Action Teams and
reported progress at an operational delivery level to their respective Community
Safety Partnerships.
76
The UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordination Unit was abolished in 2001 following its failure
to co-ordinate a multi-departmental Government response. It had been criticised
for having produced ill thought out targets, and Mike Trace, in an interview with
the Guardian newspaper in December 2001, attributed the failure to the
fundamental differences in approach to the issue of the key players (Drugscope,
2004). Other contributory factors include personality clashes, internal Whitehall
manoeuvring, the shifting political climate and the undermining of the Unit by
the competing agendas of different departments (Drugscope, 2004). The
responsibility for strategy delivery returned to the Home Office.
3.5.2 ‘Tackling Drugs to Build a Better Britain’ Update (2002)
In December 2002 a strategy update was produced as a supplement to
‘Tackling Drugs to Build a Better Britain’. Despite its updating of a number of
actions across all four strands, no updates were specifically available for drug
education. A House of Commons debate on drug education in 2003
acknowledged the need for drug education programmes to be credible and
honest about relative health problems associated with different drugs. It also
called for drug education within a broad approach that covers both legal and
illegal drugs, and developed in partnership with teachers, pupils, parents and
voluntary sector drug agencies. Schools should determine the extent to which
their drug education policies use outside groups and voluntary sector
organisations in the delivery of programmes (Hansard, 2003a).
Six months later, a session in the House of Lords painted a quite different
picture, criticising the demise of prevention programmes in favour of the
‘dangerous sophistry of harm reduction’ based drug education that could
encourage drug use (Hansard, 2003b). Public policy was criticised for sending
out a worrying array of conflicting messages that rendered current drug
education worthless, and for losing the focus on a preventative strategy that
was committed to a drug free society. Whilst the revised strategy acknowledged
the need to target vulnerable young people, it was also criticised for not
emphasising the importance of measuring and evaluating prevention, and for
not allocating sufficient resources (Hansard, 2003b). In support of the revised
strategy Lord Filkin (Labour Under Secretary of State in the Department for
77
Education and Skills), emphasised that the crucial role of drug education was
not a simple one but was part of a balanced drug strategy that supports
teachers in its delivery (Hansard, 2003b). Filkin argued that though drug
education may not be as effective as desired, if delivered properly it did not
encourage use, and that provision of accurate and honest information must be
part of any mature strategy (Hansard, 2003b).
3.5.3 Review of drug education policy
A comprehensive UK Government review of its drug policy took place in
February 2005. Measuring its progress since July 2002, it documents a number
of actions relating to drug education undertaken in England (HASC, 2005).
Whilst identifying the need for realistic drug education, a number of points are
concerned with the content of information materials that do not emphasise that
all drug use can be harmful and should be discouraged, and the committee’s
rejection of the view that the use of shocking images is counter-productive.
Responses to these points direct critics to the DfES 2004 Drugs: Guidance for
Schools, that offers schools evidence-based, updated guidance pertaining to
drug education, incident management and policy development. This contradicts
the wealth of research based evidence that the use of shocking images in drug
education is counter productive (Bagnall and Plant, 1987; Rhodes, 1990;
Cohen, 1992; Cohen, 2005; Buehler and Droeger, 2006).
Pressures emanating from Common’s debates regarding the ‘value-free’ tone
and ‘misguided’ content of drug education materials (Hansard, 2005a) led the
Home Office to undertake consultation with the voluntary sector regarding the
use of public money on drug communications. The outcome of this consultation
led to all Government funding issued to produce literature to be conditional on
the basis that any publications meet specific criteria, in line with Government
policy. This criteria, in the form of a checklist, aims to ensure that drug
information materials clearly emphasise the dangers associated with use and
are developed according to ‘what works’ in communicating with young people
(HASC, 2005).
The ‘what works’ theme runs throughout the report, with one of the 2002
recommendations focusing on the need for the Government to undertake
78
rigorous analysis of drug education and prevention work and spend money only
on those that can prove they have an effective focus on long-term and problem
drug use and its consequent harm. The departmental response to this
recommendation in 2002 was that over the next five years a £7.5 million
investment would be made to determine the most effective programme in
reducing the proportion of young people using drugs and reducing the age of
first use. A partnership between the Home Office, Department for Education
and Skills and the Department of Health, this multi-component programme
would be developed from best practice, and would incorporate the
Government’s anti-drug message that all drugs are harmful. Again, conflict
exists between what is seen to be good practice in drug education and the
message the Government promotes (POST, 1996). This programme was
‘Blueprint’, a five-year Government funded drug education pilot, that
commenced in 2002 in 23 secondary schools in four local authority areas in
England, and was due to be completed in 2007. The Home Office’s intentions
were that the comprehensive evaluation (led by the Institute for Social
Marketing (ISM), University of Sterling) would contribute to the substance
misuse education evidence base and provide information on which components
are most effective with 11-13 year olds in reducing drug use, providing the basis
for future guidance (HASC, 2005). The research report was delayed by two
years and when published (without press release or statement from the Home
Office) in Autumn 2009, identified significant limitations in the research
methodology employed to measure the effectiveness of Blueprint as a multicomponent intervention compared to more traditional drug education
programmes:
“the original design of the Blueprint evaluation was not sufficiently
robust to allow an evaluation of impact and outcomes and
consequently the report cannot draw any conclusions on the efficacy
of Blueprint in comparison to existing drug education programmes”
(Blueprint, 2009 p.4)
The report identifies insufficient sample size in terms of the control schools as
the reason comparisons between these schools and schools receiving Blueprint
lessons could not be made. This limitation was identified during the
development stage of the evaluation, however, to have increased the sample
79
size was ‘considered beyond the scope of the evaluation, both in terms of the
resources it would require and what was appropriate for the evaluation of an
untested approach’ (Blueprint, 2009 p.2). In terms of answering the original
research aim of demonstrating the effectiveness of a multi-component drug
education programme in reducing drug use amongst young people, through the
involvement of parents, local media and trading standards compared to more
traditional classroom based programmes, the study has been unsuccessful.
However, in demonstrating that ‘evaluating programmes on this scale is not
straightforward’ (ibid. p.4) the study itself acts as a catalyst for future discussion
regarding the direction of Government funded research (DCSF, 2008).
On request of the Welsh Assembly Government, ESTYN undertook an
evaluation of the implementation and impact in schools of the Welsh Assembly
Government Guidance Circular 17/02: ‘Substance Misuse: Children and Young
People’ in 2007 (ESTYN, 2007). Directed at schools and organisations in the
statutory, voluntary and independent sectors that offer educational opportunities
to children and young people under the age of 18, the 17/02 Circular takes
account of the Welsh strategy ‘Tackling Substance misuse in Wales: A
Partnership Approach’ published by the Welsh Assembly Government in 2000
(NafW, 2000a). Undertaking a literature review, surveys with schools, interviews
with key stakeholders and direct observation of teaching practice, ESTYN
identified a number of recommendations at Welsh Assembly Government level,
LEA level and at individual school level to improve provision (ESTYN, 2007).
Key findings concluded that
‘a lack of joined-up thinking nationally and locally in terms of planning,
coordinating, resourcing, teaching, monitoring and evaluating means
that substance-misuse education programmes in schools are less
effective than they might be’ (ibid p.6).
There was evidence that the Circular had supported the development of
substance misuse policies within schools and that through the Assembly’s
implementation of a national programme, the All Wales Police Core Liaison
Programme (Appendix xx), there was a high percentage of coverage across
Wales. However, ESTYN identified the Circular has had little impact on the
following areas:
80

changing the attitudes and values of young people significantly
enough to impact on their behaviour;

support for schools to develop an effective multi-agency approach to
the delivery of substance misuse education;

training for all teachers;

the way that schools record and manage substance misuse
incidents;

the range of resources and materials used for pupils with different
needs including looked-after children and pupils excluded from
schools;

inclusive planning of substance misuse education programmes, with
few involving pupils or parents in their design.
The report also criticised the lack of available funding for substance misuse
education following the implementation of the national programme. ESTYN
found that in bypassing the WAG Planning and Commissioning Structure the
funding of the national programme disadvantages the work of the local
Substance Misuse Action Teams (SMATs) in developing multi-agency
arrangements and undertaking monitoring and evaluation of drug education
programmes as required by the Circular 17/02 (ESTYN, 2007 p.6). The report
recommended to WAG that the Circular be revised and updated; the
development of a National Substance Misuse Education Communication Group
to oversee, co-ordinate and direct substance misuse education in Wales; that
funding be allocated to the implementation of the revised Circular; and that
there was joint working with LEAs and teacher training institutions to support
training for teachers.
The Assembly Government responded to this report by establishing the national
Substance Misuse Education Steering Group in 2008 tasked with reviewing and
revising substance misuse education policy in Wales.
The most recent review of drug education in England was undertaken by the
Drug Education Forum on behalf of the Advisory Group on Drug and Alcohol
Education, led by the Department for Schools, Children and Families in 2008
81
(DCSF, 2008). The establishment of the Advisory Group was initiated by two
key priorities within the Children’s Plan (DCSF, 2007), firstly to examine the
effectiveness of current delivery arrangements for drugs education (ibid. para
6.49), and secondly to strengthen and clarify the role of schools in the
prevention of drug use (ibid. para 6.56). Following literature review and survey
of over 300 professionals, the report centres around three key
recommendations (DCSF, 2008 p.4):

Increasing parents’ and carers’ knowledge and skills about drug and
alcohol education and prevention;

Improving the quality of drug and alcohol education by making PSHE
a statutory subject;

Improving identification and support for young people vulnerable to
drug misuse in schools, colleges and non-formal settings.
The report also recommends that the Government promotes a wider
understanding of the aims of drug and alcohol education amongst young
people, parents, professionals and the media. In line with the ESTYN (2007)
findings, this report provides recommendations regarding the review of
Guidance available and more support for teacher training, both at initial teacher
training stage and as part of continued professional development (DCSF, 2008).
82
Figure 3.7 Policy developments between 2006 – 2009
ESTYN
Evaluation of
Welsh Assembly
Government
Guidance
Circular 17/02
Policy
2006
2007
Action
Ongoing £7.5M investment in Blueprint
research project
“Working Together to Reduce Harm”
(Wales)
“Drugs: Protecting Families and
Communities” (UK)
DCSF Review of Effectiveness of
Drug Education
2008
2009
Welsh Assembly
Government Substance
Misuse Education Steering
Group established
Re-classification
of cannabis from
Class C to Class
B
Advisory Group on Drug
and Alcohol Education
established (England)
Blueprint
research
published
3.5.4 ‘Working Together to Reduce Harm’ (2008)
The review of the Welsh strategy, ‘Tackling Substance Misuse in Wales: A
Partnership Approach’ (NAfW, 2000a) was overseen by the Ministerial Advisory
Group APoSM and formed the basis of Wales’ first ten-year strategy, ‘Working
Together to Reduce Harm’ (2008). With a strong emphasis of the prevention
and reduction of harm, the new Welsh strategy draws particular attention to
alcohol use and misuse which was felt to have been lost in the previous
‘substance misuse’ strategy. The strategy is divided into four main priority action
areas:

Preventing harm

Support for substance misusers – to improve their health and aid and
maintain recovery

Supporting and protecting families

Tackling availability and protecting individuals and communities via
enforcement activity
83
Alongside the new strategy sits a three-year implementation plan, the actions
within having been colour coded with regards to whether the action relates to
drugs, alcohol, both drugs and alcohol or volatile substances. The ‘preventing
harm’ priority shows a maturity of understanding of the difference between
education and prevention and offers a wider approach to prevention of which
education is only a part. Stating the aim of the preventative approach as ‘to
reach a position where no-one in Wales is ignorant of the consequences of
misusing drugs or alcohol or where they can seek help and support’ (WAG,
2008b, p. 22), this priority identifies the need for inclusion, targeting
interventions, the identification and support for older people as well as children
and young people, diversionary activities, and the need to co-ordinate school
based provision in order to ‘make a concerted effort to do more to educate and
influence attitudes across the whole population’ (WAG, 2008b, p. 22). It also
stipulates the need to establish a ‘Substance Misuse Education Steering Group
for Wales’ to review and monitor the provision of substance misuse education in
Wales, to consider relevant research (e.g. Blueprint findings) and make
recommendations on how such provision can be better supported locally
through the improving of links between providers (WAG, 2008b).
3.5.5 ‘Drugs: Protecting Families and Communities’ (2008)
The new ten-year UK drug strategy (2008-2018) aims to restrict the supply of
illegal drugs and reduce the demand for them. It focuses on protecting families
and strengthening communities through focus on four redefined strands of
action:

Protecting communities through tackling drug supply, drug-related
crime and anti-social behaviour

Preventing harm to children, young people and families affected by
drug misuse

Delivering new approaches to drug treatment and social reintegration

Public information campaigns, communications and community
engagement
84
The delivery of the strategy as a cross-Government initiative is underpinned by
a series of three-year action plans. While the Home Office has overall
responsibility for delivery, the Department for Children, Schools and Families,
and the Department of Health are identified as having key roles. The strategy
acknowledges the devolved powers of the Assemblies in Wales and Northern
Ireland and the Scottish Parliament with regards to education, therefore drug
education within this strategy is confined to England. The provision and function
of drug education is not explicitly referred to within the strategy document. Its
only mention is in relation to the extension of the FRANK campaign to support
school-based education within the public information campaigns and
communications section of the strategy. Key Action 50 within the 2008-2011
Drug Strategy Action Plan identifies the action to be taken in relation to drug
education, namely, strengthening the role of schools in the provision of primary
phase drug education, early identification and the provision of in-school support
for pupils. This is to be accomplished by the completion of the DCSF Drug
Education Review, the dissemination of Blueprint findings and support for the
work of the Drug Education Forum.
3.5.6 Policy and the media
Through the political use of mass media anti-drug campaigns over the last three
decades, the Government has forged a continuing interdependency between
itself and the media. Criticisms arise on both sides. The media criticise
Government policy, and the Government criticises the media for its lack of selfregulation regarding coverage of the drug scene in the UK, and for neglecting
their ‘duty to evaluate their presentation’ (Hansard, 1989b). In 2000, Keith
Hellawell criticised the media coverage of politicians accused of drug use before
entering public life, calling for a higher level of debate;
“If there continues to be a denial, or if there continues to be a label on
people – you know, ‘you are a bad person if you ever took drugs’ –
then we’ll never move forward. There needs to be more openness”
(Druglink, 2000 pg.8)
Both the Government and practitioners have expressed concern for a number of
years over the portrayal of celebrity figures in the media in relation to drug use,
criticising their coverage as contributing to the glamorous image of drug taking
85
(Hansard, 1989b; DEPIS, 2005). A review of drug related messages from the
media reaching young people concluded that,
“The mainstream media are still publishing surveys showing that drink
and drug use amongst young people is worryingly high whilst
simultaneously depicting drug and alcohol use in a casual way”
(DEPIS, 2005).
Reviewing the quality, quantity and type of messages received by young people
over a one-month period, the research found that the main source of media
messages was television coverage. The study asserted that even though the
negatives of drug use were focused upon, the coverage of widespread celebrity
drug use still glamorised drug-taking behaviour. The researchers also criticised
the media for not addressing the criminality of celebrity drug use, therefore
differentiating it from other drug use stereotypes portrayed (DEPIS, 2005).
The evolution of mass media initiatives has led to the introduction of England’s
FRANK campaign in 2003 having cost the Government nine million pounds
between 2003 and 2006 (Home Office, 2004). This multi-media initiative
employs poster campaigns, television adverts and marketing to support its
website, telephone helpline, information leaflets and materials. This
Government campaign differs from those in the 1980’s as it moves away from
the direct provision of anti-drug messages in the media. Instead, it opts to use
the media in the most appropriate way, in the marketing of, and signposting to,
the sources of drug related messages. This marketing however, is in direct
competition with the illicit drug industry reportedly worth £6.6 billion (Pudney,
2006). The four million pound FRANK campaign in 2004 that highlighted the
harms of alcohol misuse, had to compete with the legal alcohol industry with a
comparable spend of £800 million on product promotion in the same year
(Cabinet Office, 2004). Research indicates that mass media success is
heightened if tailored to audiences (NPHS, 2006). This approach is best
demonstrated by the UK drinks industry, with £7.2 million spent on successfully
promoting ‘Bacardi Breezers’ to young women (Cabinet Office, 2004). The 2008
UK drug strategy states its ongoing commitment to FRANK over the next 10
years and its activity to be extended to support wider drug education objectives
including the provision of targeted support for young people and engaging the
86
media at a local level through local partnership arrangements (HM Government,
2008).
3.6 Chapter summary
This chapter has plotted the development of drug education policy over the last
30 years and sought to clarify the relationship between Government policy, the
media, public opinion and drug education practice. Giving the responsibility for
drug education to schools whilst placing it within a health or criminal justice
agenda, Government policy has diminished the likelihood of drug education
achieving its intended outcomes.
The input of drug education practitioners, and the use of non-manipulated
research findings, is necessary for Government policy to achieve fully its
intended outcomes. Practitioners are best placed to inform policy makers
regarding realistic aims, objectives and outcomes for drug education, necessary
to ensure effectiveness can be adequately measured. In turn, Government
policy has a role in encouraging the long-term, focused and ongoing evaluation
of drug education programmes. Having charged schools with the delivery of
drug education, the Government has a clear responsibility to provide adequate
guidance and resources to support the engagement of practitioners in this
evaluation process as well as the application of policy into practice. Future
policy developments should reflect research findings and not just public opinion
to guarantee consistency and co-ordination. The provision of drug education
also needs to be promoted outside of the school setting. Policy that encourages
the delivery of drug education opportunities for young people in a wide range of
settings will in turn promote a consistent message and co-ordinated approach
that supports the provision in schools.
The cross-departmental nature of the implementation of drug education policy
limits its ability to impact within wider Government drug policy. Clear roles of
responsibility and accountability within substance misuse strategy are assisting
in the enhanced co-operation and commitment to drug education of relevant
stakeholders. Co-ordination is necessary to ensure that the drug education
agenda is firmly embedded within the responsibilities of a number of
87
Government departments. Embedding the drug education agenda in this way,
whilst appropriately engaging practitioners, research and the media, fosters an
environment of constructive debate that informs public opinion, as well as the
effective development, dissemination and implementation of future drug
education policy.
88
Chapter 4. ‘Approaches to drug education: practice, predominance and
problematics.’
4.1 Introduction
This chapter provides an overview of the main approaches to the delivery of
drug education over the last 30 years. Despite numerous evaluations of
different approaches to drug education, no approach assumes full
predominance as the most effective. This section outlines and addresses the
methodological weaknesses of drug education evaluations and the unrealistic
basis on which the success of such education is measured.
Many drug education programmes that have been employed over this time
contain elements of more than one approach; however conflict arises when
questions are asked about the evidence on which such programmes are based.
Whilst exploring the theoretical underpinnings of each approach, this chapter
will also identify and discuss the resulting contentious issues and assumptions.
The reality of the practical limitations of approaches are explained, who is best
placed to deliver such education explored, and the developments necessary to
achieve effective future drug education are also identified in the latter sections
of this chapter.
4.2 Methodology – data set one: documentary analysis
The method of documentary analysis and the process undertaken applies
across the findings identified in this chapter, chapter three and chapter five. To
avoid repetition, full details regarding the method and process employed to
produce the findings presented in this chapter are set out in chapter three
section 3.2.
4.3 Types of drug education approaches
Whilst research over the last three decades has agreed the key role and place
that drug education has in tackling the issue of drug use, the issue of its validity
as a tool to prevent drug use, is still of great debate (Coggans and Watson,
1995). Since the 1960’s, drug education in the UK has consisted of, and been
influenced by, five main discernable approaches, outlined by Lowden and
89
Powney (1999):

Information Based

Life Skills and Values Deficit

Resistance Training

Alternatives Based

Peer Education
In many drug education programmes, some degree of overlap is evident.
However, these five approaches stem from different theories and
methodologies. An overview of each approach can be found in this chapter, with
further detail pertaining to the associated theory and method of each available
in Appendix xviii.
4.3.1 Overview of Information Based Approaches
The dearth of evaluations relating to information based approaches over the last
30 years has led to this approach being criticised for not delivering what was
expected. It can be argued that this criticism does not take into account the
evolutionary developments within this approach, in response to changing needs
that have in turn moved the measurement of success from abstinence to a
reduction in drug related harm (HEBS, 2003).
There is some evidence to support that the provision of targeted harm reduction
information is effective for users; however, most evaluations of this approach
have not sought to measure the impact of drug education on non-users in
relation to reducing harm from potential future use (Dorn and Murji, 1992).
Whilst information-based approaches may be good for facilitating informed
decision-making, in order to ensure maximum effectiveness it is imperative that
the information needs are identified beforehand through research with specific
groups, and harm reduction elements are carefully targeted within drug
education strategies (Lowden and Powney, 1999; HEBS, 2003).
Much of the public debate in the field of drug education over the last two
decades, has centred on the prevention and harm reduction approaches to
90
information-based education. However, the argument of both camps is seriously
undermined by a lack of conclusive evaluation research.
4.3.2 Overview of Life Skills and Values Deficit Approaches
The life skills and values deficit (LSVD) approach argues that the development
of cognitive and social skills in young people is the key to reducing drug use.
The many interventions based on this approach promote what are seen to be
‘correct’ and healthy choices; however, their assumption that drug use is the
result of impaired social competencies is questionable as there is no consistent
evidence to support it (Dembo, 1981; Reilly and Homel, 1988; Coggans et al.,
1999; SCRE, 2000; HEBS, 2003). Rhodes and Jason (1990), believe that this
model is both theoretically and empirically weak. Its assumption that social
competencies are the influencing factor that determines drug use is misleading,
as it does not take into account other influencing factors in a young person’s life
that can affect behaviour, nor the numerous reasons for use. Evidence
suggests that effectiveness of the LSVD approach is more prevalent in young
people who are not using substances and less effective for those at risk of using
or already doing so (NICE, 2007a).
There is no consistent pattern of positive results emanating from existing
evaluations (Glynn, 1983; Hawkins, Abbott, Catalano and Gillmore, 1985).
Schaps, DiBartolo, Moskowitz, Palley and Churgin’s (1981) study of 60 drug
education programmes that had employed the LSVD approach, concluded that
37 had no measurable effect; 20 had a small effect and only three had a
measurable positive effect on reported drug use, intention to use and attitudes
towards use. Whilst LSVD approaches are associated with recognised
developmental theories; Problem Behaviour Theory (Jessor and Jessor, 1977);
Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1997); and Stage Theory (Kander, 1980),
there is very little evidence to support any assertion that they have any positive
lasting effects on all but a handful of the target audience (NICE, 2007a).
4.3.3 Overview of Resistance Training
The main criticisms of past studies into the effectiveness of resistance training
stem from a narrow focus for implementation in terms of the target group and
91
the substances covered (Dorn and Murji, 1992). Many programmes that have
experienced positive outcomes have concentrated on smoking at a time when
there has been a large societal shift in attitude towards the use of tobacco.
Evidence suggests that the use of resistance training within a social
environmental model to reinforce non-use norms and non-use commitments, is
most effective in relation to tobacco use (Norman and Turner, 1994). These
findings have since been contested, as the reduction of tobacco use cannot be
attributed solely to resistance training interventions, as many young people
choose not to continue smoking following the experimentation phase
(Rosenbaum, Flewelling, Bailey, Ringwalt and Wilkinson, 1994; Ennet,
Rosenbaum, Flewelling, Bieler, Ringwalt and Bailey, 1994). Ellickson and Bell
(1990a, 1990b), argue it is impossible to assess which factors have had most
influence on young people’s behaviour, and whether outcomes can be
attributed to resistance training. They also assert that this approach is better
suited to the substances that are subject to most social disapproval, like illegal
drugs, evidencing this with reference to the less effective alcohol based
resistance programmes. Attempts to establish non-use norms can also prove
risky, as abstentionist prevention is rarely representative of young people’s
experience and knowledge (HEBS, 2003).
Coggans and McKellar (1994) and Coggans and Watson (1995) argue that
research shows little evidence of positive outcomes for this approach, as the
assumption that peer pressure is the cause of widespread drug use is not
supported by empirical evidence emanating from controlled trials (Shope,
Dielman, Butchart, Campanelli and Kloska, 1992; McWhirter, Whetton, Perry
and South, 2004) - therefore the underpinning theory is ultimately flawed.
Bauman and Ennett, 1996 argue that the notion of peer influence on young
people’s drug taking has been over stated. Despite the popularity of the
unambiguous moral message of resistance training with parents and policy
makers, the evaluative evidence (Rosenbaum et al, 1994; Ennet et al, 1994;
Whelan and Moody, 1994; Keene and Williams, 1996; O’Connor, Evans,
Coggans and ACPO, 1999; ESTYN, 2004) suggests that, as with informationbased approaches, the impact on the target audience is limited.
92
4.3.4 Overview of Alternatives Based Approaches
The younger the target audience is, the more likely this approach to drug
education is to achieve its goal of encouraging young people to incorporate
alternative activities into their adult lifestyles, and therefore support their
ongoing non-use of drugs (Coggans and Watson 1995). However, this
approach has been subject to criticism on the basis that it does not necessarily
explore other reasons for drug use, and can lead to confusion over the
perception of risk and the acceptability of some forms of risk taking. The
provision of ‘positive’ outdoor activities such as rock climbing or abseiling in
place of ‘negative’ drug use can be seen as promoting one form of risk taking as
better than another, rather than addressing the risk taking behaviour itself. This
advocacy of certain types of risk taking, and the rejection of other types, can be
seen to be contradictory (Cohen, 1996b).
Studies into this approach have concluded that there is insufficient evidence to
say which alternatives have a measurable impact (HEBS, 2003). More research
is needed to identify the types of activities that are most effective in reducing
drug use, and to ascertain whether this approach is useful (Dorn and Murji,
1992; Coggans and Watson, 1995).
As with other approaches to drug education, the alternatives based approach
has yet to conclusively prove its efficacy. Its moral ambiguities and complexity
make it unpopular with some practitioners, and its relatively high financial cost
makes it unpopular with policy makers.
4.3.5 Overview of Peer Education
It is not clear to what extent peer education strategies themselves counteract
the prior influences on young people that predispose some to develop
problematic drug use (Coggans and Watson, 1995). They state that peer led
drug education may be more successful with those young people who have
experimented with drugs, but less so with regular users. The effectiveness of
peer education in relation to prevention of the onset of drug use has also been
challenged (Armstrong, de Klerk, Shean, Dunn and Dowlin, 1990).
93
It can be argued that peer education has suffered from an underdeveloped
theoretical background, and in turn a lack of understanding of the process on
the researcher’s part. This underdeveloped underpinning theory has led to
evidence regarding the peer education approach to drug education remaining
inconclusive (Milburn, 1996). Therefore, the argument for peer education rests
on a similar assumption to that held by advocates of resistance training, that
young peoples attitudes and behaviour regarding drug use is reliant on peer
pressure.
4.4 Who should deliver drug education?
The criminal justice agenda of prevention programmes like DARE (Appendix ii)
draws a clear link between drug education and the role of the police as
educational providers. However, educationalists stress the need for trained
professionals to deliver drug education in order for wider educational goals to
be met.
The question of who is best placed to deliver effective drug education is a
much-debated one. Good practice guidance in drug education looks to the
teacher to provide the majority, with the support of appropriate organisations
where appropriate (DfE, 1995; WAG, 2002a; DfES, 2004b, Cohen, 2005).
However, schools will often abdicate this responsibility by the over use of
outside speakers, mainly the police (Green, 1996).
4.4.1 Delivery by teachers
Evidence identifies that teachers are best placed to deliver effective substance
misuse educational programmes (WAG 2002a, DfES 2004b, Cohen 2005), and
should assert responsibility for the overall programme (DfES 2004b). Reasons
for this emanate from a teacher’s knowledge of their pupils; the teacher being in
a position to draw on their knowledge of pupils in exploring attitudes and
support skill development, and being best placed to reach more vulnerable
pupils (Sumnall, Jones, Burrell, Witty, McVeigh and Bellis, 2006). Teachers can
ensure programmes are in place in the long term, even if the level of support of
outside agencies may change, and can adapt programmes to meet changing
needs and environments (Cohen, 2005). Teachers also provide continuity for
94
pupils in respect of ongoing questions and issues that may arise and with the
topic being taught by a range of professionals, including teachers from a range
of disciplines, as well as visiting experts, continuity of messages and values is
essential (Jones, Sumnall, Whitty, Wareing, McVeigh and Bellis, 2006).
Research confirms that substance misuse education is more effective when
taught by teachers knowledgeable in the subject, with access to sources of
support and good quality training (Sumnall et al., 2006; DfES, 2004b). This
sustained support and training (including effective and appropriate resources) is
essential if teachers are to feel confident, motivated and equipped to deliver
effective, evidence-based, substance misuse education practice (Sumnall et al.,
2006; Jones et al., 2006).
In contrast, research suggests that many teachers, with little or no training, are
using out of date and ineffective materials (ACMD, 2006). Teachers report
having very limited time, due to heavy workloads and more pressing priorities to
keep abreast of developments in resources and materials in order to analyse
their suitability (Fitzgerald, 2006). For this reason, some research states that it
is unrealistic to expect all teachers to provide substance misuse education
(DPAS 2002).
4.4.2 The role of the police
A number of studies have questioned the skills and training held by police
officers currently delivering drug education, and whether they are adequately
equipped to fulfil their role as classroom educators (Green, 1996; O’Connor et
al, 1999). In a survey with 42 police forces involved in drug education, Green
(1996) found only 12 to be involved in all secondary schools within their areas.
Thirty-one of the forces admitted that if all schools in their area were to request
police involvement in drug education, they would be unable to provide it due to
resource constraints. He criticised some forces for continuing to view drug
education as ‘just another school input’, with 34 forces leaving this major
educational responsibility to the schools liaison officers. Nine forces reported
that their drug educators had received no training in this area - the topic had
been tagged onto existing school liaison training - and 12 forces reported no
involvement of specialised outside agencies. In examining the co-ordination of
95
drug education, Green found that seven forces were delivering drug education
in complete isolation, without liaison with any agencies, not even the schools
they were working in. Most strikingly, Green found that the materials used in 32
of the 42 forces had been created ‘in-force’, without input from schools or
specialist agencies. He questioned the validity and appropriateness of such
materials, designed by non-qualified officers, not based on evidence of good
practice, and unlikely to be reviewed, as evaluation in any form was not present
(Druglink, 1996).
Green (1996) accepts that the police are attempting to support schools;
however, Green comments that “a state of chaos prevails” (Druglink, 1996,
pg.7). Officers selected to be involved in drug education should be selected on
their aptitude as an educator, not their knowledge of drugs. He concludes that
the police do have a part to play in the delivery of drug education in schools,
where this education is planned, prepared and led by education specialists, but
the police need to acknowledge that their role is one of support only. Green
(ibid) argues that the police have a role in the provision of drug information, not
in drug education. Keene and Williams (1996) concur that even though the
police are not best suited to teach, they have an important role to play in a
partnership approach to the issue.
Research into the effectiveness of the police adopting an education role within
the classroom, and their impact, is inconclusive, mainly due to most evaluations
being community safety based rather than drug specific (Paxton, 1998). A study
undertaken to identify the added value of the police service in drug education
concluded that to add value in the long-term, approaches employed by the
police needed to satisfy two criteria. Firstly that the approach related to
identified best practice, and secondly that it proved to be sustainable over a
period of time whilst reflecting the long-term interests of schools and the
community (O’Connor et al, 1999). O’Connor et al (ibid) advised that interagency agreements between schools and the police needed to be continually
monitored, as did the content of police led sessions and the training of officers.
They found that there was some discrepancy regarding perceptions of the
police as drug educators. Whilst teachers, parents, professionals and the police
perceived police input as credible and a vehicle for building positive
96
relationships with pupils, secondary school pupils were more likely to view
police input as biased, didactic and of little relevance to their drug education
needs (ibid). Concerns were also raised regarding the ownership of drug
education sessions led by the police. If police assume the lead for drug
education, ownership by the school is reduced, which prevents long-term
development of programmes. The adoption of branded, rigid police initiatives like DARE and RIDE - causes further difficulties for forces wishing to adapt their
input in line with guidance, research and good practice. The study concluded
that any police input should focus on what has been proven to add value to
school based drug education within a partnership framework (ibid). More recent
research has concluded that school based drug education prevention
programmes involving input from the police have a short term effect in
increasing knowledge (McGrath, Sumnall and Edmonds, 2006a).
4.4.3 Parents as educators
Government policy over the years has also looked to the use of parents in the
delivery of drug education. Few programmes involve parents, despite identified
protective factors provided by the family environment (DfES, 2004b), the role
they may have in influencing drug related behaviours through their own drug
related behaviour, and the way they communicate to their children about drugs
(Gilvarry, 1996; Allot et al, 1999; DfES, 2004b). Whilst the use of parents in
drug education is compatible with some aspects of Government policy, it is a
much under researched area (Allot et al, 1999). Their involvement in
partnership with teachers can contribute to the maintenance of key messages
over the lifespan of the pupil’s school career (Crosswaite, Tooby and Cyster,
2004); however their impact on the pupil’s knowledge and behaviour is little
studied (Allot et al, 1999). However, Robertson’s (1998) study concluded that
parents were unlikely to be a reliable conduit for sensible drug education, due to
the short term nature of drug education initiatives, the diversity of parental
attitudes to drugs, and the significant gap between young people’s and parents’
perspectives (Druglink, 1998). Robertson concluded that the minimum standard
of training for parents should produce parents who are ‘not unhelpful’ (pg. 22)
and will not make things worse by the expression of extreme views or overreactions (ibid.).
97
4.4.4 Partnership delivery
The conflicting demands upon schools has been cited as a reason why the
issue of drugs is often put on the back burner as a priority (Burgess, 1992).
Burgess’ argument that drug agencies have a significant part to play in
supporting schools to tackle drug issues, including the delivery of some drug
education, is supported by later research that acknowledges their valuable and
unique role (NICE, 2006a) in supporting and working alongside school based
staff (WAG, 2002a; DfES, 2004b). Whilst key curricular work should remain the
sole responsibility of teachers, review and curriculum development should be
completed by the LEA with advisory support from drug agencies (Burgess,
1992). ESTYN’s 2007 review of the Welsh Assembly Government’s substance
misuse guidance Circular 17/02, criticised the current funding strategy for
substance misuse education in Wales and a lack of joined up thinking. ESTYN
concluded that this was hindering the development of localised, central, coordinated support for multi-agency delivery and the monitoring and evaluation of
programmes. In taking the lead for development and review of drug education
curriculum (in partnership with teachers and other professionals) the LEA is in a
position to provide and monitor both accuracy of content and consistency of
delivery, whilst providing sustained support for those delivering drug education.
Schools should approach appropriate specialised agencies to tackle specific
issues, as they may be better suited to provide advanced education (POST,
1996). However, the recent move within education towards a more interactive
style of teaching that embraces participative learning and the promotion of life
skills, has called the role and skills of the ‘outsider’ into question (Paxton, 1998).
Schools need to be aware of the limitations of external agencies and therefore if
they choose to utilise ‘outsiders’, should support their involvement in the
delivery of substance misuse education in the classroom (WAG, 2002a;
McGrath, Sumnall, McVeigh and Bellis, 2006b).
The experience of researchers seems to show that the key word in the term
drug education is ‘education’ and that if drug education is to prove effective then
those delivering must be trained to teach.
98
4.5 Effectiveness of drug education
There is a clear theme emanating from the literature, which is that, more
research and evaluation of drug education approaches is necessary to assess
their effectiveness. There is also evident criticism regarding the inadequacy of
evaluation methodologies employed to assess effectiveness. Berberian, Gross,
Lovejoy and Paparella (1976) identified methodological problems in all of the 27
studies reviewed. Findings showed that where the study’s methodology has met
modest criteria, the outcomes were often mixed and contradictory. Berberian et
al’s view is supported by Kinder et al’s 1980 study of evaluations of 26 drug
education programmes, where only one evaluation met the minimum
methodological requirements necessary to judge effectiveness. This evaluation
gave evidence that drug education based on information dissemination could be
counter-productive (HEBS, 2003). Schaps et al (1981) found only minor
effectiveness was demonstrated in their review of 127 drug education
programmes, and again highlighted problems with evaluative methodology
employed.
White and Pitts (1998) undertook a systematic review of drug education
evaluations finding that only 18 of the original 123 found were methodologically
sound enough to be included in the subsequent meta-analysis. White and Pitts
(ibid.) concluded that more methodologically sound evaluations are required to
provide evidence of effectiveness that ‘poorly designed’ studies (ACMD, 2006
p.81) are unable to. McGrath et al, (2006b), argue that there remains a lack of
methodologically sound evidence available to conclude ‘what works’ within
school based substance misuse prevention, which is supported by the
difficulties experienced during the recent 2009 evaluation of the Blueprint
Programme across 23 schools in England, in reducing the levels of drug use in
pupils (Blueprint, 2009). Recognising that ‘evaluating programmes on this scale
is not straightforward’ (ibid. p.4) the authors identify that ‘the original design of
the Blueprint evaluation was not sufficiently robust to allow an evaluation of
impact and outcomes’ (ibid. p .4).
Coggans et al (1999) argue that the methodological problems associated with
the evaluation of drug education programmes needs to be accepted in order to
99
produce research that informs the development of effective programmes. The
unrealistic expectations of drug education, against which success is measured,
needs to be addressed as a priority (Dorn and Murji, 1992; Jansen et al., 1996;
Beck, 1998; Allot et al., 1999). Clear, realistic aims and objectives, and realistic
measures of effectiveness, need to be identified at the outset (Goodstadt, 1990;
Lowden and Powney, 1999). Over the years, research has focused on the
factors that influence effectiveness, rather than attempting to prove the
effectiveness of individual programmes (Lowden and Powney, 1999).
“The ongoing debate about the effectiveness of drug education often
overshadows and distracts from the real need to address the
practicalities of the provision of good quality drug education
(Fitzgerald, 2006 p. 9)
Factors which have been identified as contributing to an effective drug
education programme include: the identification of existing needs, attitudes and
behaviour; exploration of reasons behind use; programmes are sufficiently
resourced and supported (practically and ethically); employment of appropriate
participative methods of delivery by skilled educators competent in pedagogical
approaches; and incorporates the means to evaluate its impact (Swadi and
Zeitlin, 1987; Goodstadt and Willet, 1989; Coggans, Shewan, Henderson and
Davies, 1991; Tobler and Stratton, 1997; Lowden and Powney, 1999; Coggans
et al, 1999; HEBS, 2003). Evaluative research into the effectiveness of drug
education tends to be concerned with outcomes alone, and pays little attention
to its implementation (Dorn and Murji, 1992; Jansen et al., 1996; Allot et al.,
1999). Demonstrating success is only part of an evaluation; to assess the full
impact of programmes, researchers need to study how they have been
delivered (Dorn and Murji, 1992; Jansen et al, 1996; Allot et al, 1999).
In reality, it can be argued that it is practical factors that shape the nature of
drug education, rather than their theoretical approaches (Lowden and Powney,
1999). Often drug education resources are shaped by teachers’ perceptions of
pupils’ needs, the attitude of teachers to the aims of drug education, and the
awareness of resources and support already available (ibid.). Evidence
suggests that without clear reference to good practice, and knowledge of factors
that influence effectiveness, drug education has little impact on young people’s
100
health related attitudes and behaviours, as teachers’ perceptions and
awareness of effective approaches vary considerably (ibid.).
Evidence shows that there is no simple relationship between knowledge of
drugs, attitudes to drug use, and drug related behaviour (HEBS, 1992). Drug
education approaches should possess realistic aims and objectives that are
informed by research into their impact on knowledge, attitude and behaviour
(Goodstadt, 1990). They also need to be targeted, audience appropriate, and
take developmental influences as well as complex personal, psychological,
social and environmental factors into account (Wragg, 1986; Coggans and
Watson, 1995, HEBS, 1997). There needs to be a range of educational
responses with realistic aims and objectives, in order to strengthen PSE through
truly addressing general life-skills and provision of accurate information,
including harm reduction messages (HEBS, 1997). Current expectations of drug
education are unrealistically high taken in isolation. Drug education needs to be
integrated into other areas of the curriculum, within a whole school approach
that is supported by the family, community and media if it is to be effective
(Goodstadt and Willet, 1989; Coggans et al, 1991; Lowden and Powney, 1999).
Generic programmes need to be tailored to the local context and in line with
identified learning needs, however this have proven difficult for some of the
more rigid programmes adopted from outside the UK (Cohen, 1996a; ESTYN,
2004). Coggans and McKellar comment;
“In years to come it will probably be realised that to deal with social
relationships and self image in the context of drug education was in
some ways naïve. Educationalists have long understood that such
matters should be part and parcel of the entire educational, as well as
the wider developmental experience of young people” (Coggans and
McKellar, 1994, pg.25)
Policy makers also need to provide schools with the means to ensure that
sufficient time is given to staff training to develop knowledge and skills, planning
and delivery of drug education, and the development of quality assurance
measures through rigorous evaluation (Coggans et al, 1991; Coggans and
Watson, 1995; Forrest, 1999; Lowden and Powney, 1999). These issues facing
schools in the provision of drug education form only part of the raft of policy
changes within the Education sector resulting from key policy development such
101
as the Every Child Matters agenda in England (HM Government, 2006) and
Rights to Action in Wales (WAG, 2004). Alongside the Healthy Schools agenda
(DfES, 2004) these policy developments have forced changes from the
Foundation Phase through to 14-19 Learning Pathways (WAG, 2003) and whilst
aspirationally are of great benefit, practically they contribute to wider issues
currently faced within the school environment such as an increasingly crowded
curriculum and increasing pressure of teachers’ time. As schools and individual
teachers attempt to adjust to these changes, staff training is inevitably
dominated by pedagogy. In the longer term, this focus of pedagogy in delivering
the skills agenda (WAG, 2008d) and the embedding of the Healthy Schools
agenda (DfES, 2004) within the curriculum lend themselves to the provision of
more effective drug education, however, teachers and schools need to be
afforded the time, space and support to do this (Fitzgerald, 2006).
There is great difficulty in developing generic drug education programmes to
suit all young people. Drug education is given the almost impossible task of
tailoring content and approach to meet vast ranging needs and experience
(Lowden and Powney, 1999) including early life experiences, family
relationships and circumstances and parental attitudes and behaviour (ACMD,
2006). Research has suggested that drug education developed in partnership
with teachers, parents, voluntary organisations and pupils, would prove the
most fruitful (WAG, 2002a; McGrath et al, 2006b). Tailoring of drug education
programmes is made more effective when different ages, abilities,
circumstances (NICE, 2007b) and genders (NAfW, 2002; McWhirter, Wetton,
Perry and South, 2004) are considered and taken into account. Berry and
McKenna (1995) suggest that it is time to move away from the simplified term
‘drug education’ towards ‘education for a world of drugs’ to incorporate the
multifaceted educational approach required as school-based drug education
also has to compete with other sources of information. This has been reflected
in the move towards trialling multi-component programmes such as Blueprint
(2009), aimed to engage with parents, the community and the media. A report
by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology in 1996 sought to
examine the evidence regarding the adequacy and effectiveness of drug
education. The report concluded that school based drug education took a back
102
seat to media and peer sources of information due to the profound effect drug
culture has on youth culture, and that a significant proportion of school children
did not remember drug education later in life. Whilst the ‘establishment’ argues
for young people to make informed decisions about whether or not to take
drugs, the intended outcome is that the use of health based information will lead
to that informed decision being ‘no’ (Druglink, 1991; Beck, 1998). In competing
with ‘street information’, official sources of information face the dilemma of how
to pitch such information, in the light of research showing that dissemination of
negative health-based facts has limited impact (POST, 1996). Both the role
communications play in addressing harms associated with drug use and the
unique challenges faced in delivering these communications are recognised
within the new UK drug strategy (HM Government, 2008):
“Communications compete in a crowed media space, vying for the
attention of a range of target audiences and competing against
misleading sources of information. Communications activity needs to
transmit clear information and advice, often in opposition to
sometimes contradictory media messages” (HM Government, 2008
p.33)
The above statement recognises the need to challenge media messages and
provide communications whose contact and mode of delivery are appropriate to
its intended beneficiaries.
Whilst some research may argue for a more pragmatic harm reduction
approach targeted at those using or at risk of using (Rhodes, 1990; Cohen,
1996a; DCSF, 2008), it is important to highlight the practical and ethical
limitations of school based drug education that employs harm reduction
approaches (Newcombe, 1988). Political and ethical debates impede the
adoption of research based non-preventative approaches by schools (Coggans
et al., 1999). The practical limitations faced by schools can be reduced through
close partnership working with a range of groups. However, Government and
policy makers need to accept that the causes of these limitations lie in public
perception and ambiguous legislation (Beck, 1998; Coggans et al., 1999).
Public support for schools in delivering research based drug education that is
not purely preventative in its aims, would allow for the necessary developments
to improve its effectiveness (Cohen, 1996a; DPAS, 2000; DCSF, 2008).
103
Government campaigns should promote the public’s further understanding of
the complexity of effective drug education, to encourage more realistic
expectations of the outcomes of drug education (Cohen, 1996a; Lowden and
Powney, 1999). It has been argued that drug education may benefit from a
more consistent underpinning intellectual framework that is research based and
theory driven (Dusenbury and Falco, 1995), that explores why society seeks to
contain the use of some drugs. To remain credible this approach would need to
effectively engage with the intuitive moral codes of young people (POST, 1996).
Comparing effectiveness of drug education programmes would be made easier
if these programmes were more explicit with their aims and theoretical basis
(Stead and Angus, 2004).
4.6 Chapter summary
Whilst five discernible types of drug education can be identified, many
programmes in existence today are a mix of a number of these types. The
unrealistic success criteria against which the effectiveness of drug education is
measured, means that whilst there is a wealth of research available, adequate
evaluations of both individual approaches and hybrid approaches remain
limited. Future development of drug education packages needs to incorporate
relevant evaluative methodologies, and set realistic timescales for the
measurement of effectiveness. The aim of any drug education programme
needs to be clearly outlined from the outset, and its success must be measured
against its objectives.
Issues for discussion within this chapter have included: the need for the
acceptance that there is no simple link between drug knowledge, attitudes and
behaviour change; that the efficacy of drug education today is subject to
realistic aims and limitations e.g. frequency, quality and delivery; and that it is
impossible to assume that one programme or approach will meet all needs.
Whatever the approach to drug education schools choose to employ,
implementation and evaluation needs to be planned, comprehensive and
supported. Schools also need to be clear about the aims of drug education, and
be prepared to provide a range of educational opportunities to meet these aims.
104
The aims and intended outcomes of drug education should be based on the
needs of young people, rather than reflecting the philosophical or moral
standpoint of teachers or the ease of delivery. The sustainability of effective
drug education within the school setting is dependant on its integration into the
wider school curriculum and the confidence of educators to deliver it. Drug
education needs to be seen as part of a wider educational agenda rather than a
separate health agenda. Its place in a wider educational agenda that
incorporates wider educational theory, would ensure drug education is shaped
and tailored to meet learners’ needs, and allow the employment of existing
educational tools in the assessment of the learning experience (Lowden and
Powney, 1999).
A consistent approach to drug education in schools is necessary, with the
provision of baseline multi-faceted cross curricula drug education at all stages
throughout a pupil’s school career. Pupils should have access to knowledge
about drugs and their effects through the science curriculum, leaving other
areas of the curriculum such as PSE to tackle a range of wider issues such as
legality, attitudes and reasons for use. More detailed information should be
made available for those with specific interest or need, and be delivered by
individuals with the adequate training to confidently impart drug information
through appropriate methods (POST, 1996; Fitzgerald, 2006; RSA, 2007).
“The problem with much of the teaching about these issues is that the
teachers are amateurs. They did not train for it at college but they are
expected to do the job” (McWhirter, BBC News, 2006)
Training for teachers, to equip them with the appropriate knowledge, attitudes
and confidence to deliver drug education, should start in initial teacher training
settings and continue throughout their professional development.
The break away from the sole focus on the measurement of societal impact,
and the employment of educational strategies to evaluate individual impact,
enables schools to play a more active role in the provision of effective drug
education, and ultimately the implementation of Government policy. The key to
providing appropriate, relevant and effective drug education, is that this process
is conducted in partnership with young people as well as other organisations,
105
trained and competent to meet the varied needs and enhance the learning
experience of pupils.
106
Chapter 5. ‘The role and use of research in the provision of drug
education: existence, efficacy and evaluation.’
5.1 Introduction
The two discernable trends within drug education - prevention and harm
reduction - have played centre stage in the effective drug education battlefield
over the last three decades, arguably to the detriment of beneficiaries of such
education (Easthope, 1992; Beck, 1998). The differing and under explored
philosophies have created a chasm into which research into the effectiveness of
such approaches has also been dragged.
The self-polarisation of the prevention and harm reduction paradigms, has led
to policy makers and practitioners affiliating with a particular philosophy, and in
turn expressing polarised beliefs. These beliefs are often unrepresentative of
the individual’s true standpoint as affiliation is rarely based on the recognition of
the limitations of immature terminology, nor the exploration of the assumptions
that underpin each paradigm. This has had an effect on the design of drug
education programmes that have not sought to identify educative aims, merely
to affiliate themselves with either the ‘Just Say No’ or the ‘Just Say Know’
camps (Beck, 1998). In turn, this has a direct influence on the approach taken
to research the effectiveness of drug education, as the aims and outcomes of
programmes are rarely based in theory or sufficiently defined at the outset. This
situation has been compounded by media coverage, which leads to confused
messages within the public domain (DEPIS, 2005). For these reasons, truly
objective research remains problematic, and the benefits of the research
process or findings as a tool for informing real change in policy or practice,
limited.
This chapter will reveal the assumptions behind the differing philosophies, and
the limitations of current terminology and undeveloped thinking. This exploration
will uncover the reasons behind the conflict between the prevention and harm
reduction standpoints. This section will also identify the role and use of research
into effective policy development and the provision of drug education, and
explore the difficulties with evaluating such drug education provision. Possible
107
solutions to evaluation difficulties will be offered in the chapter summary.
Throughout this chapter the author draws heavily on over a decade’s worth of
knowledge and experience as a drug educator, especially so in the discussion
of terminology and the exploration of the assumptions that underpin the
prevention and harm reduction paradigms, which offers an original perspective
when analysed in conjunction with Burrell and Morgan’s (1979) subjectiveobjective dimension of assumptions within the social sciences.
5.2 Methodology – data set one: documentary analysis
The method of documentary analysis and the process undertaken applies
across the findings identified in this chapter, chapter three and chapter four. To
avoid repetition, full details regarding the method and process employed to
produce the findings presented in this chapter are set out in chapter three,
section 3.2.
5.3 Assumptions that underpin the prevention and harm reduction
paradigms
It is necessary to explore the assumptions that underpin prevention and harm
reduction, in order to unpick these complex paradigms to enable comparison
with, and objective analysis of, research methodology employed by each
approach.
Prevention approaches tend to view drugs themselves as the cause of the
problem, whereas harm reduction tends more towards the view that drug use is
a multi-faceted symptom of other societal problems (Lenton and Single, 1998).
The purpose of both prevention and harm reduction drug education is to impart
relevant information to enable young people to make informed choices. They
both intend to improve and enhance young people’s agency and authority in
interacting with the world in which they live. However, the assumptions that
underpin this common purpose differ, leading to a diversion in the views of the
different paradigms in regard to the aim, content and mode of delivery of drug
education. In enhancing young people’s agency, prevention can be viewed as
‘society needs’ led - in aiming to prevent drug use; and harm reduction can be
108
viewed as ‘individual needs’ led - in minimising harm associated with drug use.
5.3.1 Assumptions within the prevention paradigm
Purpose
The assumptions that underpin the purpose of prevention based drug
education, centre around the notion that young people will choose not to use
drugs if they have access to relevant information. Whilst prevention based
education asserts that young people are able to make their own informed
decisions, the decisions promoted and expected of young people are ‘no’
decisions. This approach assumes that young people will passively absorb
information and that they have the necessary moral skills to process this
information. Where practical skills are taught to assist young people to resist
drug offer situations, assumptions are made that decision making to refuse
drugs is an easy and natural process. The belief that increased confidence will
reduce the likelihood of future drug use, leads preventionists to assume that
once young people have received drug education, they will naturally become
more resistant to drug use.
Aim
The aim of prevention education is to prevent the use of drugs altogether. The
prevention paradigm asserts that education alone has the ability to prevent use,
and that the dissemination of such information is being adequately received by
the audience. It assumes that all young people will interpret information given to
them in the same way; therefore the common goal of participants will be
abstinence. Viewing the occurrence of drug use in isolation, it seeks to look for
character flaws in individuals who do not adhere to abstinence.
Content
The content of prevention-based drug education tends to be grounded in
information giving, resistance training and skill development approaches,
assuming that young people do not have the natural skills to resist drug use,
and that they do not already have access to relevant information upon which to
base their decisions. Content is focused on the identification of drug offer
situations and coverage of the negative side of drug use. Prevention also
109
assumes that if young people are aware of the negatives, logically this
knowledge will outweigh any exploration of the positive aspects, and will
therefore prevent experimentation.
Modes of delivery
Drug education within this paradigm is mainly in formal education class settings
within schools, starting in the primary school phase, with a mostly didactic mode
of delivery and some role-play opportunities. Assumptions here include that the
settings are conducive to preventing all young people from using drugs, and
that the didactic approach delivered by authority figures such as the police is
required to impart the necessary information. Whilst teachers have a part to
play in prevention education, theirs is mostly the reinforcing of messages
imparted by outside agencies, seen to have more authority on the subject, such
as the police. Many prevention approaches seek to employ role-play
opportunities, to support the assumption that once young people can
demonstrate they have acquired and are competent in employing refusal skills
in a controlled environment, they will automatically be able to replicate these
skills outside the classroom.
Intended outcome
The intended outcome of prevention education is that, through the imparting of
relevant information, young people are able to make the informed choice to
resist the use of drugs. Again, the underlying assumption is that drug use can
be prevented through drug education that shows the dangers of drug use.
5.3.2 Assumptions within the harm reduction paradigm
Purpose
The assumptions that underpin the purpose of harm-reduction based drug
education, centre on the notion that most young people will experiment with
drugs at some point in their lives. Whilst asserting that young people are able to
make their own informed decisions, this paradigm automatically assumes that at
some point the decision made will be ‘yes’. Harm reduction, therefore, seeks to
disseminate information that will enable young people to minimise the harm
associated with this ‘yes’ decision. This paradigm therefore assumes that young
110
people, as passive recipients of specialist information, will have the emotional
skills necessary to process and apply this information when needed. It also
assumes that reducing associated risk is a priority for drug users, and that
access to the necessary information with which to reduce such risk will lead to
behaviour change.
Aim
The aim of harm reduction based drug education is to enable users to keep
themselves as safe as possible whilst they are taking drugs. Underlying
assumptions of this aim are that young people, as drug users, are not able
either to take drugs safely or manage their own use, therefore inferring a
baseline of irresponsibility. This paradigm also assumes that the reduction of
harm is a simple factor that can be achieved through meeting information
needs, which can then be applied in a number of current or future contexts.
Content
The content of harm reduction education tends to be tailored to meet individual
needs. In a school setting, the content focuses on a factual description of
individual drugs and their use and associated risks. Whilst acknowledging that
there is a positive side to drug use, harm reduction seeks to explore the wider
implications and effects of drug use. The content of harm reduction drug
education assumes that abstinence is not a priority for young people, who will
logically enquire about the positive aspects of drug taking, and therefore
experiment. For those who may already be using drugs, it assumes that they
will choose to continue this use, therefore strategies to reduce related harm are
necessary. It also assumes that its content will be appropriate to all recipients,
who will then have the skills to recall relevant information whilst in
experimentation situations.
Modes of delivery
Adopting the information giving approach, methods of delivery include
interactive group work to explore related issues, and some didactic delivery to
disseminate factual information. This mode of delivery assumes that young
people are capable of swift absorption and processing of large amounts of
111
information, that can be simultaneously applied to an exploration of a wide
range of theoretical situations and experiences. Again, whilst teachers have a
role in organising harm reduction based educational opportunities and
supporting group work, delivery is undertaken by drug workers, with specialist
knowledge about drugs and their effects.
Intended outcome
The intended outcome of harm reduction education is that through the imparting
of relevant information, young people are able to make the informed choice to
use drugs safely. This again assumes that young people are likely to use drugs
at some point in their lives, and when they do they will choose to do it safely.
5.3.3 Analysis of assumptions
This section and the following section debate the issues following analysis of
the assumptions that underpin prevention and harm reduction approaches to
drug education. Discussion of these issues clearly unpicks the fundamental
differences that have caused such conflict over the last three decades. Whilst
there are a number of conflicting assumptions there are also a number of
common ones. Both approaches identify ‘pressure’ as a reason for drug use while prevention believes it is ‘peer pressure’, and harm reduction that it is
‘societal pressure’. The most striking common assumption is that young people
are passive receivers of drug education, who have the necessary cognitive
faculties to process, remember and positively act upon information given to
them. Thus they will make the appropriate informed choice, in line with the
intended outcomes of the drug education programme they have participated in.
Table 5.1 Comparison of assumptions underpinning the prevention and harm
reduction paradigms
Prevention
Drugs are the problem
Common Assumptions
Harm Reduction
Nature of problem
Symptom of societal problems
Key is to impart relevant information
Need to improve young people’s agency to interact with the world
Intervention is needs led
Society’s needs
Individual’s needs
Pressure to use drugs
Peer pressure
Societal pressure
Young people are passive
Drug use not the norm
Drug use commonplace
receivers of information
[
Logical and moral facilities
Health as a prime motivating
factor for change
Logical and emotional facilities
112
Young people who are exposed to both types of education can be in receipt of
conflicting messages that undermine the common purpose of both types of drug
education. These conflicting messages stem from the differing assumptions
upon which each paradigm is based. Whilst one accepts the existence of drugs
as commonplace and the other refuses to, both assume that health is a prime
motivating factor in behaviour change. For this reason the information
disseminated from both paradigms tends towards the health agenda. Whilst
prevention assumes young people have the logical and moral faculties to
process the information necessary to identify and avoid health related risks, and
say ‘no’ to drug use, harm reduction assumes that they have the logical and
emotional faculties to identify and reduce health related risks and use drugs
safely.
5.3.4 The subjective-objective dimension of assumptions
The assumptions within the prevention and harm reduction paradigms can be
equated to the subjective-objective dimension of assumptions within social
sciences (Burrell and Morgan, 1979). The prevention paradigm follows a logical
progression within the objective framework, from its starting assumption that
drugs themselves are the problem. This problem is scientifically measurable
e.g. x users die per year or drugs cost the economy y £ per year; therefore,
prevention employs nomothetic reasoning. The determinist standpoint of
prevention assumes that such information, when given to young people, will
equip them with the knowledge to refuse drugs. Prevention also employs the
positivist argument that young people will make a purely logical decision based
upon an analysis of the positives and negatives of drug use. The belief that the
constant reinforcement of this message from various sources will prevent young
people’s future drug use, gives prevention a realist perspective of the
relationship between society and the individual.
The harm reduction paradigm follows an equally logical progression within a
subjective framework, from its starting assumption that drug use is a symptom
of deeper social problems. These problems are not scientifically measurable, as
the nature of a drug ‘problem’ will be entirely personal to the user; therefore
harm reduction is ideographic in its reasoning. The voluntarist standpoint of
113
harm reduction assumes that young people make decisions about drugs and
their use of them for unique and personal reasons. This leads harm reduction to
adopt the anti-positivist argument that drug education needs to be tailored to the
individual and their needs. The assumption that the problems within society will
inevitably lead many young people to try drugs at some point, and therefore
must be equipped to minimise the associated harm, gives harm reduction a
nominalist perspective of the relationship between society and the individual.
Table 5.2 Comparison of prevention and harm reduction assumptions within the
subjective-objective dimension (Burrell and Morgan, 1979)
PREVENTION
HARM REDUCTION
Logical progression in OBJECTIVE
framework
(Starting at drugs as the problem)
Logical progression in SUBJECTIVE
framework
(Starting at drugs as a symptom of societal
problems)
NOMOTHETIC reasoning
(Scientifically measurable – number of users /
cost)
IDEOGRAPHIC reasoning
(Not scientifically measurable – nature of use
personal)
DETERMINIST standpoint
(info equips young people with knowledge to
refuse drugs)
VOLUNTARIST standpoint
(Young people make decisions to use for
unique personal reasons)
POSITIVIST argument
(Young people make logical decisions analysis of positives and negatives)
ANTI-POSITIVIST argument
(education needs to be tailored to individual
need)
REALIST perspective
(relationship between society and individual –
constant re-enforcement of messages will
prevent use)
NOMINALIST perspective
(Relationship between society and individual
– if young people equipped with knowledge
will reduce harm of use)
The analysis of the assumptions within the drug education paradigms within the
subjective-objective dimensional framework, is helpful in understanding the
fundamental differences between the approaches, despite their common
purpose. However, both the prevention and harm reduction paradigms, in
pursuing health-based agendas, fall prey to the assumption that drug education
can be effective in isolation from other educational theories. They assume that
young people need, and can automatically understand and act upon, the drug
information they are given, without assessing their abilities and needs. Harm
114
reduction may give learners too much over-complicated information, in the
same way that prevention tends towards too little over-simplified information
(Cohen, 1996b). Both approaches assume young people have the adequate
skills to actively engage in drug education in order to achieve the intended
outcome of processing information within the classroom setting and applying it
to real life situations. Neither of the approaches link into relevant education
theory and practice, in the development of these necessary skills, such as
thinking skills within the Skills Framework (WAG, 2008d). Stead, MacKintosh,
McDermott and Eadie (2007) in evaluating the Blueprint programme, found that
in the lessons they observed, interactivity (as a pupil to pupil teaching approach
preferred by pupils) was often used to disseminate information rather than to
develop skills or explore attitudes and values of pupils. If drug education is not
targeted to meet needs, young people do not engage, and the messages
imparted remain impersonal and extraneous to their experience.
5.4 Terminology
Another reason that conflict exists between prevention and harm reduction is
attributable to underdeveloped terminology. This immature terminology leads
the non-specialist to assume that all drug education is either prevention based
(to prevent drug use), or harm reduction based (the giving of safer-use
information). Ill applied terminology also blurs the philosophical lines between
the two paradigms, leading to yet further ambiguity regarding the paradigm
location, underpinning theory, identified aims and intended outcomes of drug
education programmes and interventions. As a result, this situation of ambiguity
impedes both the research process and in the case of programme evaluations,
judgements of effectiveness to be made.
Any assumption that one paradigm has been fully endorsed at the expense of
the other, has the potential to lead to further misunderstanding regarding the
aims and content of drug education programmes, and the establishment of
almost feudal battle lines between prevention and any other approaches. In
contrast, opponents of prevention have identified themselves as harm
reductionists, as an alternative to prevention, even though this does not
sufficiently reflect their educational standpoints.
115
In reality, drug education tends to fall somewhere between the two approaches.
It takes the harm reduction view that drug use is a multi-faceted symptom of
other societal problems, but also employs a range of interventions to educate
young people, that go further than simple information giving. The identification
of only two standpoints is too narrow to adequately define the nature of current
drug education. It needs to be defined by more appropriate terminology that
reflects its multi-faceted nature, and therefore for the purpose of this chapter will
be referred to as ‘educational intervention’.
5.5 Modes of research within the prevention and educational intervention
paradigms
In undertaking research in support of the differing philosophies and approaches,
the prevention camp has tended to favour positivist epistemology and
quantitative methodologies, and educational intervention; interpretive
epistemology and qualitative methodologies, to validate their stance. In terms of
undertaking drug education research, prevention based research aims to
provide measurable outcomes in the reduction of drug use; and educational
intervention based research, an illustration of the wider associated issues, and
a complex exploration of potential reasons behind use (Cohen, 1992). For this
reason, it is possible to equate the prevention and educational intervention
approaches to drug education, with the positivist and interpretive research
paradigms respectively, due to their employment of certain research methods
that best answer the questions posed by each approach.
The effectiveness of preventative drug education in reducing drug use can be
measured statistically; therefore positivistic research methodology best answers
the questions asked of this approach to drug education. Positivism also sits
more comfortably with public perceptions of ‘the drug problem’ and the need to
reduce demand. The high value placed upon quantitative research
methodologies, especially during the 1980’s, provided easily digestible statistics
that gave an impression of scientific empiricism, as empirical data “conveys a
sense of solid objective research” (Denscombe, 1998, pg. 177). These
statistics can also form the basis of performance indicators against which the
Government can measure the success of policies, that the general public can
116
bear witness to.
If, as educational interventionists believe, drug use is a symptom of the society
and environment in which an individual lives, then qualitative research
methodologies are best placed to explore society and environment. The use of
qualitative research methodologies allows for exploration of the function of an
individual’s drug use, and provides a meaningful representation of that
individual’s point of view and subsequent behaviour.
5.5.1 Quantitative methods in evaluating drug education
Quantitative research is seen as scientifically objective, thus giving the research
itself greater credibility. As the research data is measurable it becomes open to
independent verification. Quantitative data also lends itself to a number of easily
accessible formats for presentation that are also easily understandable and
interpretable by the non-researcher. For these reasons, when researching drug
education, the positivist approach, and associated quantitative methodologies,
became politically favourable during the 1980’s. Mott (1986) argues that despite
the limitations and disadvantages of individual quantitative methods, employing
a number of statistical data collection techniques is advantageous in providing
an assessment of prevalence of drug use, against which Government
educational interventions can be measured.
The use of surveys has remained a major research tool in the drug education
field over the last 30 years, from assessing the extent of drug education
provision (Dorn, 1973), to the use, attitudes and knowledge of young people
involved in drug education (Goddard, Higgins and Department of Health, 2003).
Employing this method of descriptive survey research, to describe current
variables and account for changes as a function of time, has been popular in
this area as it can be applied to many fields, used at various levels of
complexity and scope, sample a wide target group and produce the statistics
necessary to explain trends to the wider public. However, it has been criticised
(Mackinnon, Weber and Pentz, 1988) for being unable to mediate the
necessary variables within this field.
117
5.5.2 Qualitative methods in evaluating drug education
Evaluating the effectiveness in the short term of educational intervention
approaches to drug education, is reliant on its effects on the individual and their
behaviour (Dorn, 1986). Qualitative research into drug education and its
effectiveness, is best suited to measure the development of young people’s ‘soft
skills’, to enable potential attitude and behaviour change in relation to drug use.
Interpretive research has also been used to highlight the long-term
ineffectiveness of some approaches to drug education, despite the evidence of
positive short-term outcomes (Davies, 1986). Qualitative research tends to be
favoured by educational interventionists as it shows,
“a concern with meanings and the way people understand things…. A
concern with patterns of behaviour” (Denscombe, 1998, pg. 207).
Over the last decade, historical research regarding drug education approaches,
has tended to be undertaken mainly by educational interventionists, in attempts
to disprove the effectiveness of primary prevention and the aims and outcomes
of Government led mass media campaigns (Cohen, 1992; Rhodes, 1990).
Historical research differs from other scientific research as it cannot be
observed or tested, however it is subject to the same standards (Mowly, 1978).
As criticisms of historical research stem from how documents are used rather
than the use of them, it is important to be aware of the philosophical
approaches behind which, and the social context within which, previous drug
education research has taken place.
The advantage for educational intervention of using case studies, is their ability
to catch unique features that may otherwise be missed by more quantitative
approaches to data collection. The nature of this method also embraces
unexpected results and can provide valuable insights. This method can also be
employed by a single researcher and in turn can be easily understood by nonexperts. For these reasons case studies have been employed in many drug
education research studies (Coggans and MacKellar, 1994; O’Connor et al.,
1999), not only as interpretive studies, but also to support quantitative
effectiveness findings. Case studies enable non specialists to gain a valuable
insight into the complex nature of drug education and its impact on the
118
individual. They also allow for a descriptive account of the experiences of
educators and learners, and the effectiveness of approaches in both the shortterm and long-term.
Within the field of drug education research, the qualitative/quantitative debate is
not as polarised as it might appear, but rather revolves around a spectrum of
attitudes, and the appropriate mix of both methodologies. Neither can be
described as necessarily exclusive. The value of having both qualitative and
quantitative sources of data collection in assessing the impact of drug
education, lies in the different levels of discourse between the approaches quantitative analysis asking ‘how’, and qualitative analysis asking ‘why’. The
multi-modal approach to measuring the effectiveness of drug education, has
provided drug education researchers with opportunities to employ both
quantitative and qualitative methods to improve the richness and validity of their
research. Eiser, Eiser and Bocker’s (1988) survey of teachers’ attitudes to drug
education, employed both qualitative and quantitative strategies in the use of
questionnaires and interviews, to “create as vivid a reconstruction as possible of
the culture or group being studied” (Cohen et al, 2000 pg. 138). O’Connor et al’s
(1999) study of the police service’s contribution to drug education employed a
number of methods, including historical literature review, survey, case studies
and action research, in order to ensure the most holistic data collection and
findings.
This situation is echoed in the wider field of drug education. Whilst prevention
and educational intervention, like positivist and interpretive paradigms, remain
very polarised, they are subject to an inevitable union, like quantitative and
qualitative methodologies, towards an overall common goal. Whilst the
philosophical standpoints appear to be irreconcilable, the reality for practitioners
and researchers is far more complex. The reality of the situation is that
preventionists, in the face of ever increasing drug use statistics, have had to
accept educational intervention as a short term aim, and educational
interventionists have been forced - by Government policy and public opinion - to
accept prevention as both a long term goal, and the criteria by which their work
will be judged. Ironically, the rapprochement over the last decade between
prevention and educational intervention, has not made a consistent and
119
effective drug education policy more likely. Despite a willingness to mix and
match their approaches, the old philosophical divisions, and the emotive nature
of the issue, combine to create an atmosphere of accusation and mistrust,
within which no agreement or commitment to collaborative progression can be
made (Ives and Clement, 1996; Beck, 1998). Des Jarlais, Sloboda, Friedman,
Tempalski, McKnight and Braine, (2006) define loss aversion as ‘the selection
of courses of action that avoid possible losses in a choice situation, even at a
cost of missing opportunities for potentially large gains’ (Des Jarlais et al., 2006,
p1357) and attributes loss aversion strategies as an explanation for the strength
of advocacy or opposition observed in both supporters of prevention and harm
reduction.
“If school and health officials are concerned about an impending
epidemic of drug use among school-aged children and youths, the
school officials may readily adopt a drug use prevention program that
looks good even if there is no clear evidence that the program is
effective. They are unlikely to wait the years needed to determine if
the program is actually effective” (Des Jarlais et al., 2006 p.1357)
Using the example of needle exchange schemes as a harm reduction initiative,
Des Jarlais et al., (2006) illustrates how both advocates and opponents both
employ loss aversion strategies. Advocates of needle exchange schemes are
attempting to prevent loss of life and that any criticism of such an initiative is a
criticism of HIV programming as a whole. Alternatively, those opposing needle
exchange are likely to see the success of such an initiative as sending out the
wrong message and undermining all anti-drug programmes and prevention
policy. As people can ‘often become very emotionally committed to their loss
aversion choices when the potential loss is very large’ (ibid. p.1357) Des Jarlais
et al., (2006) report that compromise between advocates and opponents of
needle exchange programs has been very difficult to achieve in the United
States, due to the opposing groups’ use of loss aversion strategies within
different frames.
120
5.6 The role and use of research in shaping policy and the provision of
drug education
The role of research in informing drug education policy and practice has been
defined by its use by the two conflicting philosophical approaches, prevention
and harm reduction. Invoking scientific-based research has been used as a
weapon by both paradigms, as they have sought to disprove the effectiveness
of the opposing one and justify their respective positions on school-based drug
education (Rhodes, 1990; Cohen, 1992; Beck, 1998).
5.6.1 Research within the political arena
This situation of misunderstanding between prevention and harm reduction is
further compounded in the political arena. This misunderstanding is often used
to promote public and moral support for prevention only programmes, and
criticise current harm-focused policy for its leniency (Beck, 1998; HEBS, 2003).
Hansard materials illustrate the naively defined lines within the political arena;
the term ‘harm reduction’ used to describe any educational intervention that is
not purely prevention focused (ibid.; Cohen, 1992). Educational interventions
labelled as harm reduction, have been blamed for the level of demand for illicit
drugs, with the Government being criticised by the opposition for supporting the
promotion of misguided harm reduction materials,
“It is entirely the wrong approach to provide lots of value-free, non
judgemental information to young people who are too immature to
make adult decisions with it. They [young people] need guidance and
they are not getting it. Strategies won’t work without prevention”
(Hansard, 2005a Col. 770).
Current drug education in schools has also been accused of heightening
children’s awareness of drugs, making them more vulnerable through sparking
their interest in them (Hansard, 2005c), Government policy has also been
condemned for accepting the existence of drugs, and not being committed to
achieving a drug–free society, unlike prevention (Hansard, 2003b).
Government policy, being preventative in nature, has stifled the desired
adoption of more evolved research-based models of drug education (Cohen,
1996a; HEBS, 2003; Des Jarlais et al., 2006). These evolved models call for a
121
move away from traditional forms of preventative education, such as resistance
training, and towards a broader exploration of drug related issues (Lowden and
Powney, 1999; RSA, 2007). Whilst harm reduction has a place in these
programmes, its use should be carefully targeted to address specific need, and
not employed across the board (Newcombe, 1992; Dorn and Murji, 1992;
Lowden and Powney, 1999; HEBS, 2003). This move away from traditional
prevention has led to the assumption that harm reduction has become the
favoured approach. This approach - employed from the late 1980’s onwards has often been criticised for its lax approach to drug use (HEBS, 2003). Many
have found it difficult to accept an approach that does not condemn drug use.
However, caution should be given, that acceptance of drug use should not be
confused with condoning drug use (HEBS, 2003).
The relationship between drug education research and public opinion on the
same topic is a complicated one. On the one hand, research findings are held
up as incontestable if they support the media’s manipulation of public opinion,
however on the other hand, if they challenge public opinion or the status quo
they are disregarded or undermined (Anderson, 1988; Bagnall and Plant, 1987;
Davies, 1986; Rhodes, 1990; Coggans et al 1991). The subject of drugs is an
emotive issue, one upon which a large number of people hold strong opinions
that, in the main, tend to be based on limited or no direct experience or
understanding of what is also a complex issue. The negative portrayal of drugs
and drug users in the media (Rhodes, 1990), makes objective research
extremely difficult, due to the powerful influence the media plays in shaping
public opinion, as well as a researcher’s own personal norms and values. This
situation also leads to research in this area being subject to significant scrutiny
or dismissal, if findings move away from public opinion. With the media sat
firmly in the prevention camp, Government policy has traditionally followed suit,
even if this has meant ignoring significant research findings regarding the
effectiveness of campaigns and education packages, that they themselves have
commissioned (Anderson, 1988; Bagnall and Plant, 1987; Davies, 1986;
Rhodes, 1990; Coggans et al 1991).
The media’s stance however, on drugs and drug use has been known to
change with perceived public opinion, contributing to an environment of
122
uncertainty within the substance misuse field over the validity of research
findings the Government utilise to support its policy (Anderson, 1988; Bagnall
and Plant, 1987; Davies, 1986; Rhodes, 1990; Coggans et al 1991; Druglink,
1997). This has led to specialist practitioners within the drug field criticising
much of the Government-backed research, for its choice of quantitative
methodology. Quantitative research has been criticised for not demonstrating
understanding of the subject being researched, not reflecting the subjectivity of
the issue, and the resulting meaninglessness of findings to the individual
(Davies and Coggans, 1992). Quantitative research methods have also been
criticised for providing oversimplified findings that do not seek to explain
meaning, or further the general public’s understanding (Anderson, 1988; Dorn,
1986). Alternatively, the more qualitative research undertaken by the
educational intervention camp since the late 1980’s, has been criticised for its
attempts to disprove the prevention approach, rather than further the
educational intervention argument (Beck, 1998; Allot et al., 1999). It has also
been criticised for its lack of meaning on a wider scale, which leads to the
isolation of findings and their contribution to the development of future drug
education policy (Davies and Coggans, 1992). In applying a qualitative
experience to their understanding, practitioners have difficulty accepting what
they perceive to be the Government’s quantitative rationale of the subject, and
in turn the Government and media have difficulty accepting what they perceive
to be inconclusive and isolated qualitative support for non-prevention based
drug education (Dorn, 1986).
5.6.2 Research and drug education practice
There is a clear theme emanating from the literature. More research and
evaluation of drug education approaches rather than programmes is necessary
to assess effectiveness (Lowden and Powney, 1999; Botvin and Griffin, 2007).
There is a particular lack of research in a number of areas, including
programme development and process evaluations (Canning, Millward, Raj and
Warm, 2004), detailed longitudinal studies following substantial cohorts (White
and Pitts, 1998; Blueprint, 2009), and evaluations of primary sector
programmes and approaches (Blueprint, 2009). Complex and focused studies
are needed to account for the contextual processes that affect drug use (Cohen,
123
1992), as well as studies that explore the educational processes and classroom
interaction between teachers and young people (McGrath et al., 2006b). There
is a lack of evaluative research into the effectiveness of initial and in-service
teacher training relating to drug education and its delivery, and if indeed this
initial and in-service training takes place (RSA, 2007), and few studies that
focus on the needs of particular groups of young people and the impact of drug
education on these groups (HEBS, 1997; Lowden and Powney, 1999).
It can be argued that the challenges of evaluating drug education stem from
three distinct issues: inappropriate definitions; inappropriate expectations of
success; and a lack of suitable targeting (HEBS, 1997, Lowden and Powney,
1999). The ‘halo effect’ of early assessments of drug education initiatives,
where their effectiveness has been overstated, mars the later conclusions that
tend to be more cautious (Lowden and Powney, 1999).
There are also a number of methodological issues that challenge the
robustness of drug education evaluations. Methodological weaknesses
inevitably lead to overall weakness of evaluations. Low participation rates in
evaluations and inappropriate outcome measures limit the conclusions that can
be drawn and result in inconclusive findings (Allot et al, 1999; Canning, et al,
2004). Low participation rates can be attributed to legality issues that make it
difficult to identify, recruit and retain participants, especially if the use of illicit
drugs is to be measured. Drug education evaluations have also been criticised
for over-reliance on self-reporting, with little use made of objective reporting.
Again, difficulties arise with legality issues surrounding data testing issues
(White and Pitts, 1998; Canning et al, 2004).
Coggans et al (1999) argue that the methodological problems associated with
the evaluation of drug education programmes need to be accepted in order to
produce research that informs the development of effective programmes. The
unrealistic expectations of drug education against which success is measured,
need to be addressed as a priority. Clear, realistic aims and objectives, and
realistic measures of effectiveness need to be identified at the outset. Many of
the current methodological issues stem from the aim of prevention-based drug
education to reduce drug use, despite research proving that this is not possible
124
and therefore this aim is unrealistic. A move away from the reduction of drug
use as a measure of success would enable more effective and robust
evaluation of drug education. Hornick and Yanovitzky (2003) argue that
evaluations of drug education campaigns are also weak. The way campaigning
affects behaviour is complex, but this is not reflected in evaluation design,
therefore many effects of educational campaigns remain undetected.
“Develop a theory of the campaign that respects how behaviour can
really be affected and evaluate the campaign consistent with that
theory of effect” (Hornick and Yanovitzky, 2003, pg. 222)
Very few UK based programmes these days can be satisfactorily described as
purely prevention or harm reduction based. Some adopted US programmes
remain prevention based, despite the wealth of research that criticises the aims
and underpinning theories of prevention approaches as being inherently flawed,
resulting in ‘nonexistent or negligible effects in affecting illicit drug use among
target populations’ (Beck, 1998). Research remains inconclusive as to whether
drug education can actually prevent use; it has, however, delivered encouraging
findings in regard to broader drug education programmes with more realistic
aims (Goodstadt and Willet, 1989; Coggans et al, 1991; Lowden and Powney,
1999; HEBS, 2003).
Over recent years, in response to the limitations of unrealistic prevention based
aims (Beck, 1998), research has focused on the factors that influence
effectiveness rather than attempting to prove the effectiveness of individual
programmes (Lowden and Powney, 1999). Factors which have been identified
as contributing to an effective drug education programme include: the
identification of existing needs, attitudes and behaviour; exploration of reasons
behind use; are sufficiently resourced and supported (practically and ethically);
employ appropriate participative methods of delivery by skilled educators; and
incorporates the means to evaluate its impact (Swadi and Zeitlin, 1987; Tobler
and Stratton, 1997; Lowden and Powney, 1999; Coggans et al, 1999).
Evaluative research into the effectiveness of drug education tends to be
concerned with outcomes alone, and pays little attention to its implementation
(Dorn and Murji, 1992; Jansen et al., 1996; Allot et al., 1999). Demonstrating
success is only part of an evaluation; to assess the full impact of drug education
125
programmes, researchers need to study how they have been delivered (Dorn
and Murji, 1992; Jansen et al, 1996; Allot et al, 1999).
5.6.3 Challenges of evaluation
The evaluation of drug education has been identified as a priority within
substance misuse policy and strategy (ACMD, 2006; WAG, 2008b), however,
the question of how success is measured in a meaningful way needs to be
discussed in more detail within policy making forums. Drug education evaluation
research has, in the past, predominately focused on the limited aspects of ‘Just
Say No’ rather than ‘Just Say Know’ drug education in setting and determining
success criteria (Beck, 1998). A consequence of this is that evaluation
researchers may very well have incorrectly deemed effective programmes
failures and taken incomplete or extraneous information from prevention based
programmes, deeming these as indexes of success (ibid.). Evaluation of
methods of drug education has been called for, that can be linked in with more
operationally significant and realistic performance indicators (POST, 1996).
These performance indicators could include pupil’s views of risk before and
after programmes, the tracking of attitudinal change regarding the costs and
benefits of drug use, and the measurement of better understanding of related
ethical principles (POST, 1996).
The difficulty of providing comparative evidence of the effectiveness of
programmes is further compounded when these different programmes are not
explicit with their aims and theoretical basis (Stead and Angus, 2004). Beck
(1998) asserts that evaluation of non-prevention based drug education calls for
innovative research design and instrumentation.
“Accomplishing this [innovative research design and instrumentation]
requires abandoning the unrealistic assumptions and rigid precepts
that have effectively constrained acceptable research and practice”
(Beck, 1998 p.32)
Devising the means to assess the efficacy of programmes that aim to reduce
the potential harm of drug use would support the achievement of a more
realistic goal for school based drug education, than the traditional objective of
reducing risk (Beck, 1998).
126
5.6.4 Evaluation within the health and educational agendas
Whilst the long term aim of policy makers remains the prevention of initial drug
use and the reduction of demand, Government policy increasingly recognises
the role of educational intervention in promoting a health agenda amongst
young people within the wider Healthy Schools agenda (Lowden and Powney,
1999, DfES, 2004). However, the evaluation of the effectiveness of such drug
education approaches in promoting the health agenda remains too narrowly
focused. What is needed is a multi-level analysis of the situation, process and
effectiveness of the education itself, (in terms of analysing the intentions of and
outcomes for beneficiaries, providers and policy makers) that moves away from
the confines of content and modes of delivery of specific isolated programmes
of drug education (HEBS, 1997).
Government policy has traditionally placed drug education within the school
setting as a means of widespread delivery without much thought as to how and
by whom it was to be delivered. Its position within the ‘specialist’ health agenda
and the lack of central support for teachers in its delivery led to its isolation from
the wider educational agenda (Jones et al., 2006; Cahill, 2007). In recent years,
wider policy developments have enabled drug education to play a part in a
wider arena. The Every Child Matters agenda (HM Goverment, 2006) has
embedded the issue of substance misuse as a cross cutting theme for a range
of services including schools. The Healthy Schools Programme has removed
the stigma and fear attached to the delivery of drug education by providing a
holistic approach within a recognised framework to addressing substance
misuse issues as part of a whole school agenda and by offering access to
expert advice and training for teachers (DfES, 2004). Despite these
developments, the potential that schools have to embed drug education
messages and employ educational assessment tools is still not fully utilised due
to their lack of ownership of the aims, content and provision of drug education
(Coggans et al., 1991; Lowden and Powney, 1999; HEBS, 2003). Drug
education needs to be thoroughly integrated into the wider educational agenda
of schools so that its aims can be evaluated for their educational impact as well
as their societal impact (Goodstadt and Willet, 1989; Coggans et al, 1991;
Lowden and Powney, 1999). The onus on the measurement of societal impact
127
rather than educational impact further diminishes the ability of schools to
support drug education (Lowden and Powney, 1999; Stead and Angus, 2004).
Its place in a wider educational agenda that incorporates wider educational
theory would ensure drug education is shaped and tailored to meet learner’s
needs, and allow the employment of existing educational tools in the
assessment of the learning experience (Lowden and Powney, 1999). The use of
existing educational tools used regularly by schools to measure educational
impact in other curriculum areas, would enable a broader more holistic
approach to the evaluation of the effectiveness of drug education (ibid.). These
tools would enable schools to play a part in the ongoing evaluation of drug
education within a formative assessment framework as well as in the
development and revision of programmes. Healthy Schools initiatives are
assisting with the necessary re-focusing of drug and alcohol education within a
whole school approach (DfES, 2004). However, schools need to be further
supported in implementing ongoing substance misuse programmes (DCSF,
2008), particularly in the secondary school setting, which contribute to a
consistent approach at local and national levels. Schools also need to be
supported to increase their involvement in the planning of such programmes.
5.7 Chapter summary
The battle between prevention and harm reduction approaches to drug
education has ebbed somewhat since the mid 1990’s. Developed Government
policy and guidance that supports the ‘information giving’ and ‘life skills’
approaches, has provided the ‘educational intervention’ middle ground, where
drug educators can choose to employ a range of delivery methods to suit
individual need. The development of hybrid educational intervention approaches
has seen, in some areas, a merging of philosophies and the research methods
employed to measure their effectiveness. Research into drug education has in
turn become far more eclectic in its choice of research methodology and
methods (O’Connor et al., 1999), during the last decade. Whilst the interpretive
approach of educational intervention research still favours qualitative as its
primary method, quantitative methods are also employed to support findings or
test hypotheses on a wider scale. Again, positivist research into the
effectiveness of prevention based approaches needs to use qualitative methods
128
to support quantitative trend findings (Bry, 1978; Power, 1989; Spooner and
Hall, 2002).
Research has shown what works in relation to drug education and factors that
can influence its effectiveness, and this research needs to inform the
development of new, and the adaptation of existing, educational intervention
approaches to drug education (Swadi and Zeitlin, 1987; Goodstadt, 1990;
Tobler and Stratton, 1997; Lowden and Powney, 1999; Coggans et al, 1999).
More formative evaluation of drug education needs to take place that
encourages the measurement of progression in attitudinal and behaviour
change, rather than merely measuring the attainment of knowledge and skills.
Whilst Government policy that refers to the use of research findings in the
development of drug education is welcomed (ACMD, 2006; WAG, 2008b),
guidance on appropriate research methods and findings also needs to be made
available to practitioners. Assessment and evaluation tools that have been
designed to be easily employed by practitioners need to be built into drug
education programmes at the outset to provide the ongoing measurement of
realistic outcomes, and form the basis of meaningful evaluations (ACMD, 2006).
Meaningful evaluations of drug educational interventions are dependant on the
setting of realistic aims and intended outcomes, against which to measure their
effectiveness. Improved terminology that clearly articulates the assumptions
that underpin these aims and intended outcomes, aids both the practitioner in
the delivery and the researcher in the evaluation of drug education. Formative
process evaluation is necessary to reflect the changing needs of young people
and the world around them, and the progressive nature of effective drug
education. Multi strand evaluation methods that fit and effectively measure multi
strand drug education are best placed to address evaluative difficulties, and
consolidate the positive role and use of existing and future drug education
research.
129
Chapter 6. The ‘Get Sorted’ Project.
6.1 Introduction
The findings of the historical documentary analysis detailed in the proceeding
three chapters were grouped into drug education policy, drug education practice
and the role and use of research in the provision of drug education. These
findings highlighted particular issues that stemmed from a complex
interdependency between the three themes and their relationships with the
media, which led to a significant gap in shared understanding and philosophy
between policy makers and practitioners. The conclusion was that this gap has
led to a lack of consensus regarding the fundamental aims of drug education. In
turn, this lack of consensus underpins the conflict between stakeholders that
impedes the effective co-ordination and communication necessary to support
the effective provision of drug education. The hypothesis emanating from the
documentary analysis was that the development and implementation of an
infrastructure that encouraged co-ordination and consistency between
stakeholders with differing philosophical standpoints would support effective
provision of substance misuse education.
As the Co-ordinator for Substance Misuse Education for Rhondda Cynon Taf
(RCT) County Borough Council, the author took the opportunity to test the
hypothesis within a local authority area, by proposing the development of the
‘Get Sorted’ (Support On Relevant Training and Education about Drugs) project.
This chapter provides an overview of the local authority of Rhondda Cynon Taf,
and an overview of the strategic responsibilities of local authorities in Wales and
the specific strategic actions taken in RCT. Discussion of the key drivers (both
practical and political) that influenced and impacted on the practical
development of the ‘Get Sorted’ project provides the reader with knowledge of
the local context into which the project was introduced and in turn more
understanding of the live environment into which the hypothesis was tested.
The methodology employed to gather the project related data of data set two is
also detailed in this chapter.
130
6.2 Background to the strategic responsibilities of local authorities in
Wales
In June 1995, David Hunt (the acting Welsh Secretary) announced the
allocation of £0.4 million to establish the Welsh Drug and Alcohol Unit (WDAU),
following a spate of drug related deaths in the South Wales Valleys, the majority
of which were in RCT. The Unit was set up to guide and co-ordinate drug and
alcohol prevention, treatment, rehabilitation and training across Wales and in
May 1996, the Welsh strategy ‘Forward Together’ was launched. Four
objectives were identified to prevent the misuse of drugs and alcohol by young
people, including: education in schools; prevention activity in the youth service;
national and local campaigns; and urging other agencies in contact with young
people to undertake prevention activity. The Welsh structure, like the English
structure, included the establishment of regional Drug and Alcohol Action
Teams (DAATs); however local teams were established as Local Action Teams
(LATs), rather than the English Drug Reference Groups (DRGs). The Welsh
structure, unlike the English, also included a completely new tier of strategy
management that sat in between the regional DAATs and the local LATs, in the
form of Local Implementation Teams (LITs). Set up by the DAATs, the multiagency LITs were charged with implementing the strategy in local terms, so that
the LATs became an advisory body to both the LITs and the DAATs. This
Welsh structure encouraged more local ownership of actions to tackle drug and
alcohol issues, by providing more opportunities to involve a wider range of
partner organisations and a wider range of representation within each
organisation, offering both strategic and operational perspectives. Whilst these
arrangements were fit for purpose in addressing Welsh priorities, the
implementation of UK wide strategy and policy was made more difficult by the
extra tier within the Welsh structure in terms of allocation of responsibility and
authority between the DAATs and the LITs and similarly between the LITs and
the LATs.
131
Figure 6.1 Welsh strategic structure 1996-2001
Welsh Drug and
Alcohol Unit
(WDAU)
Drug and Alcohol
Action Teams
(DAATs)
Local
Implementation
Team (LIT)
Multi-agency group to
oversee the implementation
of strategy in local terms
Welsh Advisory
Committee on Drug
and Alcohol Misuse
(WACDAM)
Advise DAATs via WDAU on
strategy and national
priorities
Local Acton Team
(LAT)
Advisory group for DAATs
and LIT
The role of the WDAU and the re-convened Welsh Advisory Committee on Drug
and Alcohol Misuse (WACDAM), was to advise the DAATs on strategy and the
development of national prevention programmes and campaigns. In 1999
WACDAM, with its 35 members, was disbanded in favour of a smaller 12
member Substance Misuse Advisory Panel (SMAP), charged with overseeing
the implementation of the new strategy, ‘Tackling Substance Misuse in Wales:
A Partnership Approach’. This new strategy was developed to reflect the aims
of the English strategy, whilst offering a Welsh perspective and was launched
by the devolved National Assembly for Wales in 2000, concluding the work of
the SMAP. SMAP was abolished in 2001 and in its place the Advisory Panel on
Substance Misuse (APoSM) was formed with representatives from a range of
fields, and Assembly officials. APoSM was charged with advising the Assembly
on strategy dissemination and the implications of policy implementation. At the
same time, the Welsh Drug and Alcohol Unit was assimilated into the Assembly
and plans were made to abolish DAATs, LATs and LITs and replace them with
Substance Misuse Action Teams (SMATs) in each of the 22 unitary authorities
of Wales. SMATs would report directly to the Community Safety Partnerships
(CSPs) in each area. Substance Misuse Regional Advisory Teams (SMARTs)
132
were also established as an advisory body to the SMATs, to support local
strategy formulation and implementation.
Figure 6.2 Welsh strategic structure 2001 onwards
Welsh Assembly
Government
(Substance
Misuse Branch)
Community Safety
Partnerships
(CSPs)
Substance Misuse
Action Teams
(SMAT)
Multi-agency group to
oversee the implementation
of strategy in local terms
Advisory Panel on
Substance Misuse
(APoSM)
Advise Minister on strategy
dissemination and
implications of policy
implementation
Substance Misuse
Regional Advisory
Teams (SMARTs)
Advise on strategy
formulation and
implementation
6.3 Profile of Rhondda Cynon Taf
Rhondda Cynon Taf (RCT) lies to the North of Cardiff in South Wales, between
the Brecon Beacons and the M4 motorway. As the second largest authority in
Wales, it covers 424 square kilometres and has a population of approximately
232,000. It is a semi rural area that consists of three valleys, Rhondda (Fach
and Fawr), Cynon and Taf. Traditionally it was a mining area, and has a legacy
of social and economic deprivation. 20% of the 152 Lower Layer Super Output
Areas (LSOAs) in RCT, are in the 10% most deprived LSOAs in Wales, with
three areas ranked the 3rd, 12th and 19th most deprived in Wales. Types of
deprivation - including employment, health, education, income, environment and
housing - are higher than the medium rank for Wales (Welsh Index of Multiple
Deprivation, 2005). Of the 52 wards in RCT, 17 rank in the top 100 deprived
wards in Wales (ESTYN, 2003).
133
The Welsh Health Survey in 1998 identified higher smoking rates in RCT
(29.3%) than the Welsh average (26.8%). It also identified RCT as having the
second highest level of self reported alcohol consumption above recommended
limits in Wales (Government Statistical Service, 1998). Whilst only limited data
is available on the prevalence of substance misuse in RCT, anecdotal evidence
from service providers and community audits accepts increased and
widespread use, and drug related deaths in 2006 averaged at one per month.
Substance misuse has become a primary concern for many communities
throughout R.C.T (RCT, 2005c). This has had direct impact on schools, which
play a central role within these communities, as increasingly pastoral care of
pupils is substance misuse focused in order to address community issues.
Some areas are now experiencing second-generation substance misuse, which
provides further challenges for schools in supporting pupils whose family lives
are affected by parental substance misuse.
RCT has 19 comprehensive schools, 5 special schools, 1 Pupil Referral Unit,
103 primary schools, and 23 infant schools within its boundaries, totalling
41,468 children and young people of school age. Attendance rates in 2008-9
stood at 92% in the primary sector and 89.8% in the secondary sector (RCT,
2009). The percentage of pupils eligible for free school meals reflect the level of
deprivation in RCT with 22.9% of RCT pupils eligible compared to 17.8%
nationally. The level of free school meal eligibility is the third highest in Wales
with only Blaenau Gwent and Merthyr Tydfil recording higher levels (RCT,
2009).
Attainment rates indicate that the percentage of primary school pupils achieving
Level 4 or above at Key Stage 2 in RCT has increased from 76.3% to 77.7%
between 2004-2006, however this remains lower than the Welsh average.
47.9% of secondary school pupils in RCT are achieving 5+ GCSE / Equivalent
Grades A*-C a difference of 6.3% when compared to the Welsh average of
54.2% (NafW, 2008).
134
Statistics show that qualification attainment at all levels in RCT is lower than the
national Welsh averages, as are literacy and numeracy levels.
Figure 6.3 Qualification attainment in Rhondda Cynon Taf (NafW, 2008)
5+ GCSE/Equivalent Grades A*-C
RCT
47.9%
Wales
54.2%
Difference
-6.3%
5+ GCSE/Equivalent Grades A*-G
80.9%
85.7%
-4.8%
Average GCSE/GNVQ points score
37.3
41.3
-4.0
Pupils leaving full time education with no
qualifications
3.3%
1.7%
+1.6%
2+ A Level / Equivalent Grades A-C
60.5%
67.5%
-7.0%
2+ A Level / Equivalent Grades A-E
91.4%
93.9%
-2.5%
Average A Level / Equivalent points
score
17.7
20.2
-2.5
Unauthorised absence from maintained
secondary schools
2.5%
1.8%
+0.7%
People of working
qualifications
16.2%
+2.8%
age
with
no
19.0%
Figure 6.4 Literacy and numeracy levels in Rhondda Cynon Taf (NafW, 2007)
RCT
Key Stage 2 (achieving Level 4 and
above)
English
Maths
Key Stage 3 (achieving Level 5 and
above)
English
Maths
Wales
Difference
75.1%
78.5%
78.6%
80.4%
-3.5%
-1.9%
62.3%
66.4%
68.6%
69.9%
-6.3%
-3.5%
Results from Careers Wales destination data for pupils leaving school at Years
11, 12 and 13 demonstrate the high level of young people not in education,
employment or training (NEET) in Rhondda Cynon Taf (see Figure 6.5 below).
135
Figure 6.5 Number of young people NEET in Rhondda Cynon Taf (Careers
Wales, 2007)
Year 11
Year 12
Year 13
Total NEETS aged 16-19
RCT
5.2% (163)
6.9% (117)
12.8% (154)
7.2% (434)
Wales
6.4%
3%
4.8%
5.3%
Difference
-1.2%
+3.9%
+6%
+1.9%
6.4 Strategic action in Rhondda Cynon Taf in 2002
One of the first pieces of work undertaken by RCT’s Substance Misuse Action
Team (SMAT) in 2002, was to commission the organisation NACRO to
undertake an extensive needs analysis of the current situation regarding
substance misuse in RCT (Davies, Giles and McManus, 2002). The
recommendations of this research were then utilised to form the basis of RCT’s
Substance Misuse Strategic Action Plan (Appendix xxix). The report focused
upon the four areas identified by the national strategy: children and young
people; treatment; families and communities; and availability. The findings in
relation to substance misuse education and the Local Education Authority (LEA)
identified large gaps in provision and the report recommended the employment
of substance misuse specialist teachers to address the shortfalls (Davies et al.,
2002).
Following the findings and recommendations of the NACRO report (ibid.), a Coordinator for Substance Misuse Education (CSMEd) for RCT was appointed in
April 2003, based within the LEA, and charged to address the issues within this
report.
At the same time RCT’s first substance misuse strategic action plan (RCT,
2003) was launched. Actions relating to substance misuse education were
identified under the children and young people theme, and responsibility for
implementation of these actions given to the Co-ordinator. With the overarching
aim of developing a co-ordinated and consistent approach to substance misuse
education, as part of a wider community development model of prevention and
education for children and young people up to the age of 25.
136
6.5 The Development of the ‘Get Sorted’ Project in RCT
Analysis of Government policy, approaches to the practice of drug education,
and the role of research demonstrated the natural interdependency between
these three components, despite philosophical differences. Weaknesses in
these separate areas, as well as the lack of communication between them, has
contributed to the limited development of effective drug education policy and
practice. In turn, this lack of open, effective communication over the last 30
years, has led to the culture of denial of responsibility, failure and blame that
surrounds the perceived ineffectiveness of drug education today (ACMD, 2006).
Documentary analysis led to the assertion that the co-operation and consensus
necessary to make future drug education effective lies in the acceptance of
responsibilities and limitations (Coggans et al., 1991; Beck 1998), the burial of
the traditional philosophical standpoints and political agendas (Beck, 1998), and
that policy should recognise the role of young people’s participation in setting a
realistic agenda for drug education (Orme and Starkey, 1999; WAG, 2002a;
WAG, 2002b).
The hypothesis emanating from the documentary analysis stage of this study,
and in line with professional experience, was that an infrastructure was
necessary. This infrastructure would bridge the gap between policy makers and
practitioners and encourage co-ordination and co-operation in order to support
drug education policy and practice. With the positive use of research and the
media, and the inclusion of a range of stakeholders, creation and maintenance
of this infrastructure was achievable. This infrastructure needed to ensure that
those providing drug education were adequately skilled, informed and confident
to do so to ensure the consistency of messages given to young people.
Educational interventions that appropriately engage young people beyond the
health agenda, with realistic measurable aims and outcomes, based upon
sound theory that was supported by research, needed to be promoted. The
hypothesis also asserted that supported dissemination of relevant Government
policy and guidance, as well as objective research findings, would contribute to
the increased confidence of non-specialist staff such as teachers to not only
deliver appropriate drug education, but also seek to measure whether drug
education has been effective in meeting the needs of its beneficiaries, rather
137
than the needs of policy makers, the media, public opinion and practitioners.
Initial consultation exercises were undertaken with head teachers and young
people to gather their views on the provision of substance misuse education in
order to inform the development of a response to the findings of the NACRO
report (Davies et al., 2002). The method of undertaking these consultations with
head teachers and young people is detailed in section 6.6.
As a result, the ‘Get Sorted’ (Support On Relevant Training and Education
about Drugs) project was established in 2004 as an infrastructure to support coordinated, consistent and equitable provision of substance misuse education in
RCT. The ‘Get Sorted’ Project was designed to respond to the key issues facing
young people and communities across RCT, and to the identified needs of
education providers throughout the County Borough. The Welsh Assembly
Government circular 17/02, Substance Misuse: Children and Young People
(WAG, 2002a), was used as a framework for assessing models of good
practice, existing provision in RCT, and addressing gaps in both. The findings of
these initial consultations (Appendix iii; vi) created a measure of policy
implementation and provision across RCT, as well as informing the
development of the ‘Get Sorted’ project. Issues that had arisen during
consultation were addressed in the design of the aims and objectives of the
project.
Mirroring RCT’s strategic aim for substance misuse education, the ‘Get Sorted’
project aims to ‘provide consistent, up to date and relevant, substance misuse
education for children and young people up to the age of 25, in a wide range of
settings, across Rhondda Cynon Taf’. In order to achieve this aim the following
objectives for the project were set:

Provide ‘hands on’ support for staff dealing with substance misuse
incidents in both schools and the youth service.

Provide specific training and classroom support for professionals
delivering substance misuse education, encompassing drug
information and teaching methodology, to increase knowledge and
confidence.
138

Provide guidance on age appropriate information for children and
young people at each Key Stage.

Develop new strategies for engaging hard to reach children and
young people, in substance misuse education.

Support parental and community awareness raising initiatives, to
support a consistent approach to substance misuse education, and
its key messages.

Develop effective communication networks, to facilitate the sharing of
best practice, and assist the monitoring and review of substance
misuse education throughout the County Borough.

Implement a multi-agency approach to meeting the strategic
objectives relating to substance misuse education within the
Rhondda Cynon Taf Substance Misuse Action Plan.
Performance monitoring tools were implemented at the outset, to enable
effective reporting to the SMAT on the implementation of the RCT Strategic
Action Plan. These are detailed in section 6.6. The format of the ‘Get Sorted’
project enabled all elements of substance misuse education necessary to
ensure the Council’s drive for maximum impact and effectiveness, such as
policy, practice and responding to substance misuse incidents, to be addressed
simultaneously (see Figure 6.6 below). Council support was given to the funding
and implementation of the ‘Get Sorted’ project in April 2004, and three
Substance Misuse Education Officers and an Administration Officer were
appointed and commenced employment in July 2004. Based in the LEA, the
remit of the team is cross-departmental within the Council, and facilitative within
partnership forums. The team is managed by the Co-ordinator for Substance
Misuse Education.
139
Figure 6.6 Service offered by the ‘Get Sorted’ project
GET SORTED
TRAINING
ADVICE
SUPPORT
INCIDENTS
STRATEGIC CO-ORDINATION
DELIVERY
ADVICE
GUIDELINES
POLICY DEVELOPMENT
GUIDELINES
POLICY DEVELOPMENT
INDIVIDUAL PLANNING SUPPORT
HANDS ON DELIVERY SUPPORT
TAILORED STAFF TRAINING
OBSERVATION
Key elements
Practice
Products
Documentation
Policy
Procedure
Delivery of education
Training
Support
Communication networks
6.6 Methodology – data set two: project related data
The project related data in data set two was gathered with the sole purpose of
meeting the performance and monitoring requirements of the funders of the ‘Get
Sorted’ project. These funders included the Local Authority, the Welsh
Assembly Government and the Home Office. Each of the funders utilised
different progress reporting mechanisms to reflect their particular areas of
interest. For this reason both qualitative and quantitative data methods were
selected in order to best meet the reporting requirements of the project. The
rationale for the methods chosen can be found in chapter two, section 2.2.
There are five sources of project related data within this data set, which in this
study enhance the qualitative research data and provide context:

Initial consultation with schools (qualitative)

Initial consultation with young people (qualitative)

‘Get Sorted’ entry and exit assessment questionnaires (quantitative)
140

Substance misuse incidents in schools database (quantitative)

The ‘Get Sorted’ project performance monitoring (quantitative)
Within this data set, a total of 36 interviews were held with 19 secondary school
head teachers and 17 primary school head teachers and 10 focus groups with
109 young people. 89 teachers also completed ‘Get Sorted’ entry
questionnaires. In total, 234 participants provided project related data, as
detailed in this section.
6.6.1 Initial consultation with schools
A consultation exercise was undertaken in 2003, prior to the setting up of the
‘Get Sorted’ project in 2004, to ascertain a current picture of drug education
provision in schools in Rhondda Cynon Taf and create a baseline against which
to measure future progress. The development of the ‘Get Sorted’ project
objectives, approach and team were informed by the findings of this preliminary
exercise. Interviews were chosen to capture the data required to provide a
current picture of provision. Semi-structured interviews were employed to collect
information that could be compared across schools as well as provide the
opportunity for participants to share their own perspectives and opinions.
Participants
In total 19 secondary head teachers and 17 primary head teachers participated
in this consultation exercise. The basis of sampling was that all 103 primary and
19 secondary school head teachers in RCT were to be contacted by letter and
invited to participate. Letters sent explained the purpose and method of
consultation and identified the sampling strategy. Sampling for consultation
interview followed the same method as standard LEA consultations, with all
secondary schools sampled and the primary school sample being the 17
primary school Cluster Convenors as representatives of the 17 recognised
geographical clusters of primary schools, elected by the cluster itself. 100% of
the sample group agreed to participate and all interviews were timetabled and
undertaken between May – July 2003.
141
Procedure
Interview questions were designed in consultation with colleagues and due to
the differing responsibilities between the secondary and primary schools in
terms of the delivery of substance misuse education at different key stages, 13
questions were devised for secondary heads and eight questions for primary
school head teachers. A mixture of open and closed questions were designed
to produce data on: perceptions of the level of concern about substance misuse
issues; content, frequency and mode of delivery of substance misuse
education; perceptions on its effectiveness; workforce training needs, incident
management, communication networks, future developments deemed
necessary to improve current provision and role of the LEA in supporting
schools to tackle issues and provide substance misuse education. These topics
were selected to best respond to the issues identified by the NACRO report
(Davies et al., 2002; Appendix xix) and provide a detailed picture of the current
environment.
The questions were then tested with a colleague in the LEA and on their
feedback an amendment was made to one of the questions to avoid potential
confusion. This amendment involved the clarification of terminology used, so
not to unintentionally mislead participants. The test interview was timed in order
to inform the length of appointment made to undertake the interview.
Permission was sought and received from Education and Children’s Services
Senior Management Team to undertake the consultation.
Interviews were undertaken in schools and were approximately one hour in
length. They were not recorded as a result of consideration of the political
situation surrounding the confidential NACRO report (Davies et al., 2002;
Appendix xix) and the potential for this situation to impact on the disclosure of
subjective opinions and inhibit the responses of participants. This data was
collected for the operational purpose of developing the ‘Get Sorted’ project. As
the exercise was being undertaken on behalf of the LEA it was acknowledged
that this could lead to participants’ responses being determined by what they
thought they should say (Blaxter, Hughes and Tight, 2001) or that their
responses were modified to be seen as more acceptable to the LEA.
142
A question template was used with all interviewees and the questions were
asked in the same order and with the same weighting during each interview.
Responses were recorded on this question template under each question.
Participants were invited to provide any materials they thought appropriate to
further understanding of their provision (e.g. scheme of work, pupil workbook)
however all were told that this was not a pre-requisite of the consultation and
that the provision of materials, nor the materials themselves would be included
within the consultation report.
Analysis
Interview data was electronically transcribed following the completion of each
interview. Data was then grouped for analysis as either secondary school or
primary school in origin and within each grouping responses were amalgamated
by question for comparison. This was undertaken by compiling data from each
interview into one electronic template.
The statistical data analysis package SPSS was used to analyse responses to
closed questions, producing statistical data such as the frequency of substance
misuse education across schools. Responses to open ended questions
underwent thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006) question by question to
identify key themes such as a lack of leadership from the LEA. The process of
thematic analysis is described in detail in chapter seven section 7.3.1, so to
avoid repetition the process will not be detailed here. Once these processes
were completed for each sector, comparisons were made across the sector
templates to look for similarities and differences between the secondary and
primary school responses. Comparisons were also made between this data and
the findings of the NACRO report (Davies et al., 2002; Appendix xix) to
ascertain whether a similar picture had emerged in both assessments of the
current situation of school-based substance misuse education. These
comparisons showed similarity between the secondary and primary sectors in
terms of the level of concern regarding substance misuse but also difference
between the sectors in terms of the nature of this concern. The nature of
concern for secondary schools focused on the use of substances by pupils
whereas the nature of concern for primary school focused on the impact of
143
other people’s use on the primary school community (e.g. parental drug use and
drug related litter left on primary school premises following the use of premises
in the evenings by non-pupils). Comparison of these findings with the findings of
the NACRO report (ibid.) showed consistency between the separate
assessments of the situation.
The findings of this consultation exercise can be found in Appendix iii and
support assertions made about the environment prior to the establishment of
the ‘Get Sorted’ project in chapter eight.
6.6.2 Initial consultation with young people
As an extension to the school consultation, a further consultation exercise was
undertaken with young people aged between 11 – 21 years in order to gain
understanding from a young persons perspective of their experiences,
perceptions and needs regarding substance misuse education and compare
their perceptions and opinions with those of head teachers. Focus groups were
chosen as the method to elicit this information from young people, with a view to
utilising a semi-structured interview approach to designing and asking
questions.
Participants
In total 109 young people aged between 11-21 years participated in the focus
group based consultation. The sampling strategy employed was to contact as
broad a range of young people as possible in order to provide the widest range
of views and experiences of substance misuse education. This was achieved by
identifying groups of young people who were less likely to be represented in
more widespread consultations that used the school environment to access
young people’s views. In consideration of capacity and time constraints and
ethical considerations, ten established groups across RCT that work with
particular target groups of young people were selected and approached to
participate:

Cynon Valley Youth Crime Prevention Panel

RCT Youth Council
144

Voluntary Sector Youth Provision (Rhondda valley)

Statutory Sector Youth Provision (Taf Ely valley)

Blueprint Forum (Looked After Children support group)

FE College – Education Otherwise Group (young people excluded
from school)

FE College – Post 16 group (to be selected by the College)

Partnership Programme (Youth Service based Alternative
Curriculum)

Youth Offending Team Reparation Group

VIVA! (Disabled young people support group)
These groups were selected on the basis that the focus of their work with young
people was outside of the mainstream school setting (in some cases they
worked with young people who did not attend or had been excluded from
school, or in the case of the FE College, were above statutory schooling age).
The aim of this was to collect data from young people in non-school settings
about their experiences of school-based substance misuse education. It was
also to target young people as members of ‘vulnerable’ groups who were likely
to be in need of more targeted substance misuse education (WAG, 2002b) to
elicit their views on whether their experiences of substance misuse education
had met their needs. In line with relevant policy (WAG, 2002b; WAG, 2007) the
intention was to sample young people aged between 11-25 years, however the
maximum age of the young people contacted was 21 years. 100% of the
sample groups agreed to participate and were asked to select 8-10 young
people from their group to form the focus group. The number of young people in
the focus groups ranged from 8 – 13. All sessions were completed in March
2004.
Ethical consideration was given to undertaking focus group sessions with young
people that discussed substance misuse issues. Issues identified included
disclosure of own or parental drug and alcohol use and associated safeguarding
issues, issues surrounding the targeting of ‘vulnerable’ groups such as those in
the Looked After Children system and the potential for discussion of school145
based experiences to cause future distress. Action was taken during the
sampling stage and at the process stage to mitigate these identified issues.
Contact with young people was made via the professional staff in charge of the
established groups. Explanation of the aim and method of the focus groups was
given to professionals both verbally and in writing to seek agreement from the
organisation, young people, and where necessary, parents / carers, to
participate. Ethical issues identified were also discussed with these
professionals prior to them selecting 8-10 young people from their group to
participate in the focus group. Questions to be asked were sufficiently
structured to define clear parameters of responses that focused on their
experience as the beneficiaries of substance misuse education. These
questions were also shared with professionals prior to their selection of young
people. A prerequisite of the focus groups was that professionals would be
present throughout in order to provide support for young people. A thorough
explanation of the aim and boundaries of the focus group and confidentiality
issues was given at the start of each focus group. Following explanation of the
action proposed to mitigate the ethical issues identified approval was given by
Education and Children’s Services Senior Management Team to undertake
focus groups with young people.
Procedure
The questions for the young people focus groups were designed to collect their
views on their experience of substance misuse education from a learners point
of view and questions addressed the location, sources and content of
substance misuse education they had received, and investigated their views of
how future provision could be made more effective (Appendix v). Designed in
consultation with LEA colleagues, both open and closed questions were
developed that aimed to best elicit responses that could be comparatively
analysed across groups. A question template of ten questions was produced
and was tested prior to use by a youth club group. Feedback from the test
group confirmed question content and provided standardised response options
to some questions to ease the recording of data by the scribe (e.g. who had
delivered substance misuse education; where had they received it).
146
Each session lasted approximately one hour and a standard introduction was
given to participants. As with the school consultation, a standardised question
template was used to ask the same questions across all groups and record
responses. A flipchart was used to note key discussion themes and keep the
groups on task whilst a separate scribe transcribed all verbal responses onto
the template. Where necessary, subsidiary questions were asked to clarify
points made by young people. Key themes recorded on flipcharts and the scribe
notes were electronically transcribed following each focus group session and
the two were compared for accuracy. All data was securely stored both
electronically password protected files and in hard copy formal in a locked
cupboard within the LEA.
Analysis
Analysis of the consultation with young people data was undertaken in the
same way as the data from the consultation with schools. Data underwent
thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006) the process of which is detailed in
chapter seven, section 7.3.1. Data was analysed by collating responses
question by question onto a single electronic template. Response themes were
identified question by question and closed question responses (e.g. who
delivered substance misuse education) were counted to provide statistical data.
Comparisons were made with the findings of the secondary and primary school
consultation where possible in terms of the effectiveness of substance misuse
education and good practice guidance from the Welsh Assembly Government
(WAG, 2002a) in terms of who is best placed to deliver substance misuse
education.
The findings of this consultation exercise can be found in Appendix vi and
support assertions made about the environment prior to the establishment of
the ‘Get Sorted’ project in chapter eight.
6.6.3 ‘Get Sorted’ entry and exit assessment questionnaires
Entry and exit assessment questionnaires were formulated at the start of the
project as a tool for measuring self reported changes in knowledge, confidence
and attitudes of participants, as a means of assessing the impact of the ‘Get
147
Sorted’ project at an individual beneficiary level.
Participants
The basis for sampling was that all teachers and youth workers who received a
support input from the ‘Get Sorted’ team completed both entry and exit
assessment questionnaires. As each input by the ‘Get Sorted’ team was tailored
to meet the individual needs of beneficiaries, they varied in content, number of
sessions and type. For this reason it was intended that each participant would
complete both an entry and exit questionnaire for each input from the ‘Get
Sorted’ team, irrelevant of the time taken to complete the input. In total, 108
participants completed entry assessments and 62 exit assessment
questionnaires. Of the 94 entry questionnaires (Appendix vii), issued to schools,
89 were completed (94.6% return rate) which represents 82% of the total data
available (the remaining 18% were from the youth sector). Of the 89 school
based completed questionnaires, 69 (77.5%) were from the primary sector and
20 (22.5%) were from the secondary sector.
Exit assessment questionnaires (Appendix viii), were given directly to
beneficiaries by the ‘Get Sorted’ team, usually during the last session of an
input and beneficiaries were asked to complete them and return them by post.
Of the total 62 exit questionnaires completed, 54 (87%) were from the school
sector, 43 from the primary sector (79.6% of the school data) and 11 from the
secondary sector (20.4% of the school data). Analysis of exit questionnaires
identified respondees from 38 different schools (30% of the total number of
schools). All completed exit questionnaires from schools answered questions
pertaining to their level of knowledge and confidence to deliver substance
misuse education following input from the ‘Get Sorted’ team.
The entry questionnaires were issued by post following an initial request for
support but prior to contact with a member of the ‘Get Sorted’ staff, therefore as
a needs-led service, respondents effectively self sampled. Each participant was
made aware of the potential use of this data in assessing the impact of input
from the ‘Get Sorted’ team, but assured that confidentiality would be
maintained. Examination of the data pertaining to school based interventions
showed the requests for support were spread across the range of school staff
148
and across the range of support available from the ‘Get Sorted’ team, therefore,
whilst this sample was small it was deemed representative of the wider school
based population of RCT involved in the delivery of substance misuse
education. As with a questionnaire of this nature, which relies on the selfreporting of perceptions and attitudes, there remain issues related to response
and non-response bias. However, as a tool to measure changes in the self
reported confidence levels of teachers to address substance misuse education
needs, this potential bias does not impede the validity of this data.
Procedure
The questions within the entry and exit assessment questionnaires were
designed, with support from the Head of Performance Management within the
Council, to directly reflect the stated objectives of the ‘Get Sorted’ project. The
questions asked schools to provide qualitative feedback, as well as providing
statistical data for analysis. Both questionnaires were designed together to
ensure ease of comparison of responses prior to and post input from the ‘Get
Sorted’ team. The questionnaires were standardised and pre-tested to enhance
their reliability. This involved ensuring that the wording of questions was clear;
the questions were not leading; the questions were open to allow for free text
where possible; and the response options for closed questions were of equal
weight in terms of positive and negative responses. It was also devised in line
with the Council’s Performance Management Information (PMI) Unit criteria for
Council questionnaires. Both the questionnaire and the data collected was also
examined by the Head of the PMI unit to increase internal validity (LeCompte
and Preissle, 1993).
On receipt of completed ‘Get Sorted’ entry and exit assessment questionnaires,
the ‘Get Sorted’ project Administration Officer inputted the data directly into the
statistical data analysis system SPSS. These electronic files were kept securely
on the LEA network drive and original paper questionnaires were kept securely
in a locked cabinet.
This data evidences changes in knowledge and confidence levels of educators
delivering substance misuse education as a cohort, in line with the Local
Authority level focus, rather than offering evidence of changing positions at an
149
individual or school level. This data is used to support assertions made in
chapters eight and nine of this study, particularly in relation to self reported
changes in the knowledge and confidence of educators.
6.6.4 Substance misuse incidents in schools database
The statutory requirement from the Home Office to collect and report
information on substance misuse related incidents led the ‘Get Sorted’ team to
revise the RCT Substance Misuse Guideline for Schools in 2004.
The Home Office required information on a quarterly basis on the numbers of
incidents in schools; the geographical area of the school; the type of incident
(e.g. possessions, supply); and the gender and age of the pupils involved in
each incident. The school consultation exercise had identified a second set of
issues facing the secondary schools in regard to pupils under the influence of
substances whilst at school and predominantly in the primary sector the level of
parental substance misuse and the level of drug related litter found on school
premises. For this reason, these extra fields of reporting were included in the
recording form devised (Appendix ix). The field of ‘onward referral to helping
agencies’ was also included to support the monitoring of the ‘Get Sorted’
project’s impact on the development of communication networks and
partnership working. Based on the template recording system identified in WAG
Guidance Substance Misuse: Children and Young People (WAG, 2002a), an
incident data recording form (to be completed and stored by the institution) and
a reporting form (to support the collation of anonymised data to be sent to the
LEA) were devised and implemented for use by schools and youth centres. At
the same time, LEA based incident data collection systems were devised and
an LEA hosted database was created to securely store information collected on
a termly basis and enable anonymised reports to be submitted to the Home
Office. In terms of the ethics of data use and storage, the recording of incident
data by schools, the collection and use of data by the LEA and the storage of
both were all subject to the regulations of the LEA. As this data was collected as
project related data it was subject to the same data storage and use protocols
as other pupil related information collected and held by the LEA. Data that was
manually recorded was kept in locked storage and where possible this data was
150
sent electronically to the LEA, using the secure LEA email system. Electronic
data stored by the LEA was encrypted and password protected in line with LEA
guidelines. The use of this data by other departments within the Council (e.g.
Children’s Services) was strictly by permission of the Director for Education.
Imput, maintenance and data retrieval was conducted by the ‘Get Sorted’
project Administration Officer and termly reports were sent to the Senior
Management Team in Education and Children’s Services, the RCT Substance
Misuse Action Team and the Home Office. These reports included separate
data for schools and the youth service that included the total number of
incidents; the number of incidents in each category (possession, supply, under
the influence, use by non-pupils, drug related litter); number of incidents by
geographical area (Rhondda, Cynon, Taf); number of incidents by gender; and
number of referrals onto helping agencies.
Analysis of the substance misuse incident data can be found in Appendix xxiv.
This data supports the findings identified in chapters eight and nine of this
study.
6.6.5 ‘Get Sorted’ Project performance monitoring
In order to provide the statistical data requested by the LEA and WAG via
Substance Misuse Action Team (SMAT), information was gathered and
recorded in relation to the performance of the ‘Get Sorted’ team. This
information existed as an information management tool and ongoing record of
project delivery. It was designed to collect a range of data produced by the team
including hours spent in different sectors (e.g. secondary school, primary
school, youth club); number of professionals worked with; number of new
contacts made; type of support offered; number of hours spent offering each
type of support; and number of visits undertaken. This information was updated
on a weekly basis by each member of the ‘Get Sorted’ team and checked for
anomalies by the Co-ordinator for Substance Misuse Education. All ‘Get Sorted’
project activity was recorded alongside the date it occurred allowing for a high
level of detail to be available for use. Statistical reports were produced by the
‘Get Sorted’ project Administration Officer.
151
The collection of this data enabled performance management reports for the
LEA and project progress reports for the SMAT to be quickly produced on a
regular basis. The statistical data within this study relating to the performance of
the ‘Get Sorted’ team in terms of the level of input (e.g. hours spent providing
particular support; number of contacts etc) is from this source.
6.6.6 Findings
The findings of the project related data in data set two provide the quantitative
data used within this study. The use of this quantitative data supports broader
conceptualisation of the project being studied by offering a further dimension to
the qualitative findings. Where this data is used in chapters eight and nine to
offer a quantitative perspective, reference is made to data set two as its source.
Further detail regarding the findings within this data set are found in Appendices
iii; iv; xxiv.
6.7 Key providers of substance misuse education in Rhondda Cynon Taf
There were a number of providers of substance misuse education and a few
key programmes in RCT at the time the ‘Get Sorted’ project was established.
The ‘Get Sorted’ project was established to co-ordinate and support the work of
these providers, to increase general awareness of their services, improve
communication networks, and increase capacity in fulfilling elements of their
work extraneous to their main focus of educational delivery e.g. policy
dissemination. These providers included:

Treatment and Education Drug Services (TEDS)

Rhondda Against Illegal Drugs (RAID)

Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE)

All Wales Police Schools Liaison Programme

Sober and Safe Alcohol project

Substance Awareness for Everyone (SAFE)
The relationship the ‘Get Sorted’ project has with these providers and
programmes can be best depicted diagrammatically as shown below.
152
Figure 6.7 The links between key providers in RCT
LOCAL PROVISION
NATIONAL PROVISION
TEDS
1987RAID
1996-2005
DARE
1998-2005
All Wales Police
Schools Liaison
Programme
Sept 2004
‘Get Sorted’
April 2004
Sober and
Safe
2004-
SAFE
2005-
New future needsbased provision
Whilst there is a wide range of individuals providing substance misuse related
inputs in schools, a smaller number can be considered as key providers in the
delivery of substance misuse education and details pertaining to these key
providers and programmes can be found in Appendix xx.
6.8 Key drivers
In order to understand accurately the underpinning practice-based intentions
behind the establishment of the ‘Get Sorted’ project, and the environment into
which it was implemented, it was necessary to explore and describe the
situation prior to the project being set up in 2004. These existing conditions, or
antecedents, prior to the introduction of the project, relate to and impact upon
outcomes. Exploration of the antecedents was vital in contextualising not only
the project but also the opinions, values and involvement of stakeholders. The
data gathered during the initial consultations with schools and young people
was used to provide the antecedent findings. This consultation data gave
valuable insight into the environmental, political, practical, financial and
situational influences upon the development and implementation of the ‘Get
153
Sorted’ project, as well as the positive and negative factors that shaped it. In
terms of Stake’s (1967) countenance framework and the description matrix as a
tool for data analysis, this examination of the antecedents also provided a
baseline, against which logical and empirical contingency between the
antecedent stage and the transaction stage could be measured.
Examination of the pre-existing situation identified a number of key drivers that
shaped the conception and development of Get Sorted as a Council led
response:

Financial implications

Stakeholder agendas

Political interest and environment

Good practice research

Identified local needs and pre-existing issues

Implementation of local strategy

Existing and emerging national policy

Existing capacity
These key drivers are derived from analysis of the initial consultation data in
data set two and the findings of the RCT commissioned NACRO report (Davies
et al, 2002).
6.8.1 Financial implications
From the outset it was evident that there was not sufficient funding available to
initiate teacher-training events that involved staff being released from school to
attend. Supply costs alone would have entailed securing approximately £22,000
per year to train one member of staff from each school in RCT. As this type of
group training opportunity was already available in part via the Advisory Service
ESIS’s PSE training events, it was deemed that to pursue this as a method of
addressing needs would not be most cost effective. It would also limit the
number of staff who could access training and support, and would not prove
flexible enough to meet the specific knowledge and confidence issues identified
154
during initial consultation interviews. The development of a specialist unit that
offered on-site outreach services and support for schools and other education
providers, would address issues identified in a flexible and responsive needsled manner. In providing outreach on-site, team-teaching opportunities for staff
to increase their level of confidence as substance misuse educators, the
resourcing of the ‘Get Sorted’ project offered the opportunity for the Council to
invest affordably in much needed capacity building.
6.8.2 Stakeholder agendas
The ongoing difficulties in RCT regarding the provision of substance misuse
education, and the hostility between providers that had been allowed to
continue unresolved, resulted in a mixed response to the development and
establishment of the ‘Get Sorted’ project. The general mistrust between
providers had created a culture of blame, which fed a defensive environment in
which stakeholders and potential partners worked. Whilst most stakeholders
were generally positive about the development of ‘Get Sorted’ following their
inclusion in discussions, their initial responses displayed reluctance and fear of
change. A few stakeholders remained negative towards ‘Get Sorted’, and
despite offers of inclusion in the project’s development they declined such
offers, further disassociating themselves. This created a number of barriers to
implementation, and in a few cases undermined the ‘Get Sorted’ project’s ability
to engage some professionals, who felt that becoming involved with ‘Get
Sorted’ would be disloyal.
6.8.3 Political interest and environment
The cabinet decision to support the development and implementation of the
‘Get Sorted’ project as the Council’s response to addressing the substance
misuse educational needs of children and young people in RCT was made in
April 2004. However, there was dissatisfaction from one councillor who
contested the decision to commit funding to what was misunderstood to be a
‘programme’ of education that would be in direct competition with the DARE
programme. The decision was upheld, yet despite extensive dialogue with the
councillor (who also fulfilled the role of Secretary for DARE), regarding the
nature of ‘Get Sorted’ as a support mechanism to create infrastructure, this
155
councillor actively ensured that political opposition to its existence, whilst in the
minority, remained present and visible. The local Government election in May
2004 saw a change of administration to the one that had agreed the proposal
for the creation of the ‘Get Sorted’ team. As funding had been agreed from the
Council’s Development Fund for the financial year 2004 – 2005, the project was
only secure until March 2005. Changes in the political environment inevitably
led to a review of projects and initiatives established during the previous
administration, and the visible opposition to the ‘Get Sorted’ project also led to
fragility and vulnerability for the project in its first year. Whilst this period of
uncertainty proved difficult, it also directly contributed to the development of
service monitoring and reporting systems, to ensure the output of the project
could be documented, and measured against the input.
6.8.4 Good practice research
The Welsh Assembly Government Guidance Circular (17/02) Substance
Misuse: Children and Young People, was published in 2002. It clearly identifies
the roles and responsibilities of a wide range of individuals and organisations in
regard to substance misuse issues and education, and the children and young
people they are in contact with. Clearly highlighting these responsibilities within
the areas of policy development, good practice in substance misuse education
and managing substance misuse related incidents, the document offers
substance misuse trend information and signposts to sources of further
information and support. Circular 17/02 was designed to be accessible to all
working with children and young people, and to support schools and youth
settings to make the connections between substance misuse policy, education
and incidents. Within the substance misuse education section, the document
highlights sixteen key points of good practice (Appendix xxi).
Adherence to and promotion of these key good practice points was essential if
the ‘Get Sorted’ project was to demonstrate the credibility and objectivity
necessary to satisfy stakeholders, build trust with schools and teachers, and
improve the learning experience for children and young people.
156
6.8.5 Identified local needs and pre-existing issues
The NACRO report (Davies, et al., 2002) had identified a number of substance
misuse education issues that needed to be addressed if RCT was to
demonstrate consistent and equitable provision. Analysis of project related data
produced from initial consultation with schools and young people (sections
6.6.1; 6.6.2), also reiterated a number of these concerns, and provided local
evidence of the general lack of central co-ordination and communication. Even
though 98% of primary schools and 100% of secondary schools reported
providing substance misuse education, 11% of young people aged between 1125 years reported having received none. Both schools and young people were
quick to identify what future developments should include, and how the LEA
could be of support. Areas of support and development included: training and
information; development of resources, including welsh medium resources;
funding; LEA organised events; better strategic lead; incident management and
incident data collection; policy development support; and support for delivery of
lessons. Key findings and recommendations from the consultation exercises
can be found in Appendices iii and vi.
6.8.6 Implementation of local strategy
The main drivers for the ‘Get Sorted’ project’s service delivery areas, emanated
from the RCT Substance Misuse Strategic Action Plan. In line with the national
substance misuse strategy, RCT’s plan is split into four main sections, focusing
upon: Children, Young People and Adults; Families and Communities;
Treatment and Availability. Within the Children, Young People and Adults
section, substance misuse education, and in turn the Get Sorted project was
concerned with the following aim:
“Develop a co-ordinated & consistent approach to substance misuse
education as part of a wider community development model of
prevention and education for children and young people up to the age
of twenty-five, in line with the Substance misuse Children and Young
Peoples Document National Assembly for Wales No. 17/02” (RCT,
2002)
As a four year strategic plan the document also identified cross cutting themes,
such as substance misuse training and awareness raising for adults, workforce
157
development, and media management and relationships. The service delivered
by the ‘Get Sorted’ project had also to encompass these cross cutting themes,
as well as ensure that the actions identified to achieve the above aim, were
undertaken. Actions within the plan were reviewed on an annual basis, with
completed actions removed, and new actions added, to reflect changing local
need and national priorities. Both the aim and the long term actions of this plan
informed the aims and objectives of the ‘Get Sorted’ project.
6.8.7 Existing and emerging national policy
The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) published the first formal
publication looking at the impact of parental drug use and the need for this topic
to be integrated into existing and future policy in 2003. ‘Hidden Harm:
Responding to the needs of Children of Problem Drug Users’ (ACMD, 2003)
estimated that between 250,000 and 350,000 children are affected by parental
problem drug use. The document states that parental problem drug use can
cause serious harm, but that through addressing the needs of the parent and by
working in partnership, services can both protect and improve the health and
wellbeing of affected children. It identifies the role that all professionals who
work with children and young people have in recognising and appropriately
responding to parental substance misuse.
The Drug and Alcohol National Occupational Standards (DANOS) were
introduced in Wales in 2003. DANOS provides a competency framework for
both specialist substance misuse professionals, and generic staff involved in
work with young people. These generic staff (or ‘wider workforce’) include
teachers, youth workers and community workers who need to prove
competency in dealing with and addressing substance misuse issues or topics
with young people. The drive for national competency, whilst welcomed as a
means of professionalising the substance misuse field, also raised a number of
issues for SMATs and LEAs in responding to their responsibility to formalise
training available to the wider workforce. In formalising this training, all courses
need to be mapped to DANOS standards, and the relevant quality assurance
systems needed to be developed and implemented.
158
By the time the ‘Get Sorted’ project was established, discussion had also begun
regarding the development of Substance Misuse Treatment Frameworks for
Wales, which would offer practitioners guidance and service delivery
frameworks, to ensure consistency in service provision. Whilst there were no
plans for a specific substance misuse education framework, as a cross cutting
theme, education and training would have a role to play across all frameworks.
6.8.8 Existing capacity
The capacity of substance misuse agencies in delivering substance misuse
education was nearing maximum, as very little funding was available for the
delivery of specific school-based substance misuse education. It was quickly
recognised that the partner agencies and organisations, despite being willing,
were not in a position to offer further input, and due to the lack of specific
funding they could not guarantee that this input would remain stable. Despite
being overstretched, specialist agencies were just about managing the
demanding workload; however, there was no opportunity to build capacity for
the future within the current set up.
6.9 Chapter summary
This chapter has detailed how the opportunity arose to test the hypothesis
emanating from the documentary analysis as well as the context into the
infrastructure was introduced. The methods used to gather, analyse and report
project related data has also been detailed. Reference to the key drivers sought
to illustrate the practical factors and prevailing situation that shaped the
development and implementation of the ‘Get Sorted’ project and how the
elements of ‘Get Sorted’ project had been designed to account for practical
limitations and pre-existing challenges as well as the theoretical findings. In
essence, this chapter has provided the contextual background and detailed the
process of applying research findings into practice.
159
Chapter 7. Qualitative evaluation of the ‘Get Sorted’ project
7.1 Introduction
This chapter sets out the methods used to gather and analyse evaluative
research data within data set three. The sampling strategies and data collection
techniques are identified and discussed. The procedure of applying Stake’s
(1967) matrices to analyse the data corpus is also given here. The rationale for
the qualitative methods used to gather data for data set three and also the
rationale for the choice of Stake’s (1967) Countenance Theory to analyse data
across the data corpus has previously been presented in chapter two.
7.2 Methodology – data set three: evaluative research data
In undertaking semi-structured interviews, a qualitative approach was taken to
explore the appropriateness of input from the ‘Get Sorted’ team and assess the
impact of the ‘Get Sorted’ project on a local authority level in establishing an
infrastructure. Semi-structured interviews were used to take advantage of the
flexibility of unstructured interviews, yet benefit from the collection of
comparable data. Data collection involved the collection of both descriptions
and judgements from head teachers, PSE Co-ordinators and stakeholders.
There are three main data sources within this data set:

Interviews with school staff

Interviews with stakeholders

Parents and pupil focus groups
Within this data set, 26 interviews were undertaken with nine head teachers,
nine PSE Co-ordinators and eight stakeholders. Six focus groups were also
undertaken, three with parents (total number of parents was 18) and three with
pupils (total number of pupils was 20). In total, 64 participants provided
qualitative data. The following sections detail the sampling strategies employed
and the procedure undertaken for the interviews and focus groups.
160
7.2.1 Interviews with school staff
Participants
In total, nine head teachers and nine Personal and Social Education (PSE) Coordinators participated in the semi-structured interviews. The sampling strategy
was to contact all 19 secondary schools, five special schools and 103 primary
schools by letter asking for expressions of interest to participate. In order to
construct an appropriate sample to answer the research questions, eight
schools would then be chosen from those schools agreeing to take part, on the
basis of the following criteria: their location, sector, size, language and level of
engagement with the ‘Get Sorted’ project, in order to provide as representative
a sample as possible.
The group of schools who agreed to participate offered an opportunity to select
a representative sample of eight schools to undertake interviews with school
staff. Of the 127 letters sent out asking for expressions of interest to participate,
39 responses were received, 25 agreed to participate (15 primary schools, eight
secondary schools, one special needs school and one Pupil Referral Unit)
totalling 15.7% of total school population, and 14 declined (12 primary schools
and two secondary schools). The 25 schools that agreed to participate gave a
geographical spread (seven from Taf Ely, 12 from Rhondda Fawr and Fach and
six from Cynon) and representation from all sectors. Welsh medium schools
were represented in both the primary and secondary sectors, as were faith
schools. The secondary sector also included the perspectives of a single-sex
school and a special schools with both behaviour and disability focuses. Self
sampling bias was acknowledged as those prepared to participate were likely to
have been more confident in their provision of substance misuse education;
likely to have had a higher level of involvement with the ‘Get Sorted’ project;
and likely to have prioritised the delivery of substance misuse education within
their schools. Where possible the level of bias was reduced through the use of
operational data. ‘Get Sorted’ project performance data was used in order to
ascertain the level of each schools involvement with the ‘Get Sorted’ project.
Analysis of school related performance data showed an average of seven ‘Get
Sorted’ inputs per school. Inputs were defined as visits to the school by
members of the ‘Get Sorted’ team and included both school initiated contact
161
(e.g. support for programme planning or direct classroom based teaching
support) and ‘Get Sorted’ initiated contact (e.g. dissemination of policy
guidance). Schools that had received ten or more inputs from the ‘Get Sorted’
team were classed as having a high level of involvement and schools that
received five or less inputs were classed as having a low level of involvement.
In total, nine schools were chosen to provide a representative sample (7% of
total schools and 36% of those who had agreed to participate) for interview
purposes. An additional school to the originally intended sample of eight was
also selected as it offered a unique perspective. This school has an authority
wide catchment area for pupils and therefore offered an additional perspective
for this study. The 25 schools that had expressed an interest in participating
(20% of the total schools in the region) offered the opportunity to be selective,
allowing for the criteria for selection to be rigorous in order to best answer the
research questions. Selection of the final nine school sample was made on the
following criteria generated to ensure sample was representative across the
region:
Geography (Rhondda Fawr valley, Rhonnda Fach valley, Cynon valley and Taf
Ely valley);
To cover the geographical area, two schools were sampled from each of the
valleys; Rhondda Fawr (contains 17% of total schools in RCT), Rhondda Fach
(contains 15% of total schools in RCT), Cynon (contains 31% of total schools in
RCT) and Taf Ely (contains 37% of total schools in RCT) and an additional
school with a County Borough wide catchment area.
Sector (secondary, primary, special, Welsh medium, faith);
Five primarys, three secondarys (one of which has community college status),
and one special school were selected, to reflect the proportional number of
schools in each sector. One school is a Welsh medium school (representing
25% of Welsh medium secondary provision in RCT) and one is a voluntary
aided faith school (representing 16% of primary sector faith schools in RCT).
162
Affluence of catchment area (ranking on the Welsh Index of Multiple
Deprivation, 2005);
Schools were also selected to reflect the mix of catchment areas ranking, on the
Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation - WIMD (Local Government Data Unit,
2005) within RCT, with three schools in the top 10% most deprived areas, and
two schools in the 50% least deprived areas.
Level of input from the ‘Get Sorted’ project;
Whilst all schools selected have had some contact with the ‘Get Sorted’ project,
schools were selected to represent a range of levels of input from ‘Get Sorted’,
a range of ‘in-house’ provision, and a range of involvement with other external
substance misuse education initiatives and providers. Four schools with low
level of involvement (five or less inputs) and five schools with high level
involvement (ten or more inputs) with the ‘Get Sorted’ project were selected.
School size
School size ranged from 112 – 454 pupils in the primary sector (average
primary school size in RCT is 204 pupils) and from 708 – 1396 pupils in the
secondary sector (average secondary school size in RCT is 980 pupils). Of the
secondary schools chosen, two were below the average size for RCT and one
was above. Of the primary schools chosen, three were below the average
school size for RCT and two were above.
For ease of comparison, the following Table 7.1 provides details on the nine
schools selected to provide the school sample in terms of the criteria on which
they were selected.
163
Area
Sector
Size
WIMD*
Top 10%
WIMD*
Bottom 50%
Language
Level of
contact with
Get Sorted
Provides own
substance
misuse ed
Uses external
providers
Table 7.1 Demographic data of school sample
School A
RCT
Special
120
-
-
English
Low
Yes
Yes
School B
Taf
221
-
Yes
English
Low
Yes
No
School C
Cynon
Primary
Voluntary
Aided
Primary
126
-
-
English
High
No
Yes
School D
Cynon
Secondary
903
Yes
-
Welsh
High
Yes
No
School E
Rhondda
Fach
Rhondda
Fach
Primary
124
Yes
-
English
High
Yes
No
Secondary
Community
College
Primary
708
Yes
-
English
/Welsh
Low
No
Yes
112
-
-
English
Low
No
Yes
Secondary
Community
School
Primary
1396
-
-
English
/Welsh
High
Yes
Yes
454
-
Yes
English
High
Yes
No
SCHOOLS
School F
School G
School H
School I
Rhondda
Fawr
Rhondda
Fawr
Taf
* Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation (2005)
Due to the selection criteria used; school size, location, type, catchment area,
ranking within the WIMD (ibid.) and level of involvement in substance misuse
education provision, the nine schools chosen were deemed representative of
the valleys and sectors from which they were drawn.
The selection of the nine schools derived a sample of nine head teachers and
nine PSE Co-ordinators for interview. A total of 18 interviews were undertaken
as within each of these nine schools both the head teacher and the PSE Coordinator were interviewed separately. The head teachers and PSE Coordinators were interviewed in the context of being the role holders in the nine
schools chosen, rather than having been sampled on their personal
characteristics. Head teacher interviewees were aged between 42-62 years and
consisted of six males and three females. Of the PSE Co-ordinators
interviewed, one was male and eight female and the age range was between
28-57 years.
164
Procedure
Through the use of both direct and indirect questions, all head teacher and PSE
Co-ordinator respondents were asked to identify and describe their intents
pertaining to the establishment of the ‘Get Sorted’ project in 2004; its current
service delivery; and future development. Descriptions of the situation regarding
substance misuse education in RCT prior to the establishment of the ‘Get
Sorted’ project were sought, including descriptions of what had previously been
implemented and their assessment of its effectiveness and success.
Interviews with Heads and PSE Co-ordinators also provided a rich description
of the differing perspectives and support needs within the school setting, from
lesson design and delivery, to the management of substance misuse related
incidents, and the potential for negative ‘fall out’ following such incidents.
These descriptions from school staff also gave insight into their perceptions of
past difficulties, which provided context for the developments they deemed
necessary, and their associated experience of attempting to address
outstanding issues.
Awareness of Stake’s (1967) matrices informed the development of the semistructured interview questions which were designed in consultation with
colleagues. A mixture of open and closed questions were designed to elicit the
perceptions of respondents and produce data on: the pre-existing environment;
their knowledge and involvement in the ‘Get Sorted’ project; their assessment of
any impact the project had made; and where in their view, the need for further
development was still evident. These topics were selected to best answer the
research questions posed and give context to the quantitative data available in
data set two. Whilst a number of questions were common to both head teachers
and PSE Co-ordinators, questions to head teachers focused on the strategic
management of substance misuse related issues within the school and the level
of communication with and support available from the LEA and external
organisations. PSE Co-ordinator questions focused on the delivery of substance
misuse education, including the practical and resource support offered by the
‘Get Sorted’ project. The questions asked of head teachers and PSE Coordinators can be found in Appendix xii and Appendix xiii respectively.
165
The questions were tested with a colleague in the LEA and the test interview
was timed in order to inform the length of appointment made to undertake the
interview. Permission was sought and received from Education and Children’s
Services Senior Management Team to undertake the interviews. Interviews
were undertaken in schools and were approximately one hour in length.
Participants were fully informed of the nature of the study and the purpose of
the interview at the outset and it was explained that the interview would be
recorded and transcribed. The procedures for data use and storage were also
explained, as was their right to withdraw their participation in the study at any
time. Interviews were digitally recorded and a question template was used with
all interviewees. Questions were asked in the same order and with the same
weighting during each interview. Responses were also recorded manually on
this question template under each question heading. Interview data was typed
up as soon as possible following the completion of interviews in an attempt to
eliminate recall bias.
Stake’s (1967) matrices ensured that the questions sought to clearly define and
distinguish participants’ intentions from their observations, which were explored
as necessary during interviews. This also supported the exploration of
participant agendas underlying the data at the data analysis stage. Potential
influences on the outcome of the interviews which included age, personal
experience and race as well as gender of the interviewer and interviewees were
acknowledged at all stages. Blaxter et al., (2001) stress that what participants
say may be partly determined by what they think the researcher wants to hear,
so the potential for participants putting on a performance was also
acknowledged. Ethical procedures and considerations regarding the interviews
are discussed in chapter two, section 2.5.
The analysis of this head teacher and PSE Co-ordinator interview data is
detailed in section 7.3 of this chapter.
166
7.2.2 Interviews with stakeholders
Participants
Eight stakeholders participated in the semi-structured interviews. The basis for
sampling was to select eight stakeholders to represent the views of a range of
individuals and organisations, generic and specialist, with professional interest
in substance misuse education in RCT at some level. In order to gain an
appropriate sample to ensure the research questions were answered, eight
stakeholders were chosen on the basis of the following criteria:
Sector in which they worked (statutory or voluntary);
Of the stakeholders chosen, five are employed in the statutory sector (Local
Government, National Public Health Service, Police), and two employed in the
voluntary sector (registered charity).
Geographical remit of professional roles;
All eight stakeholders have professional remits that cover RCT, however, three
have professional remits that are geographically wider than RCT. One
stakeholder has a remit of RCT and Merthyr Tydfil, the second has a remit of
RCT, Merthyr Tydfil, Caerphilly and Bridgend and the third a pan Wales remit.
Membership of the Substance Misuse Action Team (SMAT);
Four of the eight stakeholders are members of RCT SMAT. The total number of
members of the SMAT is 18, therefore the stakeholder sample represents 22%
of the SMAT.
Involvement in substance misuse at a strategic level;
Three stakeholders have in-depth strategic knowledge of the substance misuse
field and are involved in the creation and implementation of local substance
misuse policy and strategy.
Practitioner of substance misuse education;
Three of the stakeholders selected are substance misuse education
practitioners, with experience of planning, delivering and evaluating substance
misuse education in both school and non-school settings in RCT.
167
Specialism in teaching;
Of the stakeholder sample, five are qualified teachers, two are qualified in the
secondary education sector, one in the primary education sector and two in the
further education sector.
Specialism in substance misuse;
Three stakeholders are substance misuse specialists, having experience of
working in specialist substance misuse agencies.
Level of political involvement;
Three have experience of the political aspect of working in a local Government
setting at different levels. One at principle officer level, one at service director
level and one has experience of being an elected member of the Council with
Cabinet responsibility for substance misuse issues.
Involvement in substance misuse community groups;
Two of the eight stakeholders are members of the management committees of
community groups in RCT, outside of their paid employment. Both of these
community groups focus on providing youth and community development based
services.
Parental interest in the provision of substance misuse education.
In order to provide the dual perspective of both professional and personal
interest in the provision of substance misuse education in RCT, one of the
stakeholders has a child who is a Year 7 pupil in a school in RCT.
For ease of comparison, the following Table 7.2, details the criteria upon which
stakeholders were identified and selected to provide the stakeholder sample.
168
Community group
involvement
Statutory
Children schooled in
RCT
Stakeholder H
Political involvement
Statutory
Statutory
Substance misuse
specialist
Stakeholder F
Stakeholder G
Teaching specialist
Voluntary
Statutory
Voluntary
Statutory
Statutory
Strategic
involvement
Sub misuse ed
practitioner
Stakeholder A
Stakeholder B
Stakeholder C
Stakeholder D
Stakeholder E
SMAT membership
Sector
STAKEHOLDERS
Geographical remit
Table 7.2 Demographic data of stakeholder sample
RCT
RCT
RCT
Wales
RCT/
Merthyr
RCT
RCT/Merthyr
/Caerphilly
/Bridgend
RCT






-


-


-

-
-

-

-




-

-

-
-
-




-

On the basis of these selection criteria, the eight stakeholders chosen were
representative of their respective fields and were approached individually for
their consent to participate. All individuals approached agreed to participate as
stakeholders. The interview sample was taken to provide the widest range of
views possible. The stakeholder sample group comprised of five males and
three females. The age range of stakeholders was 31-58 years.
Procedure
The procedure for interviewing stakeholders was the same as the procedure
undertaken with head teachers and PSE Co-ordinators.
Through the use of both direct and indirect questions, stakeholders were also
asked to identify and describe their intents pertaining to the establishment of the
‘Get Sorted’ project in 2004; its current service delivery; and future
development. Descriptions of the situation regarding substance misuse
education in RCT prior to the establishment of the ‘Get Sorted’ project were
sought, including descriptions of what had previously been implemented and
their assessment of its effectiveness and success.
The range of stakeholders interviewed gave insight into personal and
professional opinions on a number of levels, including strategic, practitioner,
non-specialist, political and voluntary sector and statutory sector partnership.
169
These descriptions from stakeholders also gave insight into their perceptions of
past difficulties, which provided context for the developments they deemed
necessary, and their associated experience of attempting to address
outstanding issues.
As with the interviews with school staff, Stake’s (1967) matrices informed the
development of the semi-structured interview questions for stakeholders which
were designed in consultation with colleagues. A mixture of open and closed
questions were designed to elicit the perceptions of respondents and produce
data on: the pre-existing environment; their knowledge and involvement in the
‘Get Sorted’ project; their assessment of any impact the project had made; and
where in their view, the need for further development was still evident. Again,
these topics were selected to best answer the research questions posed and
give context to the quantitative data available in data set two. The questions
asked during the semi-structured interviews with the eight stakeholders were
designed to encourage detailed responses and to enable the collection of rich
descriptive data whilst providing a means of comparison between partner
agencies. Wherever possible questions were matched to those asked of head
teachers in order to ease the process of comparison with school data during
thematic analysis (see section 7.3). Questions asked of stakeholders are
detailed in Appendix xiv.
The questions were tested with a colleague in the LEA and the test interview
was timed in order to inform the length of appointment made to undertake the
interview. Permission was sought and received from Education and Children’s
Services Senior Management Team to undertake the interviews. Interviews
were undertaken in stakeholder workplaces and were approximately one hour in
length. Participants were fully informed of the nature of the study and the
purpose of the interview at the outset and it was explained that the interview
would be recorded and transcribed. The procedures for data use and storage
were also explained, as was their right to withdraw their participation in the
study at any time. Interviews were digitally recorded and a question template
was used with all interviewees. Questions were asked in the same order and
with the same weighting during each interview. Responses were also recorded
manually on this question template under each question heading. Interview data
170
was typed up as soon as possible following the completion of interviews in an
attempt to eliminate recall bias.
Stake’s (1967) matrices ensured that the questions sought to clearly define and
distinguish participants’ intentions from their observations, which were explored
as necessary during interviews. This also supported the exploration of
participant agendas underlying the data at the data analysis stage. Potential
influences on the outcome of the interviews which included age, personal
experience and race as well as gender of the interviewer and interviewees were
acknowledged at all stages. Blaxter et al., (2001) stress that what participants
say may be partly determined by what they think the researcher wants to hear,
so the potential for participants putting on a performance was also
acknowledged. Ethical procedures and considerations regarding the interviews
are discussed in chapter two, section 2.5.
The analysis of this stakeholder interview data is detailed in section 7.3.1 of this
chapter.
7.2.3 Parent and pupil focus groups
On completion of these three sets of interviews (head teachers, PSE Coordinators and stakeholders) the decision was made to gather a small sample of
views from parents and pupils in the form of focus groups. This was to ensure
that particular information received from interviewees was broadly in line with
the experiences of parents and pupils. Data from the focus groups with parents
and pupils was collected in order to ‘test’ the assertions, observations and
judgements made by school staff and stakeholders elicited during the interview
process.
As the impact on young people and parents was not the main focus of the
study, the focus groups were undertaken to provide data to support or challenge
assumptions, assertions and judgements made from the data from school staff
and stakeholder interviews (e.g. increased confidence of teachers, ‘Get Sorted’
project branding and general communication between stakeholders). The focus
groups provide data pertaining to parents and pupils as cohorts and was not
collected with the intention of comparing responses across schools. Two sets of
171
focus groups were conducted, one set with parents and one set with pupils.
Parent participants
The total number of participants in the parent focus groups was 18. The basis of
sampling was to interview a small number of parents whose children were
pupils at schools that were part of the interview sample in relation to the level of
communication between schools and parents, which had been identified as a
key theme in the analysis of the school data. The intention was to extend the
size of the sample group if analysis of their responses contested the
perceptions of head teachers and PSE teachers collected through the school
interviews. Due to capacity limitations, contact was made with parents through
three of the sample schools (one from each of the geographical areas), and
participants self sampled from an open invitation.
PTA
representation
School staff
representation
Governor
representation
No involvement
with school
systems
Parent focus group A
Parent focus group B
Parent focus group C
Geographical
area
PARENTS
Number of
participants
Table 7.3 Demographic data of parent focus group sample
6
7
5
Rhondda
Cynon
Taf







-
All participants were parents of children attending one of the sample schools
and included paid school staff (teachers, teaching assistants, office staff and
catering staff), as well as parents involved in Parent and Teacher Associations
(PTA’s), members of the school Governing Body, and parents with no
involvement in the structure or running of their child’s school. Sufficient
evidence was gathered from this sample to test assertions made by school
based and stakeholder interviewees.
Procedure
Questions for parents were designed in response to the data collected from
head teachers, PSE teachers and stakeholders regarding the level of
communication between schools and parents, as a means to test these
172
perceptions. Parents were asked about their hopes and expectations in relation
to both their child’s involvement in substance misuse education in school and
the involvement of the school with the ‘Get Sorted’ project. The questions posed
to the parents’ focus groups can be found in Appendix xv.
The three focus groups for parents were undertaken in the respective schools
that they had been contacted through. Focus groups lasted roughly an hour and
pre-set questions were asked in the same order for each focus group to prompt
discussion. All sessions were digitally recorded so not to rely solely on notes
made. The purpose of the study and the use of data collected were clearly
explained at the beginning of each focus group and informed consent to
participate in the study was sought at this time (Appendix x).
Pupil participants
The total number of pupils involved across the three pupil focus groups was 20
and the age range of participants was 11-18 years. The sampling strategy was
similar to the one used for the parents focus groups, however alternative
sample schools were sought to those who had provided access to parents. The
remaining schools from the Taf Ely and Cynon Valleys were selected and a
Rhondda school. The sampling strategy did not attempt to provide data that
could be compared across geographical areas or age ranges but to provide a
small general pupil data set. This data set offered snapshot, contextual data
that could be used to informally test head teacher, PSE teacher and stakeholder
observations elicited during the interview process. Schools were asked to select
up to eight pupils who had experience of substance misuse education that had
been supported by the ‘Get Sorted’ project.
PUPILS
Number of
participants
School
Geographical
area
Academic
Year
Table 7.4 Demographic data of pupil focus group sample
Pupil focus group A
5
Secondary
Rhondda
Year 12
Pupil focus group B
8
Primary
Taf
Years 5 & 6
Pupil focus group C
7
Secondary
Cynon
Year 7
173
School D provided a sample group of Year 7 pupils from the Cynon valley,
School H provided a sample group of Year 12 pupils from the Rhondda valley,
and School I provided a sample group of school council members in Years 5
and 6 from the Taf Ely valley. Sample bias was acknowledged as the schools
identified the pupils to participate. All participants had been involved in lessons
supported by members of the ‘Get Sorted’ team whilst attending the respective
sample schools. All participants had full parental consent prior to their
involvement in the focus groups.
Procedure
Questions used for the pupil focus groups were designed in response to the
self-reported changes in knowledge and confidence of teachers delivering
substance misuse education. Pupils were asked about their hopes,
expectations and experiences of participating in school based substance
misuse education lessons supported by the ‘Get Sorted’ team. These questions
were designed in order to test head teachers’, PSE teachers’ and stakeholders’
perceptions of changes within the classroom and educational experience
following support from the ‘Get Sorted’ team. Questions posed to pupils can be
found in Appendix xvi.
The pupil focus groups were undertaken in the respective schools during the
school day and lasted a maximum of an hour. Schools had been contacted to
agree to host focus groups and identify and approach pupils to take part. Prior
to the session each school had issued the parental consent forms that had been
provided (Appendix xi). All sessions were digitally recorded to ensure clarity in
the later transcription of responses and notes were also taken. Following a
thorough explanation of the reason for the session and the future use of the
data to be collected, questions were asked in a set order to prompt discussion.
A member of school staff was present for each focus group.
174
7.3 Data analysis
7.3.1 Analysis of data set three
The data for analysis within data set three was qualitative in nature and
gathered through the process of semi-structured interviews. The interviews
were very much conversational in nature, as opposed to monologues. Whilst all
followed the same structure with regards to the questions asked, the nature and
level of involvement in the subject matter of stakeholders, and their knowledge
of the researcher as predominantly a practitioner, led to an informed dialogue
where stakeholder opinions were expressed. The amount of data collected from
the 36 interviews and the six subsequent focus groups undertaken, led to
consideration of a tool that could support the selection of data for analysis in
order to answer the research questions.
“If one were to reproduce everything one’s informants said and to
describe everything they did, one would be unable to falsify, or for
that matter justify, specific hypotheses. One would virtually drown in
details without being able to present patterns and regularities. The
description of society would be as complex and ambiguous as society
itself and therefore superfluous” (Eriksen, 1995 p. 28-29).
Discourse analysis, as a ‘framework for approaching analysis rather than a
concrete set of steps’ (Potter & Wetherell 1987, p.169), was explored as an
approach to analysing the transcribed and organised data. Whilst this approach
is recognised as a well established qualitative analytic method (Potter and
Wetherell, 1987; Burman and Parker, 1993; Willig, 2003), Braun and Clarke
(2006) express concern that its dependency on theory and its tie to a
subjectivist theoretical framework limits its application to data gathered across a
range of theoretical approaches. Braun and Clarke (ibid) argue that the
theoretical freedom of thematic analysis as a method in itself often offers a
more appropriate method for identifying, analysing and reporting patterns within
qualitative data. Often seen as a tool within ‘branded’ analysis methods such as
discourse analysis (p 79), Braun and Clarke (2006) call for it to be considered
as a method in its own right (p 78). They argue that a clear demarcation of
thematic analysis as a method gives researchers the flexibility to make active
choices about the form of analysis they engage in rather than being constrained
175
by the theoretical underpinnings of ‘branded’ methods (ibid.). Hence, thematic
analysis was chosen over discourse analysis, as in line with the practical
researcher standpoint of this research, thematic analysis offered a
methodological tool that was ‘essentially independent of theory’ (ibid. p 78) to
analyse qualitative data across the data sets one and two.
Thematic analysis was chosen as the most appropriate tool to analyse the
interview data within data set three. Thematic analysis was undertaken to
provide a rich thematic description of data set three. Braun and Clarke (2006)
recognise that in undertaking thematic analysis for this purpose some depth and
complexity can be lost. However they describe the maintenance of a rich overall
description as:
‘a particularly useful method when you are investigating an underresearched area, or you are working with participants whose views on
the topic are not known’ (ibid. p83).
The original nature of the ‘Get Sorted’ project and the dependency on the views
of stakeholders fitted this approach to thematic analysis.
For the analysis of data set three an ‘inductive’ approach to thematic analysis
was taken in that the themes identified were directly linked to the data itself
(Braun and Clarke, 2006; Patton, 1990). This data driven approach did not
demand the data to be fitted into a pre-existing coding frame. The themes were
identified at a ‘semantic’ level (Braun and Clarke, 2006) as they were identified
within the ‘explicit or surface meanings of the data’ (ibid. p84) rather than
looking beyond what participants had said. Themes were identified in terms of
prevalence across the data set as opposed to prevalence within individual data
items.
Procedure
In an attempt to eliminate recall bias, full transcripts and additional notes made
at the time of the interviews, were typed up as soon as possible after each
interview. As interviews were conducted over a period of just over a month and
transcripts were typed up immediately, familiarity with the data occurred quickly.
Once typed, the transcripts were read back whilst the digital recording of the
176
interview was played, for accuracy, which improved the quality of transcription
(Silverman, 2006). Comparison was also made with the written notes taken
during the interviews and the recordings to ascertain tone of voice and any
pauses or hesitation associated with responses in order to increase the validity
of the interpretation of responses and minimise researcher bias.
Within the three different interview categories: head teachers; PSE teachers;
and stakeholders, the transcribed data was organised under each individual
interview question. Each response was assigned a code to allow for easy and
efficient retrieval and reference to its source (see Table 7.5 below). This
enabled comparisons within each of the interview categories to be made.
Table 7.5 Organisation of the oral data by question within interview categories
HEADS Question 2 - When did you first hear about Get Sorted?
Code
[A]
[B]
[C]
[D]
Response
Through the Co-ordinator for Substance Misuse Education.
At a cluster meeting - we had an introduction to Get Sorted from one of the team.
Member of team delivered Guidelines in Autumn term. I have also heard of them
through the cluster.
About 18 months ago in a Headteachers meeting. As soon as I heard about the
initiative I wanted the school to be involved straight away.
Where the commonality of questions across head teacher, PSE teacher and
stakeholder categories allowed, responses to these questions were grouped. A
second coding system was overlaid so that the identification of the source of
data could easily be made, yet would not impede analysis (see table 7.6 below).
177
Table 7.6 Organisation of the oral data by question across interview categories
QUESTION 3
What were your intentions / what had you hoped from the setting up of Get Sorted?
Code
[H/B]
[H/C]
[H/D]
[H/E]
[S/A]
[S/B]
[S/C]
Response
Hoped to give children the freedom to ask questions and have answers.
Training for staff – usually its only for the Yr 6 teacher.
Consistency of approach in accessing support and the provision of the same level of
information in welsh that was age appropriate but sensitive to the welsh language.
Increased awareness for both staff and pupils. Something that fits into the timetable
was needed to make it work.
The main problem was confusion as to whether or not Get Sorted was providing the
same service as TEDS and other providers. This was cleared up over time and now
Get Sorted complements the work of providers, although there are still areas of
confusion, especially to do with educational differences.
Keen for us to do something. Agencies had been banging away with no obvious signs
of turning the situation around. The problem is so much bigger. Get Sorted team are a
very small number of people – 3 can only do so much.
I hoped that Get Sorted would bring consistency across RCT. Avoid confusion due to
introduction of All Wales Programme as to who does what. End years of arguments
with DARE. Get everyone thinking the same way strategically.
Any anomalies in the data once organised were identified and the recordings of
the relevant interview was re-listened to in order to clarify meaning and check
whether anything had inadvertently been omitted during the organisation of the
data. This reduced the potential for misinterpretation.
Using the organised data, the data was first scanned for points of interest and
then re-examined for further detail, identifying interesting aspects that could
form the basis of repeated patterns. The organised data was read line by line,
and the text was thematically coded manually, ensuring extracts were coded
inclusively as not to lose their context. The data was thematically coded for as
many potential themes as possible as is shown in Table 7.7.
Table 7.7 Data extract with codes applied
Data extract
[S/C]
I hoped that Get Sorted would bring consistency across
RCT. Avoid confusion due to introduction of All Wales
Programme as to who does what. End years of
arguments with DARE. Get everyone thinking the same
way strategically.
Thematically coded for
1. Consistency
2. Conflict between providers
3. Strategic co-ordination
178
Once data extracts had been coded, they were collated together within each
code. The codes were then analysed and consideration given to how the codes
related to each other and how they could combine to create themes. The codes
were sorted into potential themes and the data extracts were collated again
under these themes. Seven groupings were identified that appeared to reflect
common themes:

Perceptions of the substance misuse education situation prior to the
establishment of the ‘Get Sorted’ project

Contact with / awareness of ‘Get Sorted’

Intents

Perceptions of the ‘Get Sorted’ project’s service provision

Incident management

Development needs

Outcomes
These themes were then reviewed to ensure there was clear distinctions
between themes and that the data within each theme was sufficient to support
it. All data extracts were re-read within each theme to ensure there was a
coherent pattern in the transcribed responses. During this process, sub themes
were identified within each of the seven themes. Details of the sub themes
within each theme can be found in Appendix xvii. The themes were then
reviewed in relation to the whole data set to ensure they reflected the meanings
across the data as a whole. This process enables ‘consideration of the validity
of individual themes in relation to the data set’ (Braun and Clarke, 2006 p91). It
also allows for a further opportunity to thematically code data that may have
been previously missed within these themes. This process of review identified a
revised set of common overarching themes in the form of repeated sub themes
across the data set. The resulting thematic map is detailed in Figure 7.1 below.
179
Figure 7.1 Data set three thematic map
THEME ONE
Pre-existing
situation
Intents
Perceptions of the provision of
substance misuse education prior to
the establishment of the ‘Get Sorted’
project
THEME TWO
‘Get Sorted’ project
service provision
Policy and strategy
THEME THREE
Outcomes
‘Get Sorted’ as a
Council resource
Approach
Knowledge and
confidence of
educators
Communication
Co-ordination and
consistency
Partnership working
This thematic map shows the final three themes and their sub themes that
resulted from the process of thematic analysis.
During the data analysis stage, Silverman’s (2006) warning to take care not to
report anecdotal examples, use incomplete information or ignore contradictory
information was heeded. Care was taken not to produce results that supported
the researchers’ views and there was a constant awareness of the potential
effect of preconceptions on the analysis process. Following the completion of
the identification of themes, the process of verification was undertaken by a
colleague with research experience, who checked these transcript themes, in
the capacity of an independent verifier, in order to agree both the themes and
the sub themes. Detailed analysis was then undertaken of the data within each
sub theme to identify the ‘story’ (Braun and Clarke, 2006) within each theme
and in turn the overall ‘story’ the themes reveal about the ‘Get Sorted’ project.
As the primary data set, the findings from the thematic analysis of data set three
form the basis of discussion of the findings across the data corpus. These
findings are presented in the next chapter following discussion of the procedure
undertaken to analyse the data corpus.
7.3.2 Analysis across the data corpus
Whilst the use of multiple methods of data collection for this study was in
keeping with the complexity of the social situation surrounding the ‘Get Sorted’
project, this made the selection of data for analysis and discussion more
difficult.
180
For this reason, analysis of the data corpus was based on a primary source,
namely the semi-structured interview data from data set three that had been
subject to thematic analysis. Other sources of data, from data sets one and two,
were used to verify the primary data. This interview data was verified through
the Countenance Theory process outlined by Stake (1967). This further stage of
analysis also made the process of reporting the findings far more manageable.
It reduced the repetition of detailing one data source after another to verify the
observed transactions and outcomes. The use of the interview data of data set
three as a primary source has been previously established.
Procedure – the description matrix
The first stage of analysing the data corpus involved the collation of data across
data sets two and three within Stake’s (1967) description matrix. The sub theme
data from data set three and the project related data (including quantitative data
stored on the statistical analysis system SPSS) from data set two were placed
within the modified description matrix (see chapter two, Figure 2.3). Data was
organised in the description matrix according to whether it was concerned with
antecedents, intents or observations. Review of the collated data within each of
these three aspects of the matrix confirmed that the themes identified through
thematic analysis in data set three could be used to structure the analysis of the
data corpus.
The modification of Stake’s description matrix had involved the consolidation of
the antecedent aspect as a stage as opposed to the consolidation of intents and
observations across stages. As such, the data within the antecedent aspect of
the matrix (theme one from data set three – see Figure 7.1, and initial
consultation findings from data set two) was analysed within the sub themes of
theme one as it was concerned with the pre-existing situation. (The antecedent
findings are presented within these sub themes separately to the intents and
observations in the following chapter to reflect the antecedent aspect as a
stage).
The sub themes of themes two and three (‘Get Sorted’ project service provision’
and ‘Outcomes’ – see Figure 7.1) identified through thematic analysis in data
set three also remained appropriate to the analysis of the data corpus in terms
181
of the intents and observations. Following the review of collated data, these
seven sub themes (renamed ‘observation themes’) were cross-referenced with
the project related data from data set two (collected to monitor performance
against the ‘Get Sorted’ project objectives). This was done to determine where
qualitative and quantitative data were convergent on a single point. The
outcome of this cross-referencing is provided in Table 7.8 below.
Table 7.8 Observation themes cross referenced with ‘Get Sorted’ project
objectives
‘Get Sorted’ as
a Council
resource
Policy and
strategy
Co-ordination
and
consistency
Knowledge and
confidence of
educators
Approach
Communication
Partnership
Working
DATA SET THREE
DATA SET TWO
Provide ‘hands on’ support for staff dealing
with substance misuse incidents in both
schools and the youth service.
Provide specific training and classroom
support
for
professionals
delivering
substance
misuse
education,
encompassing drug information and
teaching
methodology,
to
increase
knowledge and confidence.
Provide guidance on age appropriate
information for children and young people at
each Key Stage.
Develop new strategies for engaging hard
to reach children and young people, in
substance misuse education.
Support parental and community awareness
raising initiatives, to support a consistent
approach to substance misuse education,
and its key messages.
Develop effective communication networks,
to facilitate the sharing of best practice, and
assist the monitoring and review of
substance misuse education throughout the
County Borough.
Implement a multi-agency approach to
meeting the strategic objectives relating to
substance misuse education within the
Rhondda Cynon Taf Substance Misuse
Action Plan.















This identification of convergent points supported the appropriate inclusion of
data for analysis within the intents and observations aspects of the description
matrix. In the main, data set two provided the intents, and data set three the
observations. The second stage was to analyse the relationship between the
182
intents and observations in order to assess the level of congruence between the
two. Exploration of the level of congruence allows for an analytical comparison
to be made between what was intended and what was observed, and suggest
possible reasons for any incongruity. The cross-referencing shown in Table 7.8
supported this assessment of the level of congruence. The analysis of data from
data sets two and three within the description matrix produced ‘observation
findings’ which are detailed in chapter eight.
Procedure – the judgement matrix
The next stage was to place the observation findings within the judgement
matrix. In order to do this, the identification of external and internal standards
against which to measure these findings was necessary. The identification of
standards (detailed in Appendix xxvi) provides a contextual framework in which
the observation findings (in chapter eight) can be analysed and commented on
in the form of judgements (presented in chapter nine). The documentary
analysis findings within data set one provided the identification of external
standards in the form of national strategy and policy relating to substance
misuse education. Internal standards in the form of local strategies and plans
were identified from the project related data in data set two, as these had
governed the monitoring requirements of the ‘Get Sorted’ project.
Familiarisation with these standards was an important and necessary part of the
process. The standards were firstly cross-referenced with the objectives of the
‘Get Sorted’ project to ascertain their relevance to the topic being evaluated.
This process of cross-referencing is illustrated in Table 7.9.
183
Table 7.9 Objectives of the ‘Get Sorted’ project cross-referenced with internal
and external standards

Obj 7: Implement a multiagency approach


Obj 6: Effective
communication networks to
share best practice
Obj 4: Strategies to engage
‘hard to reach’ groups

Obj 5: Parental and
community support for a
consistent approach
Obj 2: Classroom support to
increase knowledge and
confidence.

Obj 3: Guidance on age
appropriate information
Obj 1: Support for substance
misuse incidents
Objectives of the ‘Get Sorted’ Project







Internal standards
“A Better Life” – Our Community Plan 2004 - 2014
Education and Lifelong Learning Supplementary
Education Strategy Plan 2005–2006
School Effectiveness Business Plan 2008-2011
Rhondda Cynon Taf Children and Young People’s
Plan 2008-2011
Health, Social Care and Wellbeing Strategy 20082011
The Rhondda Cynon Taf and Merthyr Tydfil
Community Safety Partnership Joint Strategic
Assessment (2008)
NACRO Report 2002
RCT Substance Misuse Strategic Action Plan 20032008
Get Sorted Cabinet Report 2004
‘Get Sorted’ Operational Plan 2004-2005; 20052006; 2006-2007















































External standards
Tackling Substance Misuse in Wales: A partnership
Approach 2000-2008
Substance Misuse: Children and Young People
WAG circular 17/02 (2002)
The Service Framework for Children and Young
People Who Use or Misuse Substances In Wales
Consultation Document (2006)
Substance Misuse Treatment Framework for Wales
(2006)
Drug and Alcohol National Occupational Standards
(DANOS) (2005)
Guidance on Good Practice for the provision of
services for Children and Younger People who Use
or Misuse Substances in Wales (2008)
Working Together to Reduce Harm 2008-2018
Hidden Harm: Responding to the needs of Children
of Problem Drug Users. The report of an enquiry by
the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (2003)
Pathways To Problems: Hazardous use of tobacco,
alcohol and other drugs by young people in the UK
and its implications for policy (2006)
The Children’s Act (2004)
The National Service Framework (NSF) for
Children, Young People and Maternity Services in
Wales (2006)
Extending Entitlement Supporting Young People 11
– 25 in Wales (2000)
Children and Young People: Rights to Action
(2004)
Young people: Youth work: Youth Service. National
Youth Service Strategy for Wales (2007)
Learning Country: Learning Pathways 14-19 Action
Plan (2003)
























































184
The process depicted in Table 7.9 identified the standards that were relevant to
the ‘Get Sorted’ project and in terms of Stake’s (1967) matrices, the ‘intents’
within the description matrix.
Following this, a second stage of cross-referencing was undertaken to map the
same set of standards to the observation findings from the description matrix as
illustrated in Table 7.10 below.
185
Table 7.10 Observation findings cross-referenced with internal and external
standards
Policy and
strategy
‘Get Sorted’ as
a Council
resource
Co-ordination
and consistency
Knowledge and
confidence
Approach
Communication
Partnership
working
Observation findings







Internal standards
“A Better Life” – Our Community Plan 2004 - 2014
(2004)
Education and Lifelong Learning Supplementary
Education Strategy Plan 2005–2006 (2005)
School Effectiveness Business Plan 2008-2011
RCT Children and Young People’s Plan (2008)
Health, Social Care and Wellbeing Strategy 20082011
The Rhondda Cynon Taf and Merthyr Tydfil
Community Safety Partnership Joint Strategic
Assessment (2008)
NACRO Report 2002
RCT Substance Misuse Strategic Action Plan 20032008
Get Sorted Cabinet Report 2004
‘Get Sorted’ Operational Plan 2004-2005; 20052006; 2006-2007

































































External standards
Tackling Substance Misuse in Wales: A partnership
Approach 2000-2008 (2000)
Substance Misuse: Children and Young People
NAW circular 17/02 (2002)
The Service Framework for Children and Young
People Who Use or Misuse Substances In Wales
Consultation Document (2006)
Substance Misuse Treatment Framework for Wales
(2006)
Drug and Alcohol National Occupational Standards
(DANOS) (2005)
Guidance on Good Practice for the provision of
services for Children and Younger People who Use
or Misuse Substances in Wales (2008)
Working Together to Reduce Harm 2008-2018
Hidden Harm: Responding to the needs of Children
of Problem Drug Users. The report of an enquiry by
the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (2003)
Pathways To Problems: Hazardous use of tobacco,
alcohol and other drugs by young people in the UK
and its implications for policy (2006)
The Children’s Act (2004)
The National Service Framework (NSF) for
Children, Young People and Maternity Services in
Wales (2006)
Extending Entitlement Supporting Young People 11
– 25 in Wales (2000)
Children and Young People: Rights to Action
(2004)
Young people: Youth work: Youth Service. National
Youth Service Strategy for Wales (2007)
Learning Country: Learning Pathways 14-19 Action
Plan (2003)









































186
Within this process, the standards provide both internal and external
benchmarks to evidence and substantiate the observation findings. Identified
standards enable informed judgements to be made regarding the success of the
‘Get Sorted’ project within the wider context of local and national policy and
strategy, and its contribution to informing developments in substance misuse
education outside of RCT. Cross-referencing these standards with the
observation findings from the description matrix highlighted which policy
standards were relevant to particular analysis themes. Identification of their
relevance to particular themes also provided the context in which the analysis of
the observation findings within the judgement matrix was undertaken. The focus
of this analysis was to substantiate the observation findings within the wider
context offered by the relevant standards. The standards and their relevance to
the ‘Get Sorted’ project and the analysis themes as illustrated in Figure 7.9 and
Figure 7.10 are detailed in Appendix xxvi.
The final stage of analysis within the judgement matrix followed the
substantiation of the observation findings by the relevant standards. This stage
involved comparison between the substantiated observation findings and the
research questions to provide judgements. In order to do this, the substantiated
observation findings were cross-referenced with the research questions posed
for data set three, the process of which is depicted below in Table 7.11.
Table 7.11 Analysis of observation findings cross-referenced with research
questions
Policy and
strategy
‘Get Sorted’ as
a Council
resource
Co-ordination
and consistency

Knowledge and
confidence of
educators
Communication

Approach
Partnership
Working
Substantiated observation findings


Research Questions
Has the initiative improved communication
between key stakeholders regarding
substance misuse education?
Has the support for schools in the delivery
of substance misuse education improved?
Has the support for schools in the
management of substance misuse incidents
improved?
Has the initiative increased the confidence
of teachers in addressing the substance
misuse education needs of pupils?
Can the initiative, as a model for cultural
change, be replicated in other areas to
address issues faced by a local authority?



187
This cross-referencing process as illustrated in Table 7.11 identifies where the
data corpus findings (substantiated by the standards) answer the research
questions that were posed to frame the evaluative research undertaken. In
terms of Stake’s (1967) analysis, the research questions offer a measurement
of success, the analysis and discussion of which provides a judgement of the
worth of the ‘Get Sorted’ project. Stake’s (1967) description and judgement
matrices facilitate meaningful analysis of research data in terms of both
research questions and practice standards.
In populating Stake’s (1967) description and judgement matrices a conscious
effort was made to cast aside preconceptions and remain objective throughout
the process, in order to be responsive to emerging themes. Because of the dual
position as both the originator of the ‘Get Sorted’ project and the researcher,
greater emphasis on reflection and critical interpretation was needed for this
study to safeguard participants (Richards, 2005) and ensure data was fairly
collected, analysed and presented. In considering interview data as the
outcome of a ‘conversation with purpose’, the author continually reflected on
whose purpose they were suiting. Although the interviews were organised for
the need for relevant data (Green & Thorogood, 2004), an open mind was kept,
and the importance of declaring preconceptions was acknowledged (Richards,
2005). The subjective nature of qualitative data analysis forced the recognition
of potential bias and the attempt to cast preconceptions and assumptions
inherent in the research paradigm aside as ‘whatever we observe is
impregnated by our assumptions’ (Silverman, 2006, p12).
Once the matrices were populated and analysed the data was re-visited after
several months, which allowed for a period of time to reflect on the analytical
process, consider issues of reflexivity, clarify thought and check for emergent
themes previously overlooked.
7.4 Presentation of findings
As the primary data set, the findings within data set three, form the basis of the
data used within Stake’s (1967) analysis. Through the process of applying
Stake’s (1967) Countenance Theory to this study to analyse the data corpus,
188
data from data sets one and two have been used to verify this primary data. For
this reason, the findings within data set three will be presented as part of the
findings of Stake’s (1967) analysis, rather than separated, to avoid repetition.
In order to provide clarity for the reader, the findings within chapters eight and
nine (with the exception of the antecedent findings as detailed in chapter eight,
section 8.2) have been grouped under the following analysis themes for
discussion and continuity of presentation:

Partnership working

Communication

Approach

Knowledge and confidence of educators

Co-ordination and consistency

Policy and strategy

‘Get Sorted’ as a Council resource
These themes are used to address the need for consistency in discussion
between findings within Stake’s (1967) description matrix and judgement matrix
(Appendix iv) and have facilitated the organisation of the presentation of
findings within the following chapters.
The findings pertaining to the description matrix as the first part of Stake’s
(1967) analysis are detailed in chapter eight. Chapter nine sets out the findings
within the second part of Stake’s (ibid.) analysis – the judgement matrix.
7.5 Chapter summary
This chapter has presented the detail of the methodological procedure
undertaken to provide a qualitative evaluation of the ‘Get Sorted’ project. It has
detailed the procedure for gathering and analysing the evaluative research data
in data set three. It has also set out the process of analysing data across the
data corpus, through the use of Stake’s (1967) Countenance Theory as an
analytic approach. The findings of this analysis are presented in the following
chapters.
189
Chapter 8. Stake’s (1967) Analysis Part One: The Description Matrix
8.1 Introduction
As discussed in detail in the preceding chapter, the findings presented within
this chapter result from the analysis of the data corpus relating to Stake’s (1967)
description matrix. These findings are based on a primary source, namely the
semi-structured interviews with head teachers, PSE co-ordinators and
stakeholders undertaken to produce the data in data set three. Through the
process of applying Stake’s (1967) Countenance Theory to this study to analyse
the data corpus, data from data sets one and two have been used to verify this
primary data. The process of gathering and analysing the evaluative research
data in data set three can be found in chapter seven, section 7.2, as can the
procedure for analysing the data corpus (chapter seven, section 7.3). The
rationale for the methods used to gather data for data set three and also the
rationale for the choice of Stake’s (1967) Countenance Theory to analyse data
across the data corpus can be found in chapter two.
This chapter begins with the findings of the analysis of the pre-existing situation
or antecedents. The ‘contingency’ or link from the antecedent stage to the
transaction stage and from transaction stage to outcome stage (as identified
within Stake’s (1967) description matrix) is also discussed as an introduction to
the observation findings. The observation findings are presented in terms of the
analysis themes they contribute to. Within each of these themes, the findings
are organised in the same way - observations are detailed and the level of
congruence between intentions and observations, discussed. Findings
pertaining to the judgement matrix are discussed in chapter nine.
As data set three has already been established as the primary data set, in order
to not impede the flow of presenting findings, specific reference to the data
sources of findings presented in this chapter will only be made for data
originating from data sets one and two.
190
8.2 Antecedents
Exploring the pre-existing situation (or antecedents) prior to the establishment
of the ‘Get Sorted’ project provides contextual data for this study. This
discussion of the antecedents is the result of the analysis of data from the initial
consultation exercises with schools and young people (data set one) and the
semi-structured interviews with head teachers, PSE Co-ordinators and
stakeholders (data set three). Within this section, discussion regarding the
antecedents is grouped into the following eight themes:

Concern for the level of substance misuse

Sense there was no clear cut approach

Contentment with the status quo

Perceived lack of resources

Lack of knowledge / confidence

Denial of responsibility

Perceived lack of parental support

Level of pupils’ knowledge
These themes were the result of the initial coding and thematic grouping of
interview responses in data set three during the thematic analysis process (see
chapter seven, section 7.3).
Within each of these eight themes, the level of congruence between the
antecedent intents (what the interviewee’s perceived the situation to be) and the
antecedent observations (what the evaluative research data showed the actual
situation to be) was generally high. The data showed that there had been a
clear understanding of the pre-existing conditions prior to the development of
the ‘Get Sorted’ project, and that this understanding had informed its
development. The consultation data (data set two) had identified areas of
concern, as well as highlighting issues that had caused long-standing
contention between stakeholders. This rich data confirmed the observations of
interviewees (data set three), whose contributions contextualised both the
191
evident, and less obvious, issues facing those charged with the provision and
delivery of substance misuse education in RCT.
8.2.1 Concern for the level of substance misuse
Congruence between the intents and observations within this area was less
obvious than in other antecedent areas. Stakeholders identified the incongruity
between realistic and perceived concerns, which was especially evident when
focusing upon the concerns of young people. It was evident that despite the
cultural shift towards support rather than condemnation, for schools
communicating difficulties and concerns regarding substance misuse, this shift
was not evident in the primary sector. This highlights the obvious yet often
overlooked point that despite receiving training and being in contact with young
people, the perceptions and attitudes of school-based professionals are still
heavily influenced by the media (Beck, 1998). This media influence continues to
contribute to the unrealistic and dangerous perception that the level of concern
for substance misuse issues held by young people is negligible and that, in the
primary sector, substance misuse has no effect on their pupils and their
families.
This disparity between perceived and realistic concerns further highlighted the
need for regular, up to date and relevant information to be widely disseminated
regarding substance use and misuse in RCT.
8.2.2 Sense that there was no clear-cut approach
In this area, the level of congruence was evidently high. Data collected to
provide the observation (through interviews in data set three), concurred with
the intent (data set two), that there was no clear-cut approach to any aspect of
substance misuse education, including design, delivery and general provision.
The lack of communication and in turn co-ordination, was hindering the
effectiveness of educational interventions, and had been previously identified as
a priority issue in need of being addressed (Davies et al., 2002).
8.2.3 Contentment with the status quo
The level of congruence between the intent and observed contentment with the
status quo was also high. The situation had developed over a long period of
192
time, and contributed to the ongoing denial of responsibility. Initial consultation
data (data set two) evidenced that schools were more than content with the
provision of substance misuse education from external sources, often
supporting their standpoint with the opinion that this was in the best interests of
their pupils. Proffering that for them to deliver substance misuse education
would blur and confuse the boundaries between themselves and pupils,
teachers actively disassociated themselves from the process. Despite not being
aware of what their children were being taught, parents also seemed content
that whatever education was needed was taking place.
There was also evidence of a dichotomy in the observations of some
stakeholders. Whilst they stated that contentment with the status quo was one
of the main barriers to necessary development for improvement, they also
expressed their own contentment with the demand for their service, indicating a
fear of change.
8.2.4 Perceived lack of resources
Congruity is high in relation to a lack of appropriate and accessible resources.
Whilst a number of educational resources were available, there was no clear
guidance on whether they were age or subject appropriate, and the formats
were often inaccessible to teachers. Within the Welsh medium sector the
perceived lack of resources was, in fact, evidenced to be a real lack of
resources in all areas, including leaflets, posters, lesson plans, educational
materials and even the delivery of education in Welsh from external sources.
8.2.5 Lack of knowledge / confidence
This is the antecedent area with the highest level of congruence. Observation
echoed intent; that the lack of school ownership of substance misuse education
provision was due to the general lack of knowledge and confidence in dealing
with this subject area (consultation findings and entry / exit questionnaires data set two). General concerns from teachers centred around fear of the level
of pupils’ knowledge compared to their own, and their perceived inability to
answer questions posed by pupils. Teachers were not confident in their ability to
plan the content of age appropriate lessons, and feared potential negative
193
feedback from parents. Whilst numerous opportunities existed for knowledge
acquisition through training courses, and the ongoing updating of this
knowledge via awareness raising events, the need to build confidence had been
overlooked. The confidence issues raised by teachers had always been
addressed with information based training opportunities that focused upon the
dissemination of substance misuse information, rather than confidence building
opportunities that focused upon practical application of their teaching skills. This
further fuelled the misconception that in order to deliver substance misuse
education, an individual needed to be an expert in substance misuse, rather
than an expert in education (HEBS, 1997; Lowden and Powney, 1999; RSA,
2007).
8.2.6 Denial of responsibility
Closely linked to the ‘contentment with the status quo’ antecedent element,
comparison between the intent and observation showed a high level of
congruence. Expressing the lack of knowledge and confidence they deemed
necessary to deliver substance misuse education, teachers identified the lack of
training during initial teacher training (RSA, 2007) as a reflection of the level of
responsibility expected from the teaching profession. The utilisation of external
agencies ensured that substance misuse education remained separate from
other non-subject specific areas teachers were confident to teach, and
supported this ongoing denial of responsibility. It also served to maintain the
belief that the key to delivering it was a high level of substance misuse
knowledge, rather than the application of their teaching skills.
The observation of stakeholders and school staff supported the extension of this
denial beyond schools. Both commented on the LEA’s apparent lack of support
for schools in this area, both in regards to the provision of education, and the
management of incidents. Parents also confessed a lack of acknowledged
responsibility on their part in educating their children about substances, stating
they felt much happier with schools having this responsibility (parents focus
groups, data set three).
194
8.2.7 Perceived lack of parental support
Whilst the intent and observed perceived lack of parental support displayed
congruence, in reality, parental support for substance misuse education
interventions was high. There was evidence that the nature of school based
substance misuse education had been shaped by the assumption made by
schools that parental perceptions of provision would be negative. Observation
identified a significantly high level of parental support for the DARE programme
as an intervention that was easily recognised, and its aims clearly understood
by parents.
Parents themselves stated positive support for the work done by schools in
educating their children about drugs. Whilst this might not have been informed
support, they were appreciative of schools for undertaking this responsibility.
Parents also gave reasons for a lack of attendance at school organised
substance misuse awareness raising sessions, including practical obstacles like
childcare as well as the general feeling that it wasn’t a real issue for them until
their children were in secondary school education.
8.2.8 Level of pupils’ knowledge
This was one area where the congruence was less evident between the
observations of teachers and parents, and pupils. The impact that teacher and
parent perceptions had, regarding the level of young people’s knowledge, on
the effectiveness of substance misuse education was considerable. In
assuming that young people’s knowledge was correct, the provision of
substance misuse education in school did not attempt to challenge beliefs and
attitudes for fear of pupils asking ‘difficult’ questions. Without the means to
challenge beliefs and attitudes in a systematic way, it further compounded the
inconsistency of messages given to young people (Cohen, 1996b; O’Connor
1999). It also rendered any simplistic health based messages, with which
teachers felt most confident, as meaningless to pupils whose experiences were
not congruent with what they were being taught. Without thorough discussion,
messages given to pupils were not transferable to their every day lives and the
situations in which they found themselves (ibid; Stead, MacKintosh, McDermott,
Eadie, Macneil, Stradling and Minty, 2007).
195
8.3 Contingency
As discussed in Appendix iv, the term ‘contingency’ is ambiguous and can lead
to an over complication of what may well be better understood as the
‘relationship’ or ‘link’ between antecedent and transaction stages and the
transaction and outcome stages. However, to remain in keeping with Stake’s
(1967) Countenance Theory, the term ‘contingency’ will be used as intended
and defined by Stake (ibid.) - as relationships that are dependant on individual
morale and practical factors, the exploration of which allows the researcher to
search for relationships that permit improvement among the variables.
8.3.1 From antecedents to transactions
Analysis of the data shows a high level of both logical and empirical
contingency in the move from the antecedent phase to the transaction phase;
however it is important to highlight that the needs identified in the antecedent
phase were vast. The process of dialogue with partners, prior to and during the
development of the ‘Get Sorted’ project, led to all antecedent elements being
met in the transaction stage, despite their number. Whilst some elements or
needs were obvious, such as the development of effective communication
networks, others were less obvious and focused on the need to change the
dominant culture of territorial boundaries, uncooperative providers and
negativity. Evidencing culture change or a shift in attitudes, brings with it its own
set of challenges; therefore for this study the way in which the transactions were
undertaken is perhaps more important than their content. Actions within the
transaction phase met the needs identified in the antecedent stage. They also
addressed the past criticisms that had undermined previous attempts to initiate
and implement change. However the challenge lay in introducing these actions
into a highly charged environment. The careful planning of transactions that was
undertaken acknowledged existing difficulties and sought to directly and
indirectly address them in order to effect cultural change. For these reasons, a
high level of contingency between the antecedent and transaction stages was
imperative and has been confirmed by the analysis of research data across the
data corpus.
196
8.3.2 From transactions to outcomes
Probably more so than the transition from antecedent to transaction stage, the
transition from transaction to outcome stage evidenced an exceptionally high
level of contingency. Analysis of the data pertaining to both the intents and the
observations, attested to the difficulty in separating the intended transactions
from the intended outcomes, and likewise the observed transactions from the
observed outcomes. The intents could not be separated, as the practical
(including political) requirement to achieve the outcomes dominated the
planning of the transactions. Sophisticated planning of the transactions was
necessary to manage the conflict between the political drive to address the
situation quickly, and the time it would take to build trust between providers to
initiate the partnership working essential to address the situation. The
transparency of service provision required, to evidence progress and build trust,
dictated the high level of logical contingency.
In assessing the high level of empirical contingency between the observed
transactions and observed outcomes, it is important to note that this may not be
as accurate a representation as the logical contingency. The sources of the
primary data were, to differing extents, both stakeholders and beneficiaries of
the ‘Get Sorted’ project, who, owing to the deficits of the pre-existing situation,
viewed the transactions themselves as outcomes.
8.4 Partnership working
Partnership working was central to the creation of an infrastructure to support
consistent and equitable substance misuse education. It was also central to the
‘implementation of a multi-agency approach to meeting the strategic objectives
relating to substance misuse education within the Rhondda Cynon Taf
Substance Misuse Action Plan’ as an identified objective of the ‘Get Sorted’
project.
Partnership working - observations
The establishment of the Substance Misuse Education Providers Forum
(SMEPF) by the ‘Get Sorted’ team has encouraged both formal and informal
communication between substance misuse education providers in RCT. In
197
initially tasking the SMEPF to map existing substance misuse education and
identify gaps in this provision, the ‘Get Sorted’ project managed to indirectly
address pre-existing difficulties between providers, through the creation of a
shared focus and goal;
“There is far more consistency now. Providers know what each other
are doing and are feeding into recognised structures like PET
[Prevention Education and Training group] and SMAT [Substance
Misuse Action Team]. There are very few ‘rogue’ providers. Providers
have been brought into partnership by ‘Get Sorted’ from a position of
support not opposition or coercion” (Stakeholder H)
By enabling providers to understand how their work fits in with the work of
others, and how it contributes to wider strategic objectives, stakeholders confirm
that the ‘Get Sorted’ project has been able to promote consistency in provision
and delivery. The ‘Get Sorted’ team was also in a position to ensure that the
experiences and opinions of practitioners are fed back at a strategic level, to
inform new objectives and actions.
The ethos of a multi-agency approach underpinned not only the work of the ‘Get
Sorted’ team, but also the documents they produced. The guidelines documents
for schools and the youth service, offered access to a range of support
providers and specialist agencies, and included details of the service they
provided as well as contact details. The procedures within the guidelines
documents for dealing with substance misuse incidents, also encouraged links
and referrals to be made to helping agencies, and the reporting of incidents
form asked for referral to services to be documented;
“Without a shadow of a doubt we have access to more providers”
(Head, School D)
The role of ‘Get Sorted’ in establishing the SMEPF and researching, collating
and monitoring the ‘Harder to Reach’ communication strategy, was clearly
defined as one of support and co-ordination. Consulting with providers on their
perceptions of gaps within the provision of substance misuse education, and
tailoring ‘Get Sorted’ provision to address these gaps, also served to build trust
with providers and partners, who were actively witnessing the flexible resource
‘Get Sorted’ provided in operating at a number of levels.
198
“Maintaining independence is very important for the voluntary sector –
we don’t want to ‘jump into bed’ with the statutory sector, but the
strategy demands that providers ‘play the political game’. ‘Get Sorted’
is useful in helping us play this game. They can also do the things we
don’t get time to do” (Stakeholder A)
Achievement of a multi-agency approach was as dependant on the ‘Get Sorted’
team ensuring they were sensitive to partners needs, and exercised diplomacy
in their work with partners, as it was on the Co-ordinator for Substance Misuse
Education taking on board the hopes and concerns of partners prior to the
establishment of the ‘Get Sorted’ project;
“The personality of the Co-ordinator is central. If they’d had a different
approach or background it may have led to a different emphasis for
substance misuse education that would have been unpopular and led
to providers refusing to take on board issues. It would never have
worked, there would be no partnership” (Stakeholder A)
Engaging stakeholders, and seeking their input throughout the development,
implementation and evaluation of the ‘Get Sorted’ project, has forged strong
partnership bonds between all partner organisations, and the relationships
between ‘Get Sorted’ and stakeholders are built on trust. Managing the preexisting territorial conflicts by encouraging positive discussion, enabled the ‘Get
Sorted’ project to continue to uphold an inclusive partnership approach during
difficult times, which was recognised by stakeholders.
“Get Sorted’ is an outstanding example of partnership working in a
period when partnership working was at best immature. ‘Get Sorted’
is mature partnership working that has led the rest of us from juvenile
through adolescence and into maturity. ‘Get Sorted have made it
clear what each partner gives and expects. They have given us
integration into a provision everyone believes in” (Stakeholder F)
The ‘Get Sorted’ project performance data in data set two (Chapter 6: 6.6.5)
evidences that the team maintains contact with the 25 partner organisations,
external to schools, to ensure that news and developments are widely
communicated. In the financial year 2006-2007 ‘Get Sorted’ worked with 100
different organisations involved in the delivery of substance misuse education in
RCT.
199
The most visible of the multi-agency initiatives is the Substance Awareness For
Everyone (SAFE) programme, as a collaboration between the LEA, teachers
and the Police (Appendix xx). SAFE also consolidated the newly developed
multi-agency approach in the geographical areas that traditionally had been
subject to ‘territorial’ conflict, and placed ‘Get Sorted’ in a position to undertake
a supportive role, not only to individuals but also to the partnership as a whole.
“The Co-ordinator’s [for Substance Misuse Education] and ‘Get
Sorted’s input in devising SAFE has improved co-ordination and
communication between a number of organisations” (Head, School
G)
The SAFE programme was successfully piloted in three clusters during the
Autumn and Spring terms 2005-2006 and received a positive external
evaluation in May 2006 (Lancett, 2006). Feedback from evaluation participants
highlighted the role ‘Get Sorted’ played in supporting the delivery:
“Head teachers felt staff training needs had been minimal, however,
they were unanimously very positive and satisfied with the worthwhile
support offered. In particular they identified the following features as
being helpful: initial preparatory visits to schools by Get Sorted staff
were well received and positively evaluated; the availability of
materials electronically on the Get Sorted CD Rom for lessons one
and eight; support visits to school as required; telephone support if
needed.” (Lancet, 2006, p. 6)
Recommendations from Lancet’s (2006) evaluation included resource
development; staff training and general awareness raising; and the longer term
monitoring of pupils’ progress (ibid. p. 28-29). The ‘Get Sorted’ team, prior to
the roll out of SAFE to all primary schools in September 2006, addressed these
recommendations. Operational performance data (data set two) evidences that
in its first full year (2006-2007) SAFE saw 97 (out of a possible 99) primary
schools involved in its delivery and the participation of 2,953 pupils.
Operational performance data also evidences that between 2006-2007 the ‘Get
Sorted’ team also trained a further 35 Police Officers in the delivery of the SAFE
programme, and supported and undertook teaching observations of the 25
Police Officers originally trained to delivery SAFE lessons during the pilot
phase.
200
Partnership working – level of congruence
This ‘partnership working’ theme evidenced the highest level of congruence
between the intended and the observed transactions and outcomes.
Stakeholder interviews (data set three) confirmed that the agreed key message
for substance misuse education (Appendix xxv) facilitated and promoted an
open, consistent, visible partnership approach within which providers and
partners understood their own work and the role of others within a wider
context. It also formed the basis on which new local initiatives were developed
and implemented, and the benchmark against which the suitability of national
programmes working in RCT were assessed.
The interdependency between the establishment of effective communication
networks and the adoption of a multi-agency approach, was understood and
responded to by the ‘Get Sorted’ team from the outset. In establishing the
SMEPF, stakeholders confirmed that the ‘Get Sorted’ team had actively
supported providers and practitioners to contribute to developing a shared
approach on the ground, by encouraging collaborative working and the
development of educational interventions to be delivered in partnership.
Face to face meetings with providers and partners have ensured that the ‘Get
Sorted’ team have the level of knowledge and understanding to appropriately
signpost to these services, and promote their work within schools and the youth
service. This knowledge and understanding of the range of services available
and ongoing contact with them evidenced through ‘Get Sorted’ performance
data, has secured the role of ‘Get Sorted’ in facilitating multi-agency work. In
providing opportunities for collaborative working, removing the barriers and
‘absorbing’ the challenges inherent in multi-agency working, described by
stakeholders during interviews, the ‘Get Sorted’ project has initiated effective
partnership working within all service tiers. The development of the incident
guidelines documents, the ‘Harder to Reach’ communication strategy (Appendix
xxiii), and the ‘Get Sorted’ communication strategy (Appendix xxii), have all
played a key role in driving the multi-agency agenda, as identified by head
teachers and stakeholders.
201
The development and implementation of the SAFE project was not an identified
intent; however, it is an example of how the ‘Get Sorted’ project has responded
to local need, in the implementation of a national programme and strategic
priorities within a multi-agency framework. The position of ‘Get Sorted’ as a
central point of contact for all substance misuse education issues (recognised
by head teachers, PSE teachers and stakeholders during interviews), has
allowed for the development of SAFE to encompass a number of strategic
priorities and good practice guidelines, such as engaging parents in the
programme and integrating SAFE into a whole school approach (Lancet, 2006).
The outcomes observed following analysis of the interviews with head teachers
and stakeholders, relating to promoting a multi-agency approach have
significantly exceeded the original intents. Issues identified at the antecedent
stage through the initial consultation exercise at the time (data set two) and
retrospectively through the interview process (data set three), focused on the
mistrust and negativity surrounding multi-agency work. These issues had been
dominant for a considerable period of time, and the notion that this situation
could be rectified in any meaningful way was doubted by a number of providers
and stakeholders. Interview data evidences that ‘Get Sorted’ have not only
removed these doubts, but have also changed the culture of substance misuse
education in RCT into a culture that actively seeks to work collaboratively.
In being sensitive to the needs, experiences and fears of providers, and actively
seeking to maintain contact with them and promote inclusion, ‘Get Sorted’ has
managed to unify providers, partners, schools and stakeholders, and
communicate an agreed shared approach to the wider public. Interview data
identifies the two-way open communication encouraged and facilitated by ‘Get
Sorted’ has increased the likelihood and effectiveness of a multi-agency
approach.
Stipulated as an identified project aim, the ‘Get Sorted’ project has sought to
engage a wide range of partners, and focused upon the building of trust with
them and between them, to achieve the aim of consistency. Without this trust
and communication between providers and between practitioners and policy
makers, cultural change would not have been possible.
202
The ‘Get Sorted’ project has played an important role in managing the preexisting conflict between providers of substance misuse education, and
encouraging and facilitating the necessary difficult discussions to resolve issues
in a positive way. In this respect, the ‘Get Sorted’ team have ‘absorbed’ the
frustrations inherent in partnership working, by acknowledging the issues and
removing the practical barriers to overcoming them. Stakeholder interview data
identifies the development of the SMEPF as a forum for sharing opinions and
resolving issues has provided a means for the identification of potential
difficulties with the multi-agency approach, as well as the identification of
opportunities to improve service provision.
The SAFE programme is a visible and successful exemplar multi-agency
initiative, that has received recognition locally and nationally via ESTYN (2007)
and ITV Wales’ ‘Wales This Week’ programme. SAFE evidences the role of
‘Get Sorted’ as the visible support for both individual educators and the wider
partnership multi-agency framework and was presented to the Welsh ministerial
advisory committee APoSM as an example of best practice in March 2007. In
implementing, observing delivery and monitoring performance, ‘Get Sorted’ also
manages the practicalities of multi-agency working that on such a large scale,
without such management, could potentially cause problems for partner
organisations, resulting in conflict and ineffective service provision.
8.5 Communication
The development of effective communication networks; to facilitate the sharing
of best practice and assist the monitoring and review of substance misuse
education throughout the County Borough, was specified as an objective of the
‘Get Sorted’ project and was essential if a partnership approach was to be
realised.
Communication - observations
Open communication between schools and ‘Get Sorted’, and providers and ‘Get
Sorted’, has assisted in the increased understanding of the role of the ‘Get
Sorted’ project in supporting existing provision. Where initial mistrust and
confusion existed in school settings the proactive support given by ‘Get Sorted’
203
has allayed initial perceived fears of competition and duplication,
“Our perceptions are different now. The lessons provided by ‘Get
Sorted’ actually helped teachers and the work done with children has
made a difference” (Head, School G)
Providers confirmed the initial confusion experienced by schools over the role of
the ‘Get Sorted’ project.
“The main problem was the confusion as to whether or not ‘Get
Sorted’ were providing the same service as TEDS and other
providers. This was cleared up over time and now people can see
how ‘Get Sorted’ compliments the work of providers. Problems were
honestly and openly discussed and the confusion is solved. ‘Get
Sorted’ and TEDS set a good example of joint working for others to
follow. However, some still don’t see the difference between the two
organisations” (Stakeholder, A)
The ‘Get Sorted’ team, as representatives of the Local Education Authority
(LEA), have assisted in opening up the lines of communication between schools
and the LEA on a topic that traditionally had been difficult for schools to ask for
the necessary support and difficult for the LEA to provide specialised support.
“The LEA are actually talking to us about it. There is an awareness
that the school is trying to do something about substance misuse.
There’s also an increased awareness amongst staff that they haven’t
got all the answers. The communication between us and ‘Get Sorted’
is positive for us” (Head, School A)
The ‘Get Sorted’ project has also facilitated increased communication between
the primary and secondary phases, offering access to a bigger picture and
opportunities for communication links to be established.
“It’s good that ‘Get Sorted’ start in Key Stage 2 and follow the
transition to Key Stage 3. We were totally oblivious of secondary
substance misuse education before then. ‘Get Sorted’ has helped to
strengthen our transition links with the secondary and as the same
‘Get Sorted’ team work with comprehensives we know what the
content of lessons there will be. It’s important that the same person
works with primarys and comprehensives” (Head, School C)
The establishment of the SMEPF encouraged both formal and informal
communication between substance misuse education providers in RCT. This
improved communication has led to a clear understanding of the roles of
204
providers and their responsibilities within a partnership environment. Where
providers would traditionally have dealt with issues in-house and in isolation, the
‘Get Sorted’ project has offered specialist practitioner support including
identifying good practice and policy development updates.
“The outcomes of ‘Get Sorted’ have been beneficial. It’s good to have
someone else to work with within the same work setting but within a
different organisation. ‘Get Sorted’ has been a helpful source of
advice” (Stakeholder A)
This contact with all specialist substance misuse education providers has
enabled ‘Get Sorted’ to open up communication between them and iron out any
issues that previously may have caused conflict. This has also promoted
consistency and agreement between providers through increased knowledge
and understanding of each other’s work.
“Get Sorted’ offer support to my Officers on the ground and have
supported the programme’s introduction despite problems that were
caused by unresolved DARE issues. ‘Get Sorted’ are a good focal
point. The central base of local knowledge saves time and
duplication. The sharing of this information and knowledge helps us to
work together to get it right. It provides a nice balance. Only in RCT is
that organised support there to offer help and assistance to teachers
and the All Wales Officers. Substance misuse education is balanced”
(Stakeholder D)
The benefits of providing a shared common approach and agreement between
partners were experienced by schools, who could rely on the input of external
providers being consistent.
“In the past professionals have disagreed and this has confused
pupils. Now we have consistency and reliability available to all
schools. No longer have to be on a wing and a prayer that people will
turn up to deliver” (Head, School H)
Monitoring of both the ‘Get Sorted’ and ‘Harder to Reach’ communication
strategies (Appendices xxii and xxiii respectively) was undertaken as part of the
‘Get Sorted’ project’s quarterly reporting process (Chapter 6: 6.6.5) and
progress updates given both formally within written strategic progress
documents and informally as oral presentations to the Prevention Education
and Training (PET) group. Monthly emails were also issued to the SMEPF
205
members updating them on the progress against agreed actions.
Improved communication links enabled ‘Get Sorted’ to provide appropriate
‘signposting’ services to relevant specialist organisations. Both formal and
informal signposting has taken place and has been central to the role of ‘Get
Sorted’ as an information conduit.
“Get Sorted have made a significant contribution to communication
involving all who want to grasp this issue. This wasn’t the case
before. We were well meaning but lacked the confidence, knowledge
and skills. The ‘Get Sorted’ team has this”. (Stakeholder F)
Following the development of the ‘Get Sorted’ and ‘Harder to Reach’
communication strategies in RCT, the Co-ordinator for Substance Misuse
Education and another member of the ’Get Sorted’ team were seconded to the
Welsh Assembly Government in September 2006 to research and develop a
Substance Misuse Communication Strategy for Wales. In April 2007 this
secondment was extended for another 12 months to prepare for and oversee
the integration of a substance misuse communication framework within the new
Welsh substance misuse strategy (WAG, 2008b).
In improving communication networks, it was intended that the sharing of good
practice would enhance access to up to date and relevant substance misuse
education (SMED). Analysis of the 89 ‘Get Sorted’ entry and 54 exit
questionnaires (data set two) completed in relation to accessing substance
misuse education, showed a general improvement in access to consistent, up to
date and relevant substance misuse education following the implementation of
the ‘Get Sorted’ project.
206
Figure 8.1 Comparative ease of accessing consistent SMED prior to and post
input
25
% of Respondents
20
15
Easy
Difficult
10
5
0
Prior (sample size: 89)
Post (sample size: 54)
Timing of Questionaire Completion
Figure 8.1 above shows that 4.6% of respondents rated accessing consistent
substance misuse education very easy prior to ‘Get Sorted’ intervention,
compared to 19.4% afterwards.
Figure 8.2 below compares the ease of accessing up to date substance misuse
education on entry and exit.
207
Figure 8.2 Comparative ease of accessing up to date SMED prior to and post
input
25
% of Respondents
20
15
Easy
Difficult
10
5
0
Prior (sample size: 89)
Post (sample size: 54)
Timing of Questionnaire Completion
Of respondents, 5.5% rated accessing up to date substance misuse education
very easy at entry, compared to 19.4% on exit and similarly 6.4% rated
accessing relevant substance misuse education as very easy on entry
compared to 21% on exit.
Figure 8.3 below is concerned with the comparative ease of accessing relevant
substance misuse education for teachers.
208
Figure 8.3 Comparative ease of accessing relevant SMED prior to and post
input
25
% of Respondents
20
15
Easy
Difficult
10
5
0
Prior (sample size: 89)
Post (sample size: 54)
Timing of Questionnaire Completion
Whilst a small percentage of respondents, on exit, reported they still found it
fairly difficult to access consistent (3.2%), up to date (3.2%) and relevant (4.8%)
substance misuse education, this showed a noticeable decrease compared to
17.4%; 14.7%; and 15.6% respectively on entry, with no respondents reporting
it remaining very difficult upon exit.
Communication – level of congruence
This theme evidenced one of the two highest levels of congruence between the
stated intents and what was observed. The pro-active approach to building links
and networks with service providers, partners and stakeholders adopted by the
‘Get Sorted’ team and the inclusive nature in which it was undertaken ensured
that the development of effective communication networks was far swifter than
had been originally envisaged. Stakeholder interview data identifies the
momentum built by the ‘Get Sorted’ project’s pro-active approach reiterated the
key message for substance misuse education (Appendix xxv) as a shared
vision across all partners and a multi-agency approach to achieving
consistency.
209
The establishment of the SMEPF provided a visible response to the need for
direct, regular and open communication as identified in the initial consultation
exercise (data set two) and formed the basis for communicating with and
consulting with practitioners. The establishment of the monthly email update for
the SMEPF enabled regular identification of good practice and collaborative
working and offered the mechanism to provide policy and strategy updates that
was valued by the stakeholders interviewed.
The ‘Get Sorted’ website and media press releases, took the lead on
communicating the multi-agency approach to substance misuse education in
RCT and detailing collaborative projects to the wider public. The ‘Get Sorted’
project also communicated the progress towards consistency to the general
public in the same way. The ‘Get Sorted’ website (www.getsortedwales.co.uk)
offers information on the work of the ‘Get Sorted’ project; the service ‘Get
Sorted’ can provide to professionals, schools, youth provisions, parents and
community groups; the strategic focus and aims within RCT; what projects are
underway in RCT; lesson plans and resources for professionals; links to helping
agencies; links to age appropriate websites for young people; and good practice
guidelines. The marketing of the website has been widespread and supported
by merchandise that signposts to the website. The ‘Get Sorted’ website has
also been recognised nationally with a special commendation awarded by the
Welsh Language Board in 2005 for its commitment to bi-lingual service delivery.
Additional outcomes observed but not specifically stated as intents at the outset
of the project include the role the incident guidelines documents have played in
identifying external sources of support and providing access to them, as
identified by head teachers during interviews. Stakeholders also identified the
development of the ‘Get Sorted’ communication strategy to ensure regular
formal review and monitoring of the communication networks in facilitating the
sharing of good practice and monitoring provision.
The establishment of the ‘Get Sorted’ project has communicated an open,
visible and consistent approach to substance misuse education to stakeholders,
beneficiaries and the wider general public. The success of the ‘Get Sorted’
project in creating the intended infrastructure necessary to support effective
210
substance misuse education hinged on the development of robust and efficient
communication networks to support partnership working. For this reason,
achieving the development of effective communication networks as a project
objective was pivotal to the success of the other ‘Get Sorted’ project objectives
and the measurement of such a high level of congruence between intents and
observations indicates success.
Two-way communication has become both horizontal across the range of
practitioners and vertical between practitioners and policy and decision makers,
which has improved shared understanding. The ability of the ‘Get Sorted’
project to interpret strategy at a practitioner level and promote good practice at
a strategic level was acknowledged by PSE teachers during interviews. This
has contributed to the removal of barriers to effective communication and
consolidates the ‘Get Sorted’ team’s position as the central point of
communication. The capacity of the ‘Get Sorted’ team to identify practical
implementation issues and swiftly communicate them was welcomed by
stakeholders with strategic responsibilities, who cited that it has eased the
process of monitoring provision on behalf of the Substance Misuse Action Team
(SMAT).
The positive development of communication networks has also been evidenced
in the increased access to consistent, up to date and relevant substance misuse
education reported by beneficiaries of the ‘Get Sorted’ service within the exit
assessment questionnaires.
Despite the initial misunderstanding, identified by some stakeholders during
interviews, regarding the role of the ‘Get Sorted’ project and the assumption that
this was a programme rather than an infrastructure, observations from
interviews evidence that the pro-active approach of the ‘Get Sorted’ team to
communicating with a range of audiences has enabled this confusion to be
minimised.
8.6 Approach
The proactive approach of the ‘Get Sorted’ project included provision of ‘hands
on’ support for staff dealing with substance misuse incidents in schools as well
211
as ‘in-classroom’ support for those delivering substance misuse education. This
theme presents findings in relation to the ‘hands on’ approach to the
management of substance misuse incidents and the promotion of a multiagency approach, whilst the ‘in-classroom’ support is discussed in the following
section as the approach of the ‘Get Sorted’ project was essential in impacting
on the knowledge and confidence of educators as is discussed in the following
theme.
Approach - observations
The observed outcomes of the revision of the Substance Misuse Guidelines
document and the establishment of the reporting of substance misuse incident
data by schools are not specific to this theme. The revision and implementation
of the Guidelines document has impacted on a number of service delivery areas
including: the provision of specific training and support; the development of
effective communication networks; the implementation of a multi-agency
approach; policy advice and dissemination; and the creation of a recognised
lead unit to improve co-ordination and consistency.
The revision of the Substance Misuse Guidelines for Schools and its supported
distribution by the ‘Get Sorted’ team was observed as pivotal to the
establishment of the approach of the ‘Get Sorted’ project as a pro-active,
practically supportive and multi-agency based one. In hand delivering and
explaining the contents of the Guidelines document, the ‘Get Sorted’ team were
in a position to evidence the type of support they could offer to schools, as well
as build the rapport with head teachers that was necessary to ensure the
reporting of incidents took place. Following these meetings with schools, the
team were invited to offer advice to a number of cluster groups (meetings held
termly between comprehensive schools and their feeder primary schools) and
discuss issues and concerns held by the clusters. This provided a further
opportunity to show how the cluster based reporting for the primary sector, was
in line with their own administration systems.
“Reporting incidents on a cluster basis is good. The guidelines have
given us a fresh opportunity to respond to incidents, especially
primary schools faced with litter left by older people who use the yard
to hang around in, in the evenings”. (Head, School E)
212
The development of incident data recording systems and the establishment of
mechanisms for collecting incident data enabled ‘Get Sorted’ to identify key
issues associated with substance misuse incidents, and seek ways of
addressing these issues. In August 2005, funding was secured by ‘Get Sorted’
from the Welsh Assembly Government’s Arson Small Grants Fund, to provide
financial contributions to support the seven primary schools which had reported
persistent incidents of substance misuse related litter over the academic year,
in order for them to improve the security of their premises. In order to access
this money, schools were required to have a survey completed by Community
Safety Officers, detailing the improvements required in order to reduce the
improper use of premises.
Within the Arson Small Grants Fund bid, resources had been allocated to
provide specific training for school caretakers in the safe handling of substance
misuse litter and reporting of incidents. Two multi-agency training events took
place, providing caretakers with inputs in the following areas: crime prevention
awareness; crime reporting awareness; fire / arson; environmental health;
reporting anti-social behaviour; first aid; and handling/disposal of drug related
litter. Training was delivered by ‘Get Sorted’ in partnership with Environmental
Services, the Fire Service, TEDS and South Wales Police. Caretaker staff were
also introduced to the Guidelines document during these training sessions.
Following the events, head teachers were given feedback summarising the key
points that arose during discussion. Drug related litter awareness sessions were
also designed and delivered for all pupils in Years 3, 4 and 5 from the seven
schools identified as having ongoing problems with substance misuse related
litter through the substance misuse incident data systems held by the ‘Get
Sorted’ team.
Sharps boxes (needle disposal containers) were also provided to all schools
and youth centres for the safe disposal of discarded needles and syringes.
Whilst the discovery of discarded needles and syringes was not a common
occurrence, schools in particular had requested access to safe equipment for
storing such items for possible future use. The distribution of sharps boxes also
supported the ‘Get Sorted’ project’s comprehensive approach to the
management of incidents.
213
“We’ve received first hand support from ‘Get Sorted’ regarding
incidents. The needle in our yard was collected within 30 minutes of
my phonecall to the team and new needle containers were provided.
It really does have a positive impact for the school”. (Head, School G)
Support from ‘Get Sorted’ for schools and youth organisations has ranged from
telephone advice on dealing with actual incidents within legal parameters and
categorising them, to face to face contact with schools to support them to
manage the after-effects on the wider school community following serious
incidents.
The pro-active and hands on approach to supporting schools in the
management of substance misuse incidents was observed during the semistructured interviews and verified through analysis of the ‘Get Sorted’ project
entry and exit questionnaires (data set two). Of the school staff requesting input
from the ‘Get Sorted’ team regarding the management of substance misuse
incidents, 8.3% described themselves as very satisfied with how they dealt with
incidents prior to working with ‘Get Sorted’, compared to 66.6% reporting feeling
very satisfied following completion of their involvement with ‘Get Sorted’.
When asked about their confidence to deal with incidents prior to ‘Get Sorted’
input, 0.9% strongly agreed they were confident; 24.8% tended to agree; 26.6%
tended to disagree; and 7.3% strongly disagreed (see Figure 8.4 below).
214
Figure 8.4 Percentage of respondents feeling confident in responding to
incidents
50
45
40
% of Respondents
35
30
Strongly agree
Agree
25
Disagree
Strongly disagree
20
15
10
5
0
Entry (sample size: 89)
Exit (sample size: 54)
Timing of Questionnaire Completion
Figure 8.4 shows that on completion of training with ‘Get Sorted’, 24.2%
strongly agreed; and 43.5% tended to agree that they were confident to deal
with incidents, should they arise. 1.6% continued to tend to disagree that they
were confident; however, no respondents strongly disagreed.
Asked to rate the support available from the LEA (see Figure 8.5 below), 45.2%
of school respondents rated the support regarding incident management
available from the LEA via ‘Get Sorted’ as very good and 29% as fairly good.
This compared to 5.5% rating the support available from the LEA, prior to ‘Get
Sorted’ being established, as very good and 24.8% as fairly good.
215
Figure 8.5 Percentage rating incident management as good or fairly good prior
to and post input
50
45
40
% of Respondents
35
30
Very good
25
Fairly good
20
15
10
5
0
Prior (sample size: 89)
Post (sample size: 54)
Timing of Questionnaire Completion
“Get Sorted’ has made us more accountable. With the reporting of
incidents, staff are more aware of how they deal with and respond to
issues and incidents. Reporting allows us to pick up on what’s
happening in school – gives us a wider picture”. (Head, School H)
The above statistical data pertains to a sample of ‘Get Sorted’ entry and exit
questionnaires of individuals who had requested input from ‘Get Sorted’
regarding incident management. However, data from the full sample of ‘Get
Sorted’ entry and exit questionnaires highlighted that only 14.7% of respondents
were aware that ‘Get Sorted’ provided support for the management of
substance misuse related incidents.
The agreed consistent message for RCT (Appendix xxv) that had been signed
up to by all partner agencies formed the basis of the ‘Get Sorted’ project’s work
and the terms of reference for a range of groups and including the PET group
and the SMEPF. It was made available within the school and youth service
guidelines for dealing with substance misuse, on the ‘Get Sorted’ CD Rom and
also on the ‘Get Sorted’ website. This agreed message formed the basis on
216
which new initiatives were set up and new programmes devised, including the
SAFE programme (Appendix xx).
“Get Sorted’ has achieved a consistent message. ‘Get Sorted’ is clear
what it wants to communicate and who to. It met the proactive
challenge of offering needs led support because of its proactive
approach”. (Stakeholder E)
In implementing a multi-agency approach to meeting strategic aims, ‘Get
Sorted’ played the central role in ensuring that new and emerging substance
misuse education providers and programmes in RCT were adequately
supported and were aware of the agreed consistent message and the existing
providers and their work. In supporting new programmes, the ‘Get Sorted’ team
were able to offer good practice guidelines and strategy and policy advice as
well as be in a position to establish communication opportunities with schools
and other providers. This in turn maximised the uptake of new programmes as
schools could rely on them being in line with the strategic aims of substance
misuse education in RCT.
Approach – level of congruence
The outlined intents and subsequent observations within this theme show a high
level of congruence. The revision of the substance misuse guideline documents
for schools and the youth service established the document as a reference tool
that identified good practice and gave clear guidance on procedure, as
supported by interview data from head teachers. The expansion of the
categories of incidents promoted the relevance and application of the document
within a wider setting than just the secondary schools, as evidenced by the level
of incident reporting from primary schools (data set two), and the production of
posters detailing procedure made the process more accessible to a wide range
of staff. Interview data from head teachers evidenced that the supported
distribution of the guidelines documents and sharps boxes by the ‘Get Sorted’
team, had made the support offered by the LEA more visible, as well as
enabling ‘Get Sorted’ to demonstrate the pro-active support they could offer.
The level of congruence between what was intended and observed at the
outcome stage was significantly higher than at the transaction stage. A
217
suggested reason for this is a lack of belief on behalf of stakeholders that the
reporting and monitoring of incidents across all schools was achievable, based
on previous experience of attempting to implement such procedures without the
backing of schools. The intention of encouraging and promoting a coherent,
consistent and holistic approach to the management of incidents was observed,
with head teacher interviewees commenting on their increased confidence to
implement procedure. It was also observed through stakeholder interviews that
confidence was raised throughout organisations, with staff becoming more
vigilant and wiling to address issues. Improved links with, and accessibility to,
external agencies has led to an increase in referral to agencies following
incidents, contributing to a multi-agency approach to providing alternatives to
exclusion. This is supported by the substance misuse incident data collected by
the ‘Get Sorted’ team (data set two) as detailed in Appendix xxiv. Incident data
was used to inform local policy and monitor the implementation of national
policy such as Hidden Harm (ACMD, 2003), which focuses on the impact of
parental substance misuse.
The ‘Get Sorted’ performance data (data set two) evidences that the team
experienced a high referral rate into the project, with teachers and youth
workers requesting training and advice on all aspects of substance misuse,
following initial contact regarding distribution of the incident guidelines
document. This evidences that the intention to initiate rapport building and
explain the service ‘Get Sorted’ could provide during the meetings with Head
teachers to disseminate the guidelines, had been realised. The observations
evidence that the holistic approach to addressing substance misuse incidents
had been welcomed, as had increased access to a range of advice, support and
providers, resulting in all schools providing reporting data. Both head teachers
and PSE teachers reported feeling less isolated in the knowledge that there was
a central point of contact and advice within the LEA that enabled access to a
wide range of partners.
“Very positive relationship with ‘Get Sorted’. Whether the help needed
is major or minor, we receive full support from the team. The on site /
in school approach is most beneficial. When someone is there in
school the pupils need that”. (Head, School H)
218
The identification of the need to provide training and support for school
caretakers following the high levels of drug related litter incidents reported by
primary schools, is evidence that the incident data collected served a wider
purpose than to fulfil Home Office funding requirements. It had in fact identified
a local need that, up until the establishment of incident reporting procedures,
had been overlooked. The establishment of accessible data collection
procedures had also created a much needed baseline against which progress
towards reducing the number of substance misuse incidents could be
measured.
8.7 Knowledge and confidence of educators
The provision of specific training and classroom support for professionals
delivering substance misuse education, encompassing drug information and
teaching methodology was stated as an objective of the ‘Get Sorted’ project,
with the desired outcome of increasing the knowledge and confidence of
educators.
Knowledge and confidence of educators - observations
The development and wide distribution of methodology based teaching
resources by the ‘Get Sorted’ team has provided not only a consistent LEA
approved approach to the provision of substance misuse education, but has
also contributed to increased trust between educators and the LEA. Focusing
upon the teaching methodologies rather than substance misuse specific
information, the scheme of work has been more accessible to both teachers
and informal educators. The majority of the lessons were devised to be non
subject specific; therefore, the lesson format could be replicated in other subject
areas to address other pastoral issues.
“Having the two aspects (teacher led and pupil led tasks) within the
same lesson is new and has worked really well. The methodologies
have really changed the way we do PSE, we’ve had brilliant ideas for
their use in other areas. I was already confident with substance
misuse education but there must be loads of teachers out there with a
lot more confidence now thanks to ‘Get Sorted’s lessons”. (PSE
teacher, School B)
219
In some cases teachers had successfully replicated them in other PSE areas,
proving that ‘Get Sorted’ had created a robust teaching tool with wider benefits
than just substance misuse education. The exemplar lesson plans supported
exploration of prior knowledge and learning without the need for in depth
specialist knowledge of substances and their use. For sessions where some
substance misuse knowledge was needed, information sheets for educators
were provided as well as advice on how to answer difficult questions.
“The methodologies are appropriate for the kids and we get the right
outcome at the end of the lessons”. (PSE teacher, School D)
The methodologies also proved varied and robust enough to engage a range of
abilities within the same class.
“The methodologies are varied and give teachers more ideas. They
are up to date and student friendly. ‘Get Sorted’ lessons support the
Accelerated Learning Programme. We can now keep the kids on task
using a number of approaches. It’s been really positive for us”. (PSE
teacher, School H)
In support of the comments made by teachers, pupils within the primary school
Focus Group B also commented on the teaching methodologies, in relation to
what they enjoyed about the lessons they received.
“Group work was the best, it helps you to team work and if you’re
stuck you can ask and someone might know the answer”. (Pupil,
School I)
Year 12 pupils (Focus Group A, data set three) who had been involved in the
‘Get Sorted’ project’s ‘Peer Led’ training, commented on the resources available
with which to support their delivery of sessions to younger pupils, again proving
that this format was accessible to both formal and informal educators
irrespective of their level of experience or knowledge.
“The visual aids were excellent – they really helped not only learning
about drugs but how to deliver drug education”. (Pupil, School H)
The use of a varied range of teaching materials was favourably welcomed by all
pupil focus groups, however the Year 7 pupils (Focus Group C) when asked to
comment on their experiences from the previous year, had not enjoyed the pace
220
at which their teacher had delivered the quiz. Focus group C pupils reported
that the teacher had taken too long between answers reading out the
explanations for correct answers, which had reduced the competitive element of
the quiz.
The introduction of the ‘Get Sorted’ CD Rom has also contributed to increasing
the general level of confidence of educators to engage both personally and
professionally with the substance misuse education agenda.
“Me as an adult – I needed more awareness. I didn’t know how much
material to put into lessons or how to answer questions”. (Head,
School B)
With a full County Borough remit, the scale and scope of the ‘Get Sorted’
project is vast. Tasked to work with anyone, of any age, in any setting, on a
needs-led basis, the only criteria is that individuals have to be in some way
involved in the delivery of substance misuse education, whether formally or
informally. The range of stakeholders the ‘Get Sorted’ project has worked with
can be found in Appendix xxvii. Project related data (data set two) evidences
that within the first academic year of the project (September 2004 – July 2005),
the four members of the ‘Get Sorted’ team made 4,653 face to face contacts
with beneficiaries that included teachers, youth workers, professionals, parents
and community members involved in the delivery of substance misuse
education for children and young people. Members of the ‘Get Sorted’ team had
visited all 157 primary, secondary and special schools and had directly provided
in-class support for 306 teachers in 57 schools.
“Schools appreciate the training and support they’ve received. The
lack of cost to schools has been a major factor. Also schools prefer
that ‘Get Sorted’ goes to them rather than taking teachers out of the
classroom”. (Stakeholder G)
In addition, the ‘Get Sorted’ team was in contact with all 56 statutory youth
centres and had provided support for 31 different organisations (mainly within
the voluntary sector) around substance misuse policy and the delivery of
substance misuse education.
221
Between September 2004 and April 2007, 3,123 different individuals received
support from the ‘Get Sorted’ team; 754 pieces of work were completed in the
primary school sector; 704 within the secondary school sector; and 341 within
non-school educational settings. The total number of professionals receiving
support totalled 1,599, and the total number of community beneficiaries totalled
278. Performance monitoring data (data set two) shows that 1,057 individuals
have accessed support from ‘Get Sorted’ on more than one occasion
“Teachers have been encouraged to contact the team due to the
ethos of face-to-face support. This provides strong foundations for the
future”. (Stakeholder H)
A total of 419.25 hours has been spent by members of the ‘Get Sorted’ team
directly supporting professionals in ‘classroom’ situations. The capacity of Get
Sorted to offer this direct support to teachers has been welcomed by schools
and individual teachers.
“Teachers feel that its all well and good coming in and telling us what
we should be doing, but ‘Get Sorted’ actually showing us gives them
more credibility”. (Head, School G)
This professional credibility has also been achieved by extending invitations to
stakeholders to observe service delivery, to foster a better understanding of
how the ‘Get Sorted’ project differs from previous interventions, in not being a
‘programme’ but a capacity building, workforce development initiative.
“Watching a member of ‘Get Sorted’ teaching – I had missed the point
that they were teachers, it was very impressive. The kids were
relating well. She was very knowledgeable yet careful to involve the
teacher who responded well. Passing on of knowledge was evident”.
(Stakeholder B)
‘On-site’ support had also contributed to the building of trust between schools,
and ‘Get Sorted’ as an open access resource. This resource was viewed by
head teachers as beneficial to their teaching staff and pupils alike.
222
“We’ve received total support for the teachers and the children have
enjoyed the sessions. The materials provided are not alarmist and the
language is right for the kids. Get Sorted staff look professional they
look like other teachers which holds more weight with the kids and
teachers. Kids like the security of this as different looking people
sway the message. Get Sorted have a professional way of handling
themselves and so receive the same respect from the kids as the
teachers do”. (Head, School, E)
Within the ‘Get Sorted’ entry and exit questionnaires (data set two), questions
pertaining to the respondent’s satisfaction of the delivery of substance misuse
education; the level of knowledge of substances and their use/misuse; and the
level of confidence to plan and deliver substance misuse education were asked
in order to provide a measurement of any perceived impact following
involvement with the ‘Get Sorted’ project (Appendices vii & viii). As with any
questionnaires, bias associated with the sample, self selection, self reporting
and response bias is acknowledged and wherever possible steps were taken to
minimise this. Details of the response rate of these questionnaires can be found
in chapter six, section 6.6.3, however, it is important to re-iterate that this data
forms part of data set two: ‘project related data’ and was collected for the
operational purpose of developing the ‘Get Sorted’ project.
Of the 62 ‘Get Sorted’ exit questionnaires completed, 87% were from the school
sector, and 100% of these answered questions pertaining to their level of
knowledge and confidence to deliver substance misuse education. Analysis of
exit questionnaires identified that the 54 completed questionnaires gave
responses from 38 different schools (30% of the total number of schools).
When asked to rate the level of satisfaction with the delivery of substance
misuse education (see Figure 8.6 below) on entry, 3.2% of respondents rated
themselves as very satisfied with their current provision of substance misuse
education (including the input of external providers); 77.1% as fairly satisfied;
16.1% as fairly dissatisfied; and 3.2% as very dissatisfied. 19.4% reported
experiencing problems with their own delivery of substance misuse education;
83% citing insecurity due to their general lack of knowledge of the subject area;
and 17% questioning the accuracy of the information they imparted.
223
Figure 8.6 Comparative levels of satisfaction with delivery prior to and post input
90
80
% of Respondents
70
60
Very satisfied
50
Fairly satisfied
Fairly dissatisfied
40
Very dissatisfied
30
20
10
0
Entry (sample size: 89)
Exit (sample size: 54)
Timing of Questionnaire Completion
Figure 8.6 shows that in comparison, on exit, 60% of respondents recorded they
were very satisfied with their provision of substance misuse education and the
remaining 40%, fairly satisfied. Interestingly, on exit, 20% of respondents
reported experiencing problems with delivery, however, the reasons cited were
noticeably different to those reported on entry. 25% of those who had
experienced problems attributed these problems to a lack of specialist
substance misuse information; 25% had experienced difficulty in putting their
point across; and 50% cited the lack of concentration from learners and general
classroom management issues as causing problems.
When asked to assess their own level of knowledge regarding substance
misuse 1.8% rated their knowledge as very good on entry, compared to 27.4%
on exit. On entry, 47.7% reported having fairly good knowledge; 25.7% rated
their knowledge as fairly poor; and 7.3% as very poor. On exit, 62.9% rated
their knowledge as fairly good; and 3.2% felt unable to rate themselves,
however, none reported poor knowledge (see Figure 8.7 below).
224
Figure 8.7 Comparative levels of knowledge prior to and post input
70
60
% of Respondents
50
Very good
40
Fairly good
Fairly poor
30
Very poor
20
10
0
Entry (sample size: 89)
Exit (sample size: 54)
Timing of Questionnaire Completion
Observations from the semi-structured interviews confirmed the role of
increased feelings of confidence in assisting teachers to develop their
knowledge base, as well as the provision of exemplar lesson plans in increasing
self reported knowledge and confidence. Examination of the entry data
identified the 1.8% that rated their knowledge as very good as being from
schools in the Rhondda Fawr that had been involved in the DARE programme
and their entry rating may have been influenced by initial fears that the ‘Get
Sorted’ project was in competition with their established provision. Further
investigation identified these respondents as having completed exit
questionnaires, therefore in the exit questionnaire may have rated their
knowledge more realistically. Observations from the semi-structured interviews
also supports this notion as one head teacher reported having been told by a
DARE Committee member not to have any involvement in the ‘Get Sorted’
project as it posed a threat to the future of the DARE programme.
In comparison, responses to questions regarding confidence also showed an
increase following input from the ‘Get Sorted’ team as depicted in Figure 8.8
below). 6.4% strongly agreed they were confident in delivering substance
225
misuse education on entry, compared to 38.7% on exit. This increase in selfrated confidence was echoed by all other categories. 35.8% tended to agree
they were confident in delivery on entry compared to 50% on exit; and 25.7%
tended to disagree on entry compared to 9.7% on exit. 11% strongly disagreed
they were confident and 10.1% felt unable to rate their confidence on entry,
however, no responses rated these categories on exit, showing a marked
impact on confidence levels.
Figure 8.8 Comparative levels of confidence prior to and post input
60
% of Respondents
50
40
Strongly agree
Agree
30
Disagree
Strongly disagree
20
10
0
Prior (sample size: 89)
Post (sample size: 54)
Timing of Questionnaire Completion
The reported confidence to deliver substance misuse education on entry is also
supported by the interview data, where some school staff had interpreted the
question to include their confidence in the schools provision of substance
misuse education (mainly attributable to external providers). Schools also
reported that where the confidence of staff in their role as providers of
substance misuse education had increased, the priority of its provision had also
risen.
“Substance misuse education is now timetabled so yes it is a higher
priority for us. It no longer feels like a pressure that is totally upon
staff”. (Head, School E)
226
Responses to confidence in planning substance misuse education (as shown in
Figure 8.9) were similar to the delivery findings. On entry, 4.6% strongly agreed
they were confident to plan substance misuse education lessons; 31.2% tended
to agree; 28.4% tended to disagree; 12.8% strongly disagreed; and 9.2% were
unable to rate their confidence. This compared to 37.1% strongly agreeing; 50%
tending to agree, 9.7% tending to disagree and 1.6% still unable to rate
confidence upon exit.
Figure 8.9 Comparative levels of planning confidence prior to and post input
60
% of Respondents
50
40
Strongly agree
Agree
30
Disagree
Strongly disagree
20
10
0
Prior (sample size: 89)
Post (sample size: 54)
Timing of Questionnaire Completion
Again, those respondents who had strongly agreed that they were confident to
plan substance misuse education at entry were from schools with established
links with external providers, however, the 37.1% that strongly agreed on exit
were from a range of schools with varying levels of contact with external
providers, evidencing that the input of ‘Get Sorted’ had impacted on the level of
confidence.
“We’re doing quite a lot. Our substance misuse lessons are more
formal now we are working with Get Sorted. We also have the inbuilt
training element for staff now we work with Get Sorted”. (Head,
School C)
227
The ‘Get Sorted’ exemplar scheme of work for schools also made direct links to
the National Curriculum (ACCAC, 2000). Each lesson plan produced was
directly linked to relevant curriculum elements and developmental aspects that
were related to tasks within the lesson. How each of the lessons related to the
wider curriculum was identified individually. This ‘curriculum links’ section in
each lesson plan also served to increase the confidence of teachers to plan and
deliver sessions, as they could rely on the content being age appropriate in line
with the National Curriculum.
Issues that had been identified by Welsh medium schools regarding accessing
age appropriate information in Welsh were also addressed by the ‘Get Sorted’
project. Ensuring that all ‘Get Sorted’ materials and communications were
bilingual enabled the Welsh medium schools to feel confident that they were
delivering age appropriate information, rather than this being an issue that was
secondary to accessing Welsh materials.
“Now there is a consistency of approach in accessing support and we
are provided with the same level of information in Welsh that is age
appropriate but sensitive to the Welsh language… ‘Get Sorted’ having
a Welsh speaker is a very positive step”. (Head, School D)
The evaluation of the SAFE programme also evidences the value for Welsh
medium schools of having support to deliver substance misuse education
through the medium of Welsh.
“One teacher particularly valued the ongoing dialogue in Welsh with
Get Sorted staff”. (Lancett, 2006, pg.12)
For each of the over 400 hours spent by members of the ‘Get Sorted’ team in
delivering direct ‘in–classroom’ support, at least another hour was spent with
each beneficiary providing programme planning support, to ensure that
educators fully understood how the lessons fitted into a wider Personal and
Social Education (PSE) programme (data set two). A significant part of the
programme planning process was to address issues that might be barriers to
confident delivery of substance misuse education, of which a notable proportion
included issues surrounding the age appropriate agenda.
228
“I used to feel that I didn’t know where to start on the subject, that I
hadn’t got good enough knowledge. If the children asked questions I
didn’t know what I should or shouldn’t say, I feel better about that
now”. (PSE teacher, School E)
The general perception of stakeholders was that whilst the building of teachers’
confidence to deliver substance misuse education was a worthwhile aim,
whether improvement in confidence levels was achievable was not something
that could be measured in the short term.
“Confidence – difficult to say – still very early. Not sure how much
confidence has improved among teachers delivering education. The
process of up-skilling has begun but I’m not sure how much can be
done and exactly what support is needed. However, Get Sorted has
done what needed to be done. No negative feedback from teachers
too, positive feedback coming through other areas like the Healthy
Schools project”. (Stakeholder C)
Whilst the teachers interviewed were able to assess their own level of
confidence, they were also realistic about the likelihood of this confidence being
maintained in the long term, without the ongoing support of ‘Get Sorted’.
“I did feel more knowledgeable and confident straight afterwards, but
don’t feel 100% confident about delivering it next year. It’s good that
‘Get Sorted’ gives us access to expertise”. (PSE teacher, School E)
A wider issue relating to the confidence of teachers was also highlighted during
the interviews with the nine PSE teachers (data set three). One respondent
identified the need to teach something regularly in order to maintain her
confidence levels in the longer term.
“It has increased knowledge and confidence though. There are still
areas that we’re unsure of because we don’t teach it all the time.
Teachers always lack confidence somewhere”. (PSE teacher, School
D)
The perceived need to teach the subject regularly in order to increase overall
confidence to deliver substance misuse education was common to a number of
PSE teachers interviewed. Their responses were concerned with the level of
their own confidence as opposed to the regular teaching of a subject to increase
their knowledge or reinforce pupil learning.
229
Interestingly, the perception of pupils regarding the level of knowledge,
confidence and skills of their teachers, gave an insight into the confidence
pupils had in their teachers.
“My teacher will do well next year if she does it on her own”. (Pupil,
School F)
Evidencing the knowledge pupils had of the role of ‘Get Sorted’ in developing
the skills of teachers, this comment from a Year 7 pupil shows a positive
assessment of the teacher’s confidence and ability.
Knowledge and confidence of educators – level of congruence
The general level of congruence within this theme was high with all intentions
being observed in some form. The main impact observed was the development
and introduction of the ‘Get Sorted’ CD Rom as a reference tool offering
exemplar lesson plans, resources, materials, and information sheets, in both
English and Welsh. As these lesson plans and materials had been developed
with local needs in mind, their primary focus was on the teaching methodologies
employed rather than the content or substance misuse specific knowledge.
Intended to increase teacher engagement by focusing on familiar
methodologies and curriculum links, observations show that this engaged a
wider audience than just the PSE teachers, and through the provision of
practical support, increased general confidence to deliver substance misuse
education. In some cases, teachers had used the methodologies employed by
the exemplar ‘Get Sorted’ lesson plans to deliver lessons in other subject areas
with reasonable success.
The intention of providing ‘in-class’ support rather than external training to
remove the practical barriers of attendance and application in order to increase
confidence, has also been observed. Schools reported preferring this approach
as the no-cost implications also encouraged wider participation and
engagement from teachers. Teachers reported feeling far more confident
practicing the lessons with physical support present, in the form of ‘Get Sorted’
staff. The approach of providing in-class support has been most successful, as
it has addressed the issues that were raised in the initial consultation interviews
in data set two. It has responded to the practical and financial needs identified
230
by head teachers by providing free training that is tailored to the needs of
individual teachers and promotes the relevance of the delivery of substance
misuse education across the curriculum. Focusing on the teaching methodology
rather than the specialist content of substance misuse education in the
provision of exemplar lesson plans and in-class support has also led to the
success of this approach.
Observations included pupils’ positive experiences of undertaking activities
promoted in the interactive methodologies as a preferred teaching approach
(Stead et al., 2007), and their equally positive perceptions of the increase in
teachers confidence and ability to deliver lessons, both of which contribute to
the stated intent of an improvement in the learning environment.
The ‘Get Sorted’ team have also provided age appropriate exemplar lesson
plans resources and materials in Welsh in response to identified needs.
Coupled with the provision of a Welsh speaking member of the ‘Get Sorted’
team to provide ‘in-class’ team teaching support, this has increased the
confidence of teachers within Welsh medium schools not only to deliver
substance misuse education, but to deliver it in Welsh. The establishment of a
task and finish group to address substance misuse terminology in Welsh,
tackled the main issue identified by teachers in the Welsh medium schools as
undermining their confidence to deliver substance misuse education through the
medium of Welsh, and to trust Welsh language materials and resources.
‘Get Sorted’ entry and exit assessment questionnaires (data set two) and
interview data from PSE teachers (data set three) have evidenced that the aim
to provide methodology focused lesson plans and materials in CD Rom format,
and physical classroom support in the form of team teaching to result in
increased confidence to deliver substance misuse education, has been
achieved. The creation of the ‘Get Sorted’ CD Rom and the provision of ‘inclass’ practical support to apply it to practice, the ‘Get Sorted’ project has eased
the fears and concerns of teachers about the appropriateness of information
given to pupils and the management of difficult questions posed by pupils.
Fears were allayed through the promotion of exploratory interactive teaching
methodologies rather than knowledge dependant didactic methodologies,
231
endorsed and validated through the curriculum links. The PSE teachers that
participated in the interviews reported that widespread use of the CD Rom and
associated materials, including age appropriate guidance, has contributed some
way to setting an educational baseline of consistency for RCT within the
secondary school sector. This educational baseline is more robustly evidenced
in the primary sector through the implementation of the SAFE programme and
its uptake in 97 of the 103 primary schools in RCT (Appendix xx).
In some respects, the observations surpassed the intents. The PSE teachers
interviewed made specific comment on the wide reaching implications of
increased knowledge and confidence, in planning and delivering substance
misuse education. This was supported by head teacher interview responses.
Improved confidence had led to a feeling of ownership as schools
acknowledged that there was active support for them from the LEA, which
removed some of the pressure previously experienced (consultation findings,
data set two). A wider audience within the teaching staff had become engaged
in the delivery of substance misuse education, due to the on-site support
provided by the ‘Get Sorted’ team, as well as staff confidently applying the
methodologies promoted within the ‘Get Sorted’ lessons in other subject areas.
This in turn increases capacity within the school, as well as contributing to the
level of sustainable capacity across RCT.
Observations identified the increased confidence in the ‘Get Sorted’ project
itself as a trusted and credible service that ‘shows’ educators how to deliver,
rather than ‘tells’ them what to deliver. This includes evidence, sourced from the
‘Get Sorted’ project’s performance data (data set two), of over 400 hours spent
by ‘Get Sorted’ staff providing ‘in-class’ support for educators. Analysis of
interview data identifies that the face to face nature of contact with the ‘Get
Sorted’ team has led to open communication between schools, providers and
the LEA, contributing to the removal of previously experienced stigma and fear,
associated with schools providing substance misuse education.
Improvements within the school environment have been observed, with
providers more confident in their input into a wider planned programme owned
by the schools, and teachers more secure in their understanding and use of age
232
appropriate information, and their role as a ‘facilitator’ or ‘guide’ rather than an
expert. Improvements within the learning environment have also been observed
through interviews with PSE teachers and data from pupil focus groups, with
assessment of prior knowledge taking place; ‘Get Sorted’ methodologies have
increased the level of pupil participation.
The stated intentions of the ‘Get Sorted’ project were to evidence some
measurable impact on the knowledge and confidence of educators, and
considerable self reported increases have been found. Data set two evidences
that 49.5% of entry questionnaire respondents reported feeling they had some
knowledge compared to 90.3% following work with the ‘Get Sorted’ team.
Similarly, 42.2% reported some confidence on entry into a ‘Get Sorted’
intervention, compared to 88.7% upon exit.
Beneficial outcomes for external providers of substance misuse education were
also observed in stakeholders’ identification of the support for providers to
curriculum link their sessions, which enabled providers to have a better
understanding of the curriculum and how their input contributed to the wider
educational agenda. In turn this encouraged better understanding between
providers and schools, with providers more confident in their educational
contributions and schools more confident to utilise external input as they trusted
the content was appropriate.
An unforeseen beneficial outcome has been the increase in the knowledge and
confidence of partners (including schools), regarding the role and service
provided by the ‘Get Sorted’ team. Head teacher, PSE teacher and stakeholder
interview data made reference to a developed understanding of how the ‘Get
Sorted’ project can enable more collaborative work and ease existing and
pressing capacity issues.
8.8 Co-ordination and consistency
In order to provide co-ordination of a strategic approach and consistency in the
content and equity of substance misuse education across Rhondda Cynon Taf,
it was important for the ‘Get Sorted’ project to establish itself as a lead unit to
facilitate a joint approach to co-ordinated and consistent provision.
233
Co-ordination and consistency - observations
During the initial meeting with schools to introduce the Substance Misuse
Guidelines, ‘Get Sorted’ staff also took the opportunity to inform schools of the
aims and ethos of the ‘Get Sorted’ project. It was explained that it had been
established to provide a central point of contact offering advice, guidance and
support for schools as well as youth provisions, community groups,
professionals and parents, regarding any substance misuse related issue,
including the management of substance misuse incidents. This also provided
the first opportunity for the ‘Get Sorted’ team to begin building the relationships
necessary to implement the project.
However, the reaction to the relatively swift establishment of a lead unit, proved
difficult to manage at the start in some areas due to a number of pre-existing
difficulties regarding the breakdown in communication and relationships
between substance misuse education providers (as previously discussed in
section 8.2).
“Not a good first impression. I felt that the service offered was not
linked to the age group we were teaching. Other heads in cluster felt
the same. That it was not relevant to primary sector. We had been
told not to bother with ‘Get Sorted’ or become involved with it – told
we didn’t need it”. (Head, School G)
Open, regular contact with schools regarding the support the ‘Get Sorted’
project could offer, and the initiation of the primary transition project, eased the
relationship with schools that had initially expressed difficulties. Initial concerns
that ‘Get Sorted’ might have been established to ‘enforce’ rather than support,
soon diminished once schools experienced the support on offer.
“I feel happier delivering substance misuse education now – I have
somewhere to go to ask for help if I need it. They’re approachable
and didn’t come across as telling you what to do. Teachers will only
use ‘Get Sorted’ if they receive support from them which they do”.
(PSE Teacher, School E)
The ‘Get Sorted’ team also created a resource bank of books, materials,
teaching manuals, exercises and games, which could be borrowed by teachers,
youth workers and groups to support their delivery of substance misuse
234
education. The ‘Get Sorted’ team also amassed relevant articles, documents,
research papers and literature for reference purposes, and advertised their
ability to source information to schools, youth provisions and providers.
The ‘Get Sorted’ team took the lead in setting an appropriate, consistent
benchmark for substance misuse education at each key stage and this was
observed in the reported use of the CD Rom by PSE teachers in the planning
and delivery of substance misuse education. Increased confidence in the
planning and delivery was reported, aided by the direct linking of the ‘Get
Sorted’ lesson plans to identified curriculum elements and developmental
aspects within the national curriculum. Between the curriculum links and visible
support from the LEA via the ‘Get Sorted’ project, schools felt able to trust and
rely upon their own ability to deal with pupils’ questions regarding substance
misuse issues.
The methodologies promoted by ‘Get Sorted’ supported the proposed notion
that substance misuse knowledge was not the most important factor and
teachers were not expected to manage every eventuality. This was further
encouraged through the provision of opportunities for teachers to observe
members of the ‘Get Sorted’ team dealing with pupils’ questions and being
shown techniques for managing difficult questions.
A recognised lead unit to implement the co-ordination of substance misuse
education, has increased the confidence of schools that specialist support is
available to them, and that the point of contact is accessible.
“The ‘Get Sorted’ team have been constant which has been good for
schools. Often when dealing with outside agencies you can’t always
speak to the same person because the staff change. Internal
communication in school has definitely improved. Staff feel more
supported that there is a unit available in the LEA to help them. They
are not left to their own devices. There is a point of contact – a firm
point of contact”. (Head, School H)
This knowledge of the support ‘Get Sorted’ offers, and the confidence to access
this support, has filtered down throughout the school, thus aiding internal
communication within schools regarding the provision of substance misuse
education.
235
“We have great links now. The school secretary has commented on
the strong links with ‘Get Sorted’ as there is a personal approach to
service delivery. The right person is there to help”. (Head, School E)
A number of schools referred to the support they had received from ‘Get Sorted’
allowing them to tailor both the provision of substance misuse education and
their responses to substance misuse issues to the needs of their pupils.
“Absolutely, there is a difference now ‘Get Sorted’ is here. I’m not
afraid to pick up the phone now to address local issues that are
brought into school. I feel we can finally handle these issues in school
in a pupil needs led way”. (Head, School E)
As an established lead unit, the ‘Get Sorted’ project also provided a consistent
point of access for anyone involved in the delivery of substance misuse
education in RCT.
“Yes there’s consistency, there’s the same team for everyone to
access now. Their advice is objective and answers your questions.
‘Get Sorted’ allows you to pick up what you need for both the school
and pupils as and when you need it”. (Head, School H)
The establishment of a lead unit has aided the streamlining of signposting to
relevant services and agencies, and has enabled schools and youth provisions
to receive a more holistic range of support. Schools are no longer dependant on
their own individual knowledge of providers and services, as ‘Get Sorted’ is in a
position to provide further information and contacts tailored to their enquiry.
“Get Sorted’ has given RCT organisation and continuity”. (Head,
School G)
School staff interviewed also appeared thankful that ‘Get Sorted’ had actively
introduced responsibility and accountability for substance misuse issues, and
were prepared to provide the specialist support to schools to undertake this
role.
“Get Sorted’ staff give us points of reference. We know the steps we
take are appropriate. As I stated before ‘Get Sorted’ is an overt
project, not one in the ether that’s hoping for the best. There is a level
of responsibility and accountability at last”. (Head, School D)
236
The ‘Get Sorted’ project has also become the consistent point of access to
information on substance misuse education in RCT for a number of external
enquiries. Requests for information have been received from Local Authorities
across Wales, including Gwent, North Wales, Dyfed Powys and South Wales.
Requests for information have also been received from the Welsh Assembly
Government, and two Local Authorities in England. The nature of these
information requests range from the level of provision of substance misuse
education and the structure of the monitoring arrangements, to the
methodologies employed by the ‘Get Sorted’ project. All individuals requesting
information on behalf of organisations external to RCT have commented on the
ease of accessing this information and the level of organisation and support for
substance misuse education being evident in RCT.
“Substance misuse education is a priority for most LEA’s, but RCT
gives that priority public emphasis and awareness through ‘Get
Sorted’. In RCT substance misuse education is given a high profile,
high awareness and high significance”. (Stakeholder, D)
The establishment of the ‘Get Sorted’ Communication Strategy (Appendix xxii)
has also aided co-ordinated and consistent communication with parents about
the aims of substance misuse education in RCT and supported schools,
providers and policy makers to engage parents in awareness raising events and
ongoing strategic development.
Co-ordination and consistency – level of congruence
One element that has assisted the high level of congruence between what was
intended in improving co-ordination and consistency and what was observed is
the physical positioning of the ‘Get Sorted’ project within the LEA. Access to
existing LEA communication networks and mechanisms has eased the process
of disseminating information, and has consolidated the ‘Get Sorted’ project’s
position as a trusted LEA resource. The LEA’s promotion of the ‘Get Sorted’
project as the Council’s response to providing co-ordinated, consistent and
equitable substance misuse education, has enabled ‘Get Sorted’ to achieve
recognition at a number of levels. This includes strategic acknowledgement and
recognition by schools of the ‘Get Sorted’ team as specialists endorsed by the
LEA.
237
“There is such a difference now we have ‘Get Sorted’. It’s almost a
silly question to be asked if you are aware of the how the scene was
before. Inconsistency had almost become a model of consistency. If
you had asked 2 years ago what kind of lead the LEA provided the
general consensus would have been that the lead was confused or
unsure. Now we’re able to say that their lead is represented by ‘Get
Sorted’. Now there is a general enthusiasm and appetite for
substance misuse education that wasn’t there before”. (Stakeholder
F)
The pro-active approach undertaken by the ‘Get Sorted’ team (monitored in
data set two) has evidenced the capacity to initiate work in a number of areas
simultaneously, and provide materials in response to local needs. The face to
face meetings with all schools to deliver the incident guidelines documents
undertaken by the ‘Get Sorted’ team, enabled schools to ‘put a face to the
name’, and the team to explain their role in implementing co-ordination.
Attendance at a wide range of meetings enabled the ‘Get Sorted’ team to meet
partners and promote the substance misuse education agenda in a wider arena.
The focused remits of individual ‘Get Sorted’ staff, have allowed for targeted yet
integrated actions to be achieved, and the ‘Get Sorted’ project to deliver a
comprehensive service that is flexible and can be tailored to meet needs.
The level of congruence between intended and observed outcomes is equally
as high as within the transaction phase within this theme. In providing flexible
yet pro-active support, ‘Get Sorted’ has achieved the intended outcome of being
deemed credible within formal education, yet remaining approachable within
informal education spheres. The personal and knowledgeable approach has
been successful in building capacity through the development of a service that
bridges the traditional gap between schools and informal education settings.
The establishment of the ongoing reporting of substance misuse incident data
on a termly basis has brought both consistency across schools and youth
provisions in RCT to the management and handling of incidents and coordination to the provision of an evidence-based strategic response to incidents.
The development of age appropriate materials and resources has aided the
increased confidence evidenced by school staff in taking ownership of the
planning of substance misuse education, and the targeted use of external
238
agencies to support a planned school programme. The confidence of the nine
PSE teachers interviewed has also improved now specialist support is available
and accessible, and all reported they are secure in the knowledge that the ‘Get
Sorted’ team is available to offer advice and recommendations should they be
asked to do so.
Teachers have reported that the ongoing updates and support provided by the
‘Get Sorted’ team has also increased their confidence that the LEA is setting the
benchmark for the content of substance misuse education, thus reducing fears
of parental reprisals and the likelihood of teachers reverting back to the use of
simplified ‘just say no’ messages. The position of the ‘Get Sorted’ project within
the LEA and the face to face nature of their support has positively impacted on
the level of trust received from schools, with schools happy to seek advice from
‘Get Sorted’ as a trusted source.
The ‘Get Sorted’ project’s comprehensive approach to service delivery has
resulted in practice and policy developments being fully integrated.
Developments towards consistency, on both strategic and practical levels, have
been visible, as too has the priority given to achieving consistency. The
monitoring of the ‘Get Sorted’ project’s progress (data set two), has enabled the
measurable targets outlined in the RCT Substance Misuse Strategic Action Plan
to be monitored by the SMAT, and met. In making links with a wide range of
providers, ‘Get Sorted’ has created the capacity for services to be delivered,
initiated and supported at a practitioner level, as well as substance misuse
education issues to be promoted in wider strategic arenas.
The ‘Get Sorted’ project has brought consistency to the advice available and
accessed by all educators, partners and stakeholders, via promotion of a central
point of initial contact, where the signposting to appropriate agencies can be
made. It has also been observed that the ‘Get Sorted’ team now fulfils a point of
contact role for enquiries from individuals outside RCT regarding the service
provision of the ‘Get Sorted’ project in RCT, and general substance misuse
education guidance.
239
8.9 Policy and strategy
Whilst the provision of substance misuse policy advice and dissemination had
not been a stated objective of the ‘Get Sorted’ project, it became a central role
of the ‘Get Sorted’ project following a number of policy documents that emerged
and legislative changes that occurred following its establishment. The strategic
responsibility for the creation and implementation of a mechanism to collect and
monitor substance misuse incident data on behalf of the Substance Misuse
Action Team (SMAT) lay with the ‘Get Sorted’ team and was also a stipulation
of continued funding from the Home Office. The collection of substance misuse
incident data forms part of the project related data in data set two.
Policy and strategy - observations
The substance misuse incidents in schools reporting and collection systems
established by the ‘Get Sorted’ team enabled the implementation of the
strategic goals of the RCT Substance Misuse Action Team (SMAT) and the
Home Office in meeting the policy objectives of monitoring substance misuse
incidents involving school aged children (WAG, 2002a). Traditionally, data
pertaining to the level of incidents in Rhondda Cynon Taf had been anecdotal
and qualitative in nature, and had not been concerned with the wider
implications for schools, organisations and young people involved in dealing
with such incidents. Without baseline incident statistics any progress, or setbacks in reducing the number of incidents, could not be measured or monitored.
Observations confirm that the ‘Get Sorted’ team have established both the
baseline, and the means to easily and effectively measure progress and monitor
trends (Appendix xxiv). Widening the categories in which incidents could be
placed, allowed for effective identification of associated issues and supported
the SMAT in the planning and targeting of strategic actions to address these
issues.
“The action plan is moving forward and key actions are being taken.
These developments are the feather in the cap of ‘Get Sorted’.
Strategic achievements have been made and development is
continuous. The strategic priorities have changed as the [substance
misuse action] plan has been reviewed and the Prevention Education
and Training group is now used as a vehicle for change… much more
strategic support”. (Stakeholder C)
240
Reporting of substance misuse incident data to the SMAT and Home Office
takes place on a quarterly basis, and details the number of incidents in each of
the categories (Appendix xxiv). It is a future intention of the SMAT that
comparisons of this data will be made with other data collected by the SMAT such as the number of children placed on the child protection register due to
parental substance misuse - compared to the number of incidents reported to
‘Get Sorted’ concerning non-pupils, (this category includes parents and carers).
This data could also be utilised to inform and monitor progress on other priority
policy areas of the SMAT, such as Hidden Harm (ACMD, 2003), which is
concerned with the levels of parental substance misuse and actions to target
this issue. As this data was collected as project related data it was subject to
the same data storage and use protocols as other pupil related information
collected and held by the LEA. In providing incident related data, schools were
aware of and had agreed to its potential use in informing and developing LEA
service provision. Ethics regarding the use and storage of this data is detailed in
chapter six, section 6.6.4. There are obvious limitations of the data emanating
from the inevitable bias and lack of reliability and validity in self-reported data.
Further queries regarding validity stem from the perceived potential for negative
repercussions for schools reporting substance misuse incidents. This bias
affects the data collected and provided to the Home Office but does not impact
on judgements of the mechanism other than to ensure that this bias is made
explicit.
Generally, head teachers stated they found the reporting procedures to be
straightforward and easy, finding the reminders sent by the ‘Get Sorted’ team to
be useful, and general support offered by the team to be of a good standard in a
subject area described as ‘grey’ for schools (Head teacher, School C). Head
teachers embraced the fact that, with the co-ordination of ‘Get Sorted’, they had
not experienced an increased burden, as they were only asked to report once a
term and were given the means to do so. Comments were also made about the
level of flexibility in the support offered by the team in this respect.
241
“We had a nil return for last term that we sent into ‘Get Sorted’ and
then in the afternoon of the last day of term there was an incident. I
phoned ‘Get Sorted’ quite late in the day and received an immediate
response – the return was amended and I received advice over the
phone on how I should proceed”. (Head, School D)
There were long term difficulties, however, with incident data collection methods
in the primary sector. Initially, the introduction of primary school reporting via the
existing cluster administration system, was positively welcomed and proved
successful. However, by the end of the first year of reporting, the number of
primary schools reporting without prompting, had drastically reduced. For the
summer term collection in 2005, only 31% of schools had reported on time,
resulting in the ‘Get Sorted’ team having to contact schools individually for
returns details. Cluster convenors had been following procedure by waiting for
all primary schools within their cluster to contact them with their incident data,
before providing ‘Get Sorted’ with the collated cluster data. This caused delays
in the reporting of data within specified timescales, as despite having been
asked to provide a ‘nil’ incident return if necessary (as a means of ‘Get Sorted’
tracking compliance with procedures), many schools that had not experienced
any incidents throughout the year, were no longer motivated to continue to
report ‘nil’ returns. This caused further confusion between ‘nil’ incident returns
and non compliance with procedure, with schools assuming that as they had not
experienced incidents, there was no need for them to report it. Some cluster
convenors expressed their frustrations with the increased burden of having to
chase schools within their clusters for data, prior to providing the cluster return
to the ‘Get Sorted’ team.
In September 2005 the method of collecting primary school incident data was
revised, and all schools were requested to report individually. Whilst difficulties
continued regarding the ongoing reporting of ‘nil’ returns, the overall percentage
of those schools reporting on time more than doubled to 64%. This review of the
collection method enabled individual schools that were not reporting to be
identified, and action to be taken to address the reasons why, including the reiteration of the importance of reporting the ‘nil’ incident returns.
242
One of the Rhondda Cynon Taf Substance Misuse Action Plan 2005-2008
(RCT, 2005a) stated strategic actions regarding substance misuse incidents,
was to reduce the number of reported incidents by 5% over a three year period
(RCT, 2005a: 1.5.5). Data collected from schools in the academic year 20042005 showed a total of 80 incidents reported, of which 48 were within the litter
category; 17 were possession; one supply; and 14 under the influence. This
created a baseline against which future reductions could be measured (see
Figure 8.10 below).
In comparison, 2005-2006 data showed a decrease in reported incidents. Of a
total of 65 incidents, 34 were litter related; 16 were possession; 0 supply; and
15 under the influence. Again, 2006-2007 data evidenced a further reduction in
reported incidents. Totalling 57 incidents, 13 were litter related; 9 possession; 0
supply; and 16 under the influence. However, for the first time incidents were
reported under the ‘incidents involving non-pupils’ category, with 19 reported
incidents within this newly used category.
Figure 8.10 Number of substance misuse incidents reported each year
60
% of Respondents
50
40
Litter
Under influence
30
Possession
Supply
Non pupil
20
10
0
'04 - '05
'05 - '06
'06 - '07
Year
243
“There is an holistic view of reporting incidents with increased
knowledge and co-ordination of incidents and the process of reporting
them. Its more likely that pupils will get the support they need now, as
the process involves many agencies and we have a point of contact
to approach and access. Staff are now vigilant and not just employing
punitive measures – we are actually addressing the problem. We do
more than that now. We assess background, support and other
agencies involved.” (Head, School D)
It is important to note that whilst the statistics show a 28.8% reduction in
incidents within two years and a welcomed 88% increase in referral on to
specialist agencies, their reliability is questionable due to the subjective nature
of the reporting, in both the categorising of incidents and the inclusion of all
relevant data in the return.
“We have more awareness of real behaviour problems linked to
substance misuse. Last year – lowest level of incidents could be
down to ‘Get Sorted’ or could be because pupils are aware that we
are on the lookout for it”. (Head, School H)
Further detail regarding the incident data collected can be found in Appendix
xxiv.
The revision of the Substance Misuse Guidelines for Schools offered the ‘Get
Sorted’ team the first opportunity to update and integrate related policies - such
as child protection, confidentiality, and issues surrounding parental substance
misuse as highlighted in the Hidden Harm document (ACMD, 2003) - into a
single universal document. Linking these policy areas to substance misuse
provided a comprehensive approach to managing substance misuse issues as
well as increase awareness of related policy.
“The checklist in the Guidelines also offers support to Heads on
dealing with incidents and gives us peace of mind that we are
adhering to local and national policy. I was sure that I had done what
was needed – this really has had a positive impact”. (Head, School
D).
By incorporating relevant elements of other policies within the Guidelines,
schools and youth provisions have been safeguarded against potential
criticisms of how they responded to issues and incidents. It also means that the
LEA is visibly meeting its responsibilities in supporting establishments with a
244
duty of care to children and young people, to address substance misuse
incidents and issues. The production of such a comprehensive document with a
number of uses, demonstrated how the ‘Get Sorted’ project could in fact lessen
the burden on professionals by sifting through guidance and policy, and
producing and disseminating a summary of relevant information as appropriate.
The guidelines document has also served as a tool for discussion regarding
more complex policy applications.
“Discussion with ‘Get Sorted’ workers was good – our questions
regarding policy were finally answered – we found the solution
together”. (Head, School G)
Since the Guidelines document was distributed in 2004, a number of
supplementary inclusions and amendments have been issued, based on
changing policy, including the reclassification of cannabis and magic
mushrooms, and the legislation changes around tobacco and its implications for
schools.
The Guidelines document has also given schools and the youth service an
exemplar substance misuse policy document, and information on good practice
in providing substance misuse education. The document also signposted to the
Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) Guidance Circular 17/02 Substance
Misuse: Children and Young People (WAG, 2002a). The WAG circular also
formed the basis of the good practice advice given in any setting by the ‘Get
Sorted’ team, and was also incorporated in the ‘Get Sorted’ CD Rom, alongside
the exemplar scheme of work, including lesson plans and resources. Guidance
on the age appropriateness of information at each key stage and the
dissemination of the approach RCT was taking to ensure ‘harder to reach’
groups had appropriate access to substance misuse education (Appendix xxiii)
both contributed to meeting policy priorities (WAG, 2002a).
The ‘Get Sorted’ project has become the central point of contact for advice on
substance misuse education policy for schools, partners, the LEA and wider
Council services. Electronic and hard copy amendments and additions to the
Guidelines documents, have allowed for regular ongoing development of these
documents to ensure they remain up to date and relevant in policy terms. The
245
Guideline documents have become ‘working’ documents or manuals, into which
the policy updates disseminated by the ‘Get Sorted’ team are easily inserted as
additions, and amendments are issued with details of where they are relevant.
“It’s a great scheme that’s working well. ‘Get Sorted’ has given us
focus and strengthened our educational programme that is now tied
into school policies and outside policies”. (Head, School D)
In providing schools and youth provisions with substance misuse education
policy templates that are linked into other relevant policy areas, the ‘Get Sorted’
team has enabled institutions to embed substance misuse education into their
wider policy agendas. This has also ensured that substance misuse education
policy is communicated to beneficiaries and parents in the same way as any
other policy, increasing professionals’ confidence to address issues
appropriately within pre-determined parameters.
Well established formal and informal communication networks enable the ‘Get
Sorted’ team to respond quickly to emerging policy priorities, and disseminate
relevant information swiftly and effectively. The re-classification of cannabis in
2005, and the changes in tobacco legislation in 2007, are examples of how ‘Get
Sorted’ have been able to respond to national policy shifts, and ensure the
implications at a local level are fully understood and supported. The ‘Get Sorted’
project has supported schools, youth provisions and partners, during these
changes to ensure that teaching materials have been adapted to reflect
legislation changes, and, where necessary, specific materials concerned with
legislation have been developed. The ‘Get Sorted’ team have also supported
schools and youth provisions to manage the wider implications surrounding the
management of incidents, and the legalities of young people smoking on
premises.
The ‘Get Sorted’ project has also been able to disseminate relevant policy to
partners, to ensure consistency of approach, and support the development of
new policies. South Wales Police launched the ‘School Beat’ policy in 2006 to
identify the remit of police officers working in schools and the support schools
could expect from officers. Members of the ‘Get Sorted’ team worked closely
with the police to revise the original draft, ensure the policy document made the
246
appropriate links with local substance misuse policy and procedure, and to
support its dissemination across RCT schools.
Joint working with the RCT Governor Liaison Service is evidenced in data set
two. It has enabled the ‘Get Sorted’ team to increase the awareness of School
Governors of substance misuse policy, and their responsibilities within policy,
through the provision of face to face training for Governors, as well as the
production of briefing papers. The ‘Get Sorted’ project also acts in an advisory
capacity to the Governor Liaison Service regarding substance misuse issues
and the management of substance misuse related incidents.
Policy and strategy – level of congruence
Comparison between the stated intents and what was observed at both the
transaction and outcome phases shows a high level of congruence within the
areas of policy advice and dissemination. The establishment of effective
communication networks from within the LEA has facilitated swift dissemination
of relevant policy and strategy information through trusted and recognised
channels. As these channels were also used for the dissemination of good
practice, this gave the ‘Get Sorted’ project the opportunity to integrate new
policy into existing practice areas. The ‘Get Sorted’ project’s capacity to provide
the policy ‘sift and sort’ function for a range of providers, partners, professionals
and stakeholders, ensured that the information disseminated was tailored to
meet differing requirements, and was fit for purpose to encourage maximum
engagement. Observations also show that where possible, ‘Get Sorted’ have
provided guidance on the application of policy (project monitoring data - data
set two), and made appropriate links to other policy areas and documents
(interviews - data set three).
Head teacher interviews evidence that the simplicity and accessibility of the
incident reporting forms, the reminders sent by the ‘Get Sorted’ team prior to
reporting, and the organisation of the reporting systems, made the process of
reporting incidents easy without adding to the workload of schools. The
recording and data management systems set up by ‘Get Sorted’ also enabled
the data collected to be multi-functional, as multiple data requests could be
made.
247
Incongruence occurred regarding the intention to mirror the incident reporting
process with the established communication systems within the primary sector.
Whilst it was intended that reporting incidents would be more convenient and
streamlined if done via the cluster convenors, in practice this caused additional
communication difficulties, and the chasing of other primary schools within the
cluster for their returns, which dramatically increased the workload of the cluster
convenors. This method of collection was reviewed in 2005 and all schools
were requested to report incidents on an individual school basis.
There was one stated intention that when observed had surpassed initial
expectations. Whilst the Home Office driver had been to reduce the rate of
school-based substance misuse incidents by 5% over three years, it was
observed that the number of incidents had in fact decreased by 28.8% in two
years (data set two). More importantly for local priorities, this reduction in
incidents was teamed with an 88% increase in referral to other services and
helping agencies in the same two-year period.
The incident guidelines documents, the ‘Get Sorted’ CD Rom and the ‘Get
Sorted’ website, all provide beneficiaries with substance misuse education
policy guidance that is integrated into a wide range of associated policy areas,
such as child protection, confidentiality and exclusion. These resources are
amended with policy updates disseminated by the ‘Get Sorted’ team as and
when necessary, for example in response to legislative changes. This has
reduced the workload of teachers and other professionals, who perceived
substance misuse issues to be outside of their remit.
Emails and updates to SMEPF members have enabled educators outside of
formal education settings to keep updated on policy developments, as well as
provide the opportunity for them to engage in discussion regarding the
implications of applying policy to practice.
The ‘Get Sorted’ project has demystified substance misuse education policy by
making it relevant, meaningful, accessible and integrated into wider policy
areas. The support and advice ‘Get Sorted’ has provided on the practical
application of policy, has addressed the negativity and self-disassociation
248
previously displayed by non-specialists (as discussed in section 8.2 of this
chapter). In providing advice on a range of substance misuse issues, policy
application and statutory duties, the ‘Get Sorted’ project has reduced the burden
on schools and other non-specialist staff.
The development of policy templates has given schools a tool to review and
improve existing substance misuse policies, by integrating them into wider
policy areas. The incident guidelines have provided examples of how integrated
policy ensures a holistic approach to meeting needs and addressing issues.
The use of the established communication networks has provided the
mechanism for the swift dissemination of policy, as well as the gathering of
practitioner feedback regarding their experiences of implementing the policy.
The collection of incident data has also contributed to the monitoring of
adherence to policy, and identifying emerging patterns to partners via the
SMEPF, SMAT and PET groups, to ensure consistency.
8.10 ‘Get Sorted’ as a Council resource
The development and official launch of a recognised brand for the ‘Get Sorted’
project and the pro-active marketing of the brand as a Council initiative was a
stipulation of the Council’s agreement to fund the establishment and maintain
ongoing support of the ‘Get Sorted’ project.
‘Get Sorted’ as a Council resource - observations
A key task for the ‘Get Sorted’ project from the outset was to publicise the
service as widely as possible to the general public as a Council response to
local needs, and to market the range of support available to providers and
partners to encourage a multi-agency approach.
“Schools are traditionally left to get on with it – phone the police. This
has changed significantly and support for schools has been
strengthened. The key is how well this support is publicised”. (Head,
School D)
The ‘Get Sorted’ logo competition was launched in September 2004 and was
open to children and young people between the ages of 5 and 25, to design a
249
character logo to be used on all ‘Get Sorted’ materials. The winner was selected
from the 71 entries received and the design was digitally formatted for use on
the ‘Get Sorted’ CD Rom, website and materials. The logo competition was
widely publicised via schools, youth provisions, partner organisations, local
newspapers, local radio and the Council’s website. This also gave the
opportunity to publicise the establishment of the ‘Get Sorted’ project and its
aims. Prizes for the competition winner and runners-up in each age category,
were donated by the Welsh Rugby Union and local businesses.
The logo was first used at the official launch of the ‘Get Sorted’ project in
December 2004, and was supported by promotional merchandise. The ‘Get
Sorted’ launch event also staged the launch of the ‘Get Sorted’ website and the
‘Get Sorted’ CD Rom, in order to consolidate the branding of the project; ‘Get
Sorted’ CD Roms and website- promoting merchandise were given out within
the delegate packs.
The official launch of the ‘Get Sorted’ project was well attended (94 attendees
representing the statutory, voluntary and public sectors) and well publicised;
however, the political drive to ensure ‘Get Sorted’ was the Council’s visible
response to meeting local needs and addressing the criticisms of the 2002
NACRO report (Davies et al., 2002; Appendix xix), set the tone for the launch.
The complex nature of the project led to difficulties for the speakers in
understanding the ethos and aims of the ‘Get Sorted’ project sufficiently well to
convey this to delegates. A number of stakeholders highlighted the confusion
that arose when the project was launched mainly due to the branding.
“There has been some confusion due to branding. The launch was
contradictory and speakers were misleading. The logo meant that
schools saw ‘Get Sorted’ as a package, however, the team give
people a clear picture of what it is and what they do”. (Stakeholder C)
The automatic assumption for non-specialists was to associate ‘Get Sorted’ with
a substance misuse education package, rather than a supportive infrastructure
with a branded approach as was originally intended. Whilst the ‘Get Sorted’
team ensured they made the ethos and aims of the project and their remits
within it clear to beneficiaries at every opportunity, the time spent doing so had
250
a significant impact on their workloads. Extra pressure was also put onto young
relationships with providers and partners, who felt their work had not been
recognised or defended by key speakers at the ‘Get Sorted’ launch.
“The [Get Sorted] team may have been better off introduced as
advisors. Having a branded team led to confusion but the LEA likes a
logo and a name – it didn’t do you any favours though”. (Stakeholder
A).
Press releases regarding the establishment and progress of the ‘Get Sorted’
project, were issued with the support of the Council’s Media Unit. Emails and
information flyers were distributed to all schools, youth provisions, organisations
working with children and young people and community groups, detailing the
types of support available and the methodologies employed. Information on the
‘Get Sorted’ project and team members was also included in LEA newsletters,
partners’ newsletters, and the Council’s newspaper ‘Outlook’. All
correspondence, including the press releases, bore the ‘Get Sorted’ logo as well
as the RCT logo, and signposted to the ‘Get Sorted’ website.
The marketing of the ‘Get Sorted’ project was a key identified action within the
‘Get Sorted’ communication strategy, and therefore subject to the same
monitoring process. This action included initiating press releases and general
media coverage, as well as ‘Get Sorted’ attendance at meetings and awareness
raising events, where the logo was displayed on information stands.
Project related data (data set two) evidences that between July 2004 and July
2005, 18 press releases were issued regarding the progress of the ‘Get Sorted’
project, resulting in 41 newspaper articles and four radio interviews. These
articles included; the logo competition; the official ‘Get Sorted’ launch; the
launch of the Guidelines documents; the ‘Get Sorted’ transition project with
primary schools; the Welsh Language Board award for the ‘Get Sorted’ website;
and multi-agency initiatives supported by ‘Get Sorted’.
Whilst the active publicity and marketing led to recognition of ‘Get Sorted’ as a
brand, there was evidence that in the early stages, confusion still existed
regarding the aims and objectives of the project.
251
“Get Sorted’ have worked in the school… ‘X’ came to support our
health week and ‘Y’ came to support Year Six and I think ‘X’ came to
watch the police input but I don’t really know what the ethos of ‘Get
Sorted’ is though to be honest”. (Head, School I)
Whilst information regarding ‘Get Sorted’ had been widely disseminated in a
range of formats, the efficacy of this information being correctly relayed to
practitioners to inform their practice, hinged on two assumptions. Firstly, that
partners and providers would be able to ease confusion when it arose, and be
able to explain to schools how their input fitted into the wider strategic
approach. And secondly, that communications to schools would have been
filtered down to the relevant staff. One PSE teacher interviewed was aware of
the outcomes of work undertaken by the ‘Get Sorted’ team, and was utilising
‘Get Sorted’ methodologies, but had no knowledge that ‘Get Sorted’ had
originated the work.
“We had the Sober and Safe Project in – it was brilliant, but I had no
knowledge that ‘Get Sorted’ had worked with them to design the
sessions they used and advise them on delivery”. (PSE Teacher,
School F)
The use of the ‘Get Sorted’ logo on letters to schools meant that sometimes the
name on the envelope was ignored, with letters to Heads about incident
management and those to PSE teachers about substance misuse education
failing to reach the right person.
“I wouldn’t be able to say what ‘Get Sorted’ do. I wouldn’t say ‘no’ to
them – I know they support the Head regarding substance misuse
incidents. If information has gone out to schools then it hasn’t got to
me – there are some big communication problems”. (PSE Teacher,
School F)
Within six months of the implementation of the ‘Get Sorted’ project the Council
launched two other similarly named projects - the ‘Sort It’ household recycling
scheme, and the ‘Get it Sorted’ debt support service. This caused yet further
confusion for the general public and led to a number of queries that had to be
re-directed to the appropriate service.
Despite the early confusion regarding the nature of the ‘Get Sorted’ project,
recognition of the ‘Get Sorted’ logo and brand is evident. What this branding
252
has managed to achieve is recognition of ‘Get Sorted’ as both a specialist
substance misuse education project, and a LEA service and a Council resource.
The development and distribution of the ‘Get Sorted’ CD Rom has also
supported the ongoing promotion of the project, as it has become a tool
regularly used by schools.
‘Get Sorted’ as a Council resource – level of congruence
The congruence between the intents and observations regarding the branding
of the ‘Get Sorted’ project is at a lower level than within other discussion areas.
The transaction phase is more congruent than the outcome stage, mainly due to
difficulties encountered with stakeholders not thoroughly understanding the role
and aims of the ‘Get Sorted’ project, leading to confusion.
The political driver to brand the project as a Council resource was not
concerned with the identification of the exact role and aims to the wider public.
Instead, its primary focus was maximum visibility to ensure the wider public
were aware it was a Council initiative to tackle substance misuse and educate
children and young people.
The ‘Get Sorted’ logo competition served as a mechanism to brand the project
and market the service. The publicity created gave the platform for the aims and
implementation of ‘Get Sorted’ to be communicated to the wider public, to
promote the efforts being made to provide a co-ordinated response to a priority
issue. A wide range of formal and informal methodologies was employed to
market the ‘Get Sorted’ project as widely as possible, to promote ‘Get Sorted’
as the Council response and resource.
The pro-active approach taken by the ‘Get Sorted’ team to introduce
themselves and the project to providers and stakeholders, also served to
market the services ‘Get Sorted’ could provide, and associate the branding of
the project with a supportive infrastructure. An observed outcome that had not
been originally intended was the development of the ‘Get Sorted’
communication strategy, which has ensured that there is a mechanism in place
to monitor and review the marketing of the ‘Get Sorted’ project.
253
Congruence between the intents and observations in the outcome phase was
less than the transaction phase. Observations highlighted that a general lack of
understanding of the fundamental aim of the ‘Get Sorted’ project, as an
infrastructure to build capacity and support consistent delivery of substance
misuse education, was present amongst four of the eight key stakeholders
interviewed. The official launch event for the ‘Get Sorted’ project provided yet
more opportunity for confusion, with invited speakers referring to ‘Get Sorted’ as
a programme, despite having been briefed prior to the event. Whilst the aim and
objectives of the project were clear to some audiences, without a clear
understanding stakeholders were not in a position to relay information correctly
or correct misunderstanding and confusion when it arose. Observations
document the extended work of the ‘Get Sorted team in addressing this
confusion, and clarifying how the role of ‘Get Sorted’ differed from previously
initiated or current educational programmes. Key school staff reported their
recognition of the ‘Get Sorted’ project as an LEA substance misuse education
service.
Recognition of the branding is evidenced in the observations. The materials
created by ‘Get Sorted’ are clearly identified and recognised by practitioners
and stakeholders, and are familiar to a range of audiences. One intention was
for partners to use the ‘Get Sorted’ logo within their materials to show their
commitment to a co-ordinated approach, and to show their materials were in
line with good practice. Whilst this intention was not observed in this format,
evidence was there to show that partners were content with making verbal
reference to their involvement with ‘Get Sorted’. Whilst parental recognition of
the ‘Get Sorted’ branding was observed, deeper exploration identified that
parents could relate the brand to the Council and to schools; however, parents
were unable to explain the exact nature of the project (parental focus groups –
data set three).
The observations partially evidence the internal recognition of the ‘Get Sorted’
project as a Council resource with the potential to support the LEA and the
Council to meet wider aims. However, this wider recognition is limited to either
the LEA or subject specific topic areas such as bullying, rather than the wider
application of the project’s principles in meeting more generic Council priorities
254
such as partnership working and the establishment of formal links with the
Community Safety Partnership.
8.11 Chapter summary
The findings confirm a high level of congruence between the intents and
observations at the transaction and outcome stages and provide evidence of
the success of the ‘Get Sorted’ project in achieving its initial aims. In a number
of the discussion themes, what was observed has in fact surpassed the initial
intentions and is testament to the ‘Get Sorted’ project’s commitment and ability
to respond to constantly evolving needs, to ensure continuous improvement
towards consistency. In managing to establish consistency in approach, content
and delivery of substance misuse education, and positively impacting on the
knowledge and confidence levels of those delivering it, the ‘Get Sorted’ project
has made a discernable difference to provision and ethos of substance misuse
education in RCT.
The one area of limited congruence that has been identified in this chapter is
the confusion resulting from the branding of the project. The branding of the
‘Get Sorted’ project was a political key driver to maximise the visibility of a
Council led response to addressing the criticisms raised in the 2002 NACRO
report (Davies, et al., 2002), rather than an informed choice. Whilst the branding
of the ‘Get Sorted’ project has led to recognition, the understanding of the
general public regarding the service provided by the team remains unfocused.
Confusion arose following the assumption that ‘Get Sorted’ was a substance
misuse education programme rather than a capacity building infrastructure. The
branding of the ‘Get Sorted’ project does not allow for recognition of its
complexity, and has led to oversimplification of the project’s aims.
The dominance of the antecedent situation prior to the establishment of the ‘Get
Sorted’ project, resulted in the intended outcomes in some project objective
areas being identified first, and the transactions developed to fit these desired
outcomes. The pre-existing environment was in itself a key driver that needed to
be addressed swiftly and effectively before developments towards consistency
could be initiated, therefore this dictated transaction design.
255
Whilst the success of the ‘Get Sorted’ project in achieving its intended aims has
been documented in this chapter, that success remains meaningless without
the wider contextual framework provided by the standards identified in the
following chapter. Comparison of the findings against identified standards (Ch 7,
Table 7.9) allows for informed judgements to be made regarding the success of
the ‘Get Sorted’ project within the wider context of local and national policy and
strategy, and its contribution to informing developments in substance misuse
education outside of RCT. The next chapter will provide judgements based on
how these findings have met the identified standards.
256
Chapter 9. Stake’s (1967) Analysis Part Two: The Judgement Matrix
9.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the findings of the second part of Stake’s (1967) analysis
in terms of the judgement matrix. It identifies the judgements that have been
made regarding the effectiveness of the ‘Get Sorted’ project in developing and
maintaining the infrastructure necessary to support co-ordinated and consistent
substance misuse education in RCT. The process of analysis upon which these
judgements are made is detailed in chapter seven, section 7.3. The preceding
chapters have discussed the antecedents and key drivers upon which the ‘Get
Sorted’ project was developed and the objectives, as intents, were set; and the
level of congruence between these intents and what was observed during the
research process.
This chapter outlines the type of standards that were identified to provide a
contextual framework in which the observations outlined in the previous findings
chapter can be analysed and commented on in the form of judgements. Full
details of these standards and their relevance to the ‘Get Sorted’ project and the
analysis themes can be found in Appendix xxvi.
As with the previous chapter, the judgements made within this chapter are
organised and grouped into the following analysis themes for discussion and
continuity of presentation.

Partnership working

Communication

Approach

Knowledge and confidence of educators

Co-ordination and consistency

Policy and strategy

‘Get Sorted’ as a Council resource
The judgement findings are presented in terms of the analysis themes they
contribute to. This chapter will discuss the judgements that can be made about
257
the success of the ‘Get Sorted’ project within the discussion themes above,
evidenced through the observation findings within the description matrix (Stake,
1967) and substantiated by the standards.
9.2 Standards
There are a number of standards against which both the ‘Get Sorted’ project
objectives and subsequent findings from the previous chapter must be
measured in order to be in a position to make a judgement of its merit in a wider
arena and evidence any judgements about its success in answering the
research questions. The standards have been grouped into five distinct areas
for identification:

Rhondda Cynon Taf documents

Rhondda Cynon Taf substance misuse documents

National substance misuse documents (Wales)

National substance misuse documents (UK)

General children and young people documents
These documents have been identified through two sources. Firstly, the
documentary analysis findings within data set one provided the identification of
‘external’ standards in the form of national strategy and policy documents
relating to substance misuse education. Secondly, ‘internal’ standards in the
form of local strategies and plans were identified from the project related data in
data set two, as these had governed the monitoring requirements of the ‘Get
Sorted’ project. The process of cross-referencing of these standards with both
the objectives of the ‘Get Sorted’ project and the observation findings from the
description matrix is detailed in chapter seven, section 7.3.2 and illustrated in
Tables 7.8 and 7.9. These standards have also been subject to the framework
of questions, based on those identified by Blaxter, Hughes and Tight (2001),
used during the process of documentary analysis in data set one (detailed in
chapter three, section 3.2.2) in order to critically analyse their relevancy and
validity prior to selection and inclusion. The judgements given in this chapter are
drawn from the measurement of the observation findings against these
258
identified standards.
These standards are not only a benchmark against which the performance of
the ‘Get Sorted’ project can be measured, but also determine both the shape
and content of the service delivered by the ‘Get Sorted’ project. The range of
relevant standards, detailed in Appendix xxvi, re-iterates and evidences the
multi-faceted nature of the ‘Get Sorted’ project and the potential impact it has on
substance misuse specific; generic; local; and national, policy and strategy. All
of the identified standards aim to improve the physical and emotional wellbeing
of children and young people, and the ‘Get Sorted’ project contributes to this
agenda by co-ordinating and improving the substance misuse education
services available to children and young people, and improving access to them.
Therefore, the underpinning philosophy and values of the ‘Get Sorted’ project
are comprehensively integrated into wider, non substance misuse specific
children and young people policy areas. Many of these policy documents are
also subject to the ‘sift and sort’ process the ‘Get Sorted’ team undertakes, in
order to effectively disseminate relevant policy to the schools and organisations
the ‘Get Sorted’ project works in partnership with.
The primary reason to establish the ‘Get Sorted’ project was to address the
following needs that were identified by the documentary analysis process (data
set one):

improve communication between policy makers and practitioners
whilst embedding Government policy within practice, and ensuring
policy was informed by good practice;

bring consistency to the approach of delivering substance misuse
education across stakeholders with differing standpoints and existing
programmes;

ensure practice was informed by relevant research.
Over the last three years, ‘Get Sorted’ service provision has been adapted and
evolved to address and incorporate emerging policy, strategy and guidance. In
the case of the ESTYN evaluation of Circular 17/02 (2007) and the Welsh
Assembly Government’s Guidance on Good Practice for the provision of
259
services for Children and Younger People who Use or Misuse Substances in
Wales (2008a), the ‘Get Sorted’ project has in fact become a standard for other
projects, initiatives and local authority responses. For this reason it is important
to note that the standards against which the value of the ‘Get Sorted’ project
can be ascertained in a wider context than RCT, are not finite nor completely
external benchmarks. However, in this respect, these standards remain valid as
a measurement of the level of innovation the ‘Get Sorted’ project demonstrates,
in addressing the multi-faceted challenges inherent in co-ordinating consistent,
multi-agency delivery of effective substance misuse education within an LEA
setting.
9.3 Partnership working
The documentary analysis part of this study evidenced the need for improved
partnership working and a movement away from traditional barriers between
providers emanating from differing philosophical standpoints (Beck, 1998), in
order to improve the provision of substance misuse education and the
consistency of messages given to young people (Coggans et al., 1991; Cohen,
1996b; Beck 1998; Orme and Starkey, 1999; O’Connor, 1999; WAG, 2002a;
WAG, 2002b; Jones et al, 2006; WAG, 2008a). Findings within the antecedent
stage identified potential difficulties in resolving existing conflict between
partners in order to encourage mutually beneficial and positive partnership
working (Ch6: 6.8.2).
The ‘Get Sorted’ project has provided both a strategic focus and practical
support for partnership working, to ensure consistent and equitable delivery of
substance misuse education in RCT (ESTYN, 2007). The ‘Get Sorted’ project
has ‘translated’ the strategic aims and objectives set out in the RCT Substance
Misuse Strategic Action Plan (RCT, 2003), to make them more accessible to
non-specialist practitioners and teachers. Linking substance misuse education
strategies directly into the teaching and learning strategies employed by
schools, has facilitated a better understanding between external substance
misuse education providers and teachers of their role in planning, delivering and
monitoring consistent substance misuse education (Paxton, 1998; WAG, 2002a;
McGrath et al., 2006; Ch8: 8.8).
260
In acknowledging past difficulties between providers, the ‘Get Sorted’ team
have used the parameters of the agreed key message for substance misuse
education (Appendix xxv) to manage positively residual conflict between
providers. In improving communication between individual providers and
between providers and schools, and promoting the agreed key message for
substance misuse education, the ‘Get Sorted’ project has fostered a positive
environment in which trusting relationships have been built, upon the
clarification of roles and responsibilities (ESTYN, 2007). In providing support for
providers to curriculum link and formalise their training plans into lesson plans,
‘Get Sorted’ has bridged the ‘education’ gap between specialist providers and
schools, and promoted improved understanding between the substance misuse
and education fields (Ch 8:8.7).
Developing mechanisms to enable two-way communication between
practitioners and policy-makers has also removed practical barriers to effective
partnership working (WAG, 2008a; ACMD, 2006). In providing practical support
for those involved in partnership initiatives to address substance misuse
education, ‘Get Sorted’ has ‘absorbed’ the challenges of partnership working such as effective communication, differing ethos, capacity, time and resources that can threaten the success of multi-agency initiatives (ESTYN, 2007).
In increasing awareness of the services available from individual providers,
offering signposting to relevant services thereby increasing access to these
services, and ‘absorbing’ the challenges of partnership working, ‘Get Sorted’
has increased the capacity of both schools and external providers to deliver
consistent substance misuse education (Ch8: 8.8).
The ‘Get Sorted’ project is in the correct and necessary position to co-ordinate
multi-agency initiatives and promote the benefits of partnership working (WAG,
2008a; WAG, 2006d). It has also been able to create opportunities for
partnership working, through its inclusive approach (ESTYN, 2007). The
successful development and implementation of the SAFE programme bears
witness to the ‘Get Sorted’ project’s ability to resolve conflict between partners,
and respond to strategic priorities and local need within good practice
guidelines, in a multi-agency way (Lancett, 2005; ESTYN, 2007).
261
The revision of the incident guidelines documents re-iterated and promoted the
holistic approach to the management of incidents that is achievable through
effective partnership working which coupled with the direct support from the
‘Get Sorted’ team, gave schools and youth provisions the means to build
relationships with external agencies (Ch8: 8.4). In this context, partnership
working is defined as the mutual, positive, efficient and appropriate contribution
from a range of services to meet the strategic aim of responding to substance
misuse incidents in a comprehensive way that addresses the social, emotional
and legal wellbeing of individuals. It also incorporates an awareness and
appreciation of the contribution of others to meet this aim.
9.4 Communication
The main vehicle for encouraging more partnership working was to improve the
communication networks between both policy makers and practitioners and
across providers and stakeholders as identified in the documentary analysis
(Ch6: 6.1; 6.5).
The ‘Get Sorted’ project has become the main conduit for ongoing
communication at all levels regarding substance misuse education in RCT
(RCT, 2005a). Having established a number of communication networks and
mechanisms, employing a range of communication methodologies, the ‘Get
Sorted’ project is able to monitor not only the provision of substance misuse
education, but also the effectiveness of the communication networks
themselves (Ch8: 8.5).
As discussed in the previous section, the ‘Get Sorted’ project’s establishment of
communication networks at all levels has supported effective partnership
working, and in turn improved the consistency of substance misuse education
and key messages (Ch8: 8.5). Communication at a practitioner level is
facilitated by the Substance Misuse Education Providers Forum (SMEPF)
network; communication with schools is facilitated via the recognised,
established and trusted LEA mechanisms; and strategic communication is
facilitated via the Prevention Education and Training (PET) sub group to the
Substance Misuse Action Team (SMAT). As a central point of contact, ‘Get
262
Sorted’ acts as a conduit to ensure that communication regarding substance
misuse education is a two-way process (Ch8: 8.4), both horizontally between
providers (including schools), and vertically between practitioners and policy
makers (Ch8: 8.4; ACMD, 2006). The ‘Get Sorted’ project is also able to
integrate communication regarding substance misuse education into wider
communication networks, such as Council and LEA performance reporting
(RCT, 2008a), and communication with the general public through the media
(Ch8: 8.8; Ch8: 8.9).
Whilst there is some evidence that ‘Get Sorted’ has impacted on the
communication systems within schools regarding substance misuse education,
this impact is limited. Data from the initial consultation exercise with schools
(data set two) evidences communication regarding substance misuse issues
within schools to be reserved to head teachers (substance misuse incidents)
and PSE Co-ordinators (substance misuse education). In comparison, head
teachers later interviewed (data set three) reported that there was more
awareness amongst school staff of substance misuse policy and the support
available to the school from the LEA (via the ‘Get Sorted’ project) regarding
dealing with substance misuse issues. PSE teachers supported this, reporting
that there was an improved general interest in the provision of substance
misuse education by colleagues following members of the ‘Get Sorted’ team
spending time within the school. However, the impact on communication
systems within schools is limited by the wide-ranging differences in
communication networks within individual schools. The difficulties experienced
by the ‘Get Sorted’ project in general communication with schools was
supported by stakeholders during interviews. Stakeholders reported that
substance misuse communications sent to the school, irrespective of who it was
addressed to was more often than not passed straight to the head teacher,
which caused delays in response, resulting in missed training opportunities for
intended recipients.
The ‘Get Sorted’ team has successfully employed a range of communication
methods, and engaged target audiences to participate in them (Wragg, 1986;
NPHS, 2006; HM Government, 2008) through face-to-face contact with schools,
providers, stakeholders and groups. Letters, emails, information updates,
263
quarterly narrative reports, newsletters, Ednet (the LEA’s mechanism for
communicating with schools) and the ‘Get Sorted’ website, have all provided
ongoing open lines of communication between practitioners and policy makers,
and establishing links with the Council’s communication team has enabled
regular press releases to be issued.
The ‘Get Sorted’ team has also sought to consult with a range of stakeholders including children and young people, parents, community groups, schools and
professionals - regarding existing provision, and to seek their suggestions to
improve and inform future service delivery (WAG, 2007; Ch6: 6.6.2).
Employing a wide range of methods has enabled ‘Get Sorted’ to identify and
promote good practice, assist effective multi-agency partnership working,
ensure the strategic aims and agreed key message for RCT are clear and
understood, and maintain a substance misuse education focus on active wider
agendas (Ch8: 8.8). Ongoing communication with practitioners has helped
providers to recognise the wider impact of those practitioner’s contributions, and
how emerging policy may require further contribution. In turn, these
communication networks have assisted the ‘Get Sorted’ team to keep abreast of
constant developments, to enable them to maintain swift, accurate and effective
signposting to relevant services (Ch8: 8.5).
The development and implementation of the ‘Harder to Reach’ and the ‘Get
Sorted’ communication strategies, has created the opportunity for
communication to be monitored and reviewed, as well as tailored to meet
evolving needs (HM Government, 2008). The ‘Get Sorted’ communication
strategy identifies target audiences, key messages and methodologies, and
monitors the effectiveness of communication with providers and partners,
stakeholders, and the general public. The ‘Get Sorted’ project’s success in
establishing effective communication strategies is also evidenced by the
secondment of two members of the ‘Get Sorted’ team as substance misuse
communication specialists to the Welsh Assembly Government, to develop and
implement a Substance Misuse Communication Strategy Framework for Wales.
264
9.5 Approach
The findings from the historical documentary analysis identified the need to take
an innovative approach to improving the provision of substance misuse
education in terms of establishing an infrastructure to bring co-ordination and
consistency and support multi-agency delivery (Ch6: 6.1; 6.5). In focusing on
the issues identified as impeding effective substance misuse education and
taking direct pro-active action to address these (e.g. a dedicated resource that
could provide direct in-class team teaching training as well as curriculum linked
resources and support for planning), rather than promote the widespread use of
a rigid programme, the ‘Get Sorted’ project has indeed taken an innovative
approach (ESTYN, 2007; WAG, 2008a).
The pro-active, inclusive approach to improving consistency of substance
misuse education adopted by the ‘Get Sorted’ team has enabled the project to
achieve a considerable amount in a relatively short period of time (Ch8: 8.6). In
less than three years the ‘Get Sorted’ project has effected the necessary culture
change, in terms of improving the relationships and communication between
those delivering substance misuse education, to positively impact on the
learning environment of children and young people involved in substance
misuse education (Ch8: 8.4). This has led to a reduction in the level of conflict
and increased trust between providers, which has been supported by more
direct visible leadership and support from LEA and is observed through the level
of partnership collaboration.
The ‘Get Sorted’ project has resolved conflict between partners through the
development of communication and monitoring systems, and through its
innovative approach has removed the barriers to equitable provision previously
experienced by both schools and external providers (Appendix iii; Ch8: 8.4).
Open communication, and the removal of practical barriers, has addressed the
denial of responsibility and the resulting lack of accountability. The services
provided by ‘Get Sorted’ have ensured that schools’ commitment to the
substance misuse education agenda has not created extra burden (Ch8: 8.9;
Ch8: 8.9; Ch8: 8.9); on-site, in-class training has addressed the financial and
practical barriers of attendance at external training events, therefore building
265
capacity (Ch8: 8.7; Ch8: 8.7; Ch 6: 6.8.1); the ‘sift and sort’ function has
facilitated relevant and swift policy dissemination (Ch8: 8.9); and the production
of exemplar lesson plans and resources has addressed the reported gaps in
supporting materials with which to deliver substance misuse education (Ch8:
8.2.4) and encouraged teacher participation outside of the PSE role (Ch8: 8.7).
The face to face contact with teachers, and the in-class training and support
available, has built rapport and trust between ‘Get Sorted’ and schools, and the
‘Get Sorted’ team have been accepted by teaching staff as their equals (Ch8:
8.7). This acceptance as teachers has built the necessary trust, and has
enabled the ‘Get Sorted’ team to be seen, not as external substance misuse
education providers nor as LEA auditors, but as non-threatening teaching
support with a common shared interest in the wider school agenda. This has
meant that teachers and other providers are more willing to approach the ‘Get
Sorted’ team, who have remained credible and accessible to both formal and
informal educators as an active central point of contact (Ch8: 8.8).
The capacity of the ‘Get Sorted’ team has made it possible for issues pertaining
to substance misuse practice, policy, procedure, education, and partnership
networks, to be addressed simultaneously for maximum impact. The capacity of
‘Get Sorted’ to respond to identified need in a pro-active way has enabled a
visible, flexible response, tailored to and able actively to support individual
needs (Ch8: 8.8). It has also enabled the undertaking of strategic actions to be
tailored to local need, as well as national policy (WAG, 2008a; WAG, 2008b).
This has resulted in ‘Get Sorted’ offering and providing a comprehensive,
inclusive, up to date and needs led service.
9.6 Knowledge and confidence of educators
Whilst the main focus had been placed on the training of teachers to deliver
substance misuse education by increasing their knowledge of illegal drugs and
their awareness of existing educational packages, documentary analysis
identified a lack of support for teachers to apply acquired knowledge to their
own classroom setting (Jones et al., 2006; McWhirter, 2006; Cahill, 2007; Ch4:
4.6). In shifting the focus from specialist substance misuse knowledge acquision
266
and retention to increasing self-reported confidence through the utilisation of
familiar teaching methodologies, the ‘Get Sorted’ project demonstrated
innovation in engaging and supporting teachers to deliver appropriate
substance misuse education (ESTYN, 2007).
In developing exemplar lesson plans, resources and materials, ‘Get Sorted’ has
provided educational resources specific to RCT that draw on local experience
and address local concerns. Materials created have been tailored to local needs
and to bridge the gaps in existing provision (Ch8: 8.2.4; 8.7; 8.8). Central
development of LEA supported materials intended to create a quality assurance
baseline rather than an identified ‘programme’ and the flexibility of the exemplar
materials has enabled the provision of up to date and consistent lesson plans
and resources that do not duplicate the inputs of external providers. The
inclusion of the exemplar lesson plans, resources, materials, good practice
guidance, and policy links, within the ‘Get Sorted’ CD Rom, has given schools
and youth provisions a resource and reference tool (Ch8: 8.7).
Employing specialists with direct professional experience of both substance
misuse and teaching, the ‘Get Sorted’ project has been able to make lesson
plans and materials relevant and accessible to a wide range of audiences, by
employing appropriate methodologies familiar to the educators (SCRE, 2000;
Ch8: 8.7). The focus on methodologies has increased the self-reported
confidence of teachers to use the resources, as successful delivery is not
dependant on the level of knowledge (Ch 8: 8.7; 8.8). Direct in-class training
and support for teachers, and guidance on age appropriate information,
provided by the ‘Get Sorted’ team has also increased the confidence of
teachers to deliver substance misuse education and manage ‘difficult’ questions
posed by pupils which previously constituted the primary fear for teachers (Ch
8: 8.2.5; 8.7). Operational data sourced from the teachers entry and exit
questionnaires (Ch6: 6.6.3) evidences a self reported increase in confidence
levels to deliver substance misuse education from 6.4% strongly agreeing they
were confident at entry to 38.7% on exit. Linking lesson plans to the national
curriculum has also made teachers more secure in the appropriateness of the
content of lessons, as has the backing of the LEA (WAG, 2008c). Year 6 and
year 7 lesson plans support the transition phase between primary and
267
secondary education (WAG, 2001; Ch8: 8.5), and the introduction of the SAFE
programme has increased the confidence of teachers to deliver substance
misuse education in partnership with external agencies (Lancett, 2005; ESTYN,
2007).
Through the provision of lesson plans and resource materials and the on-site,
‘hands on’ support, ‘Get Sorted’ has created an educational baseline of
consistency for substance misuse education, across both formal and informal
education settings (RCT, 2005a; WAG, 2008a; Ch8: 8.7). The co-ordination of
the provision and content of substance misuse education opportunities, has
also led to a reduction in duplication and repetition for young people receiving
substance misuse education in a number of settings (WAG, 2006a).
An increase in the knowledge and confidence of teachers has been evidenced
following the accessing of the ‘Get Sorted’ project’s services (Ch8: 8.7); so too
has the confidence of pupils in their teachers’ ability to deliver substance
misuse education (Ch8: 8.7). The provision of a fully bilingual service, and the
removal of additional language barriers to delivery experienced by Welsh
schools, has also increased the confidence of teachers in Welsh medium
schools not only to deliver substance misuse education, but to do so in Welsh
(NafW, 2000b; WAG, 2004). Schools and teachers now have more confidence
to take ownership of the provision of substance misuse education, and have
become more active in the programme planning process now that they have
access to more external providers, services and interventions (Ch8: 8.8). Head
teachers are also more confident that their responses to the management of
substance misuse incidents are in line with LEA recommendations, and that
specialist advice and support is available from ‘Get Sorted’ for more complex
cases (Ch 8: 8.6; 8.9).
The success achieved by ‘Get Sorted’ in addressing the gaps in resources and
materials, is also evidenced by requests from the Gwent and Dyfed Powys
areas for permission to pilot the ‘Get Sorted’ teaching resources and materials
with teachers and schools in Newport, Carmarthen, Ceredigion and
Pembrokeshire. Pilots in all four areas were successful, and three areas are
currently in the process of purchasing the ‘Get Sorted’ CD Rom as a bilingual,
268
up to date, Welsh resource to be rolled out across all their schools.
The Co-ordinator for Substance Misuse Education also chairs the All Wales
Information and Resources Working Group, on behalf of the Welsh Assembly
Government. The remit of the group is to ensure that substance misuse
information materials are relevant, up to date and appropriate to meet the needs
of a number of target groups and audiences across Wales.
9.7 Co-ordination and consistency
The outcome of the documentary analysis led to the hypothesis that the
establishment of a supportive local infrastructure could co-ordinate the multiagency provision of substance misuse education to improve consistency. The
supported application of policy into practice would bring consistency and equity
to the delivery of substance misuse messages to young people as well as the
approach undertaken by a range of stakeholders with differing standpoints
(Ch6: 6.1; 6.5). This infrastructure would also establish a central point of contact
locally and a dedicated team would be able to establish the central monitoring
of provision and the development of effective communication networks
necessary to improve provision (WAG, 2008b).
The establishment of the ‘Get Sorted’ project has provided a clear-cut, coordinated approach to the provision of consistent equitable substance misuse
education, in a wide range of settings across RCT (ESTYN, 2007). This coordinated and informed approach has removed previous duplication and
inappropriate content (Davies, et al., 2002; Appendix vi), and through the
identification and promotion of good practice and age appropriate guidance
(WAG, 2002a), has implemented a quality assurance mechanism (ESTYN,
2007).
In establishing itself as a trusted central point of contact, ‘Get Sorted’ has
promoted the agreed key message for substance misuse education, and
encouraged and facilitated multi-agency partnership working to meet identified
strategic aims (ESTYN, 2007; WAG, 2008a). In promoting a multi-agency
approach and providing a signposting service to a range of agencies, ‘Get
Sorted’ has improved the consistency of the content of substance misuse
269
education, as well as provided consistency in the availability and accessibility of
substance misuse education provision (Ch 8: 8.4).
The ‘Get Sorted’ project has set and communicated clear expectations for all
specialist and non-specialist substance misuse educators regarding consistent
and appropriate provision (Ch8: 8.4). The establishment of robust progress
reporting mechanisms (RCT, 2008b) has increased the accountability of
partners and providers (including schools) in ensuring their contributions are
consistent, appropriate and in line with the agreed key message for RCT.
The ‘Get Sorted’ project is identified as good practice within the Welsh
Assembly Government ‘Guidance on Good Practice for the provision of services
for Children and Younger People who Use or Misuse Substances in Wales’
(WAG, 2008a; Appendix xxvi) in its role of supporting the delivery of consistent
messages across schools (ibid. p.27) and the acknowledgment that creativity is
required in the provision of such support.
“Services are required that support delivery of consistent messages
across schools by ensuring that young people who are not in regular
attendance at school do not fail to receive education about
substances (e.g. the Get Sorted programme in Rhondda Cynon Taff).
Creativity is required to ensure that these services are available”.
(WAG, 2008a p.27).
The establishment of the ‘Get Sorted’ project has also ensured that new
providers and initiatives delivering substance misuse education in RCT, are
aware of the agreed key message and the strategic aims, and are supported to
integrate their input into the multi-agency approach to consistency (Ch8: 8.5).
The ‘Get Sorted’ project also supports them to access relevant communication
networks to promote their services, increase their awareness of existing
provision, build relationships with existing providers, and access partnership
working opportunities (Ch8: 8.6).
The capacity created by the ‘Get Sorted’ team has enabled the achievements in
co-ordinating consistent substance misuse education to be communicated to
other professionals, parents, community groups and the general public (WAG,
2008b). The creation of the ‘Get Sorted’ team has allowed the Co-ordinator for
Substance Misuse Education to promote substance misuse issues within wider
270
strategic arenas as a cross cutting priority issue, whilst the team has focused on
direct service delivery. This has facilitated comprehensive, simultaneous
achievement of the strategic actions set out by the SMAT (RCT, 2003; RCT,
2005a). The focused remits of the ‘Get Sorted’ staff have allowed for a targeted
yet integrated service delivery, which has improved consistency in a wider
range of settings than just schools and youth provisions (Ch8: 8.8).
Representatives from Torfaen, Carmarthen, Pembrokeshire, Ceredigion,
Newport and Flintshire have also shown a particular interest in the ‘Get Sorted’
project’s ability to improve consistency of provision and access to that provision,
and are in discussion with their respective Councils about replicating the
methodology employed by ‘Get Sorted’, in order to create their own
infrastructure to support effective substance misuse education.
The recently established Substance Misuse Education Steering Group for
Wales as identified in the new Welsh strategy delivery plan (WAG, 2008b) will
also have a remit to review local initiatives to establish infrastructures to support
co-ordinated and consistent provision of substance misuse education. This
review will provide recommendations to the Welsh Assembly Government on
actions that can be taken to encourage Local Authorities to develop such
infrastructures (WAG, 2008b).
9.8 Policy and strategy
The need to support the application of substance misuse policy and the
implementation of national and local substance misuse strategies was clearly
identified as necessary following the documentary analysis part of this study
(Ch3: 3.6; Ch6: 6.5). Coupled with the improvement of two-way communication
networks between policy makers and practitioners, the consistent
implementation of relevant policy and good practice has been a focus for the
‘Get Sorted’ project and has also been externally deemed as successful.
“The ‘Get Sorted’ programme in Rhondda Cynon Taf, developed by
the Substance Misuse Action Team (SMAT), addresses all the
requirements of Circular 17/02. This is a model of good practice in
multi-agency substance misuse education for children and young
people up to the age of 25”. (ESTYN, 2007, pg. 6)
271
The 2007 ESTYN report identifies a number of the aspects of the ‘Get Sorted’
project as a model of good practice. Specific mention is given to the following:

the provision of direct team teaching support to ensure consistent
messages and enable the local authority to undertake its statutory
duty to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of substance misuse
education (ESTYN, 2007 p10);

the efficient use of resources in training teachers to deliver substance
misuse education within a multi-agency approach (ibid. p15);

the development of the SAFE project and the development of
teachers and police officers competence and confidence to deliver
substance misuse education (ibid. p16);

the monitoring of the provision of substance misuse education (ibid.
p24).
The ‘sift and sort’ function the ‘Get Sorted’ team provides regarding policy,
strategy, good practice guidance and research, has been central to the
increased general interest in substance misuse policy outside of the specialist
field (Ch9: 9.4). ‘Get Sorted’ has ‘translated’ policy and strategy according to the
needs of particular audiences to make it more accessible, as well as integrating
it into policy areas with which these audiences are more familiar (HM
Government, 2004; WAG, 2004; Ch8: 8.9). The policy and strategy information
disseminated to partners, providers, schools, youth provisions, local
Councillors, other professionals and stakeholders has been relevant and
appropriate to each group, and the process of dissemination has been
methodical and co-ordinated (Ch8: 8.9).
The ‘Get Sorted’ project has been instrumental in implementing national
substance misuse policy such as ‘Hidden Harm’ (ACMD, 2003), which is
concerned with the impact on children of parental substance misuse and in
increasing awareness of it at a practitioner level, within formal and informal
educational settings. The ‘Hidden Harm’ policy (ibid.) has been included in the
incident guidelines documents, and integrated into wider child protection policy
(Ch8: 8.9). The ‘Get Sorted’ project has also been instrumental in building the
272
foundations for the implementation of the Drug and Alcohol National
Occupational Standards (DANOS) (WAG, 2005) within the ‘wider workforce’, by
ensuring the input of non specialist teachers, youth workers, cluster workers
and police officers in the delivery of substance misuse education, is mapped to
DANOS and formally recognised.
The ‘sift and sort’ function and direct support from the ‘Get Sorted’ team
encourages practitioners at all levels not only to access substance misuse
policy information, but to engage actively in its application (Ch8: 8.9). The direct
face to face and telephone support provided by the ‘Get Sorted’ team has
enabled non-specialist practitioners to apply policy to their practice, and the
communication networks established by ‘Get Sorted’ have facilitated feedback
of practitioners’ experiences of applying policy to informing strategic actions.
This participation in contributing to strategic progress has been welcomed by
practitioners, who feel that the facilitation role undertaken by ‘Get Sorted’ has
removed the additional burden or workload usually experienced with such
participation (Ch8: 8.9).
The ‘Get Sorted’ project has not only disseminated policy, but has also created
local policy regarding the management of substance misuse incidents, and the
provision of age appropriate, relevant, accurate and consistent substance
misuse education (RCT, 2005a). The development of the revised incident
guidelines documents has provided schools and youth provisions with template
policies and clear procedural guidance. Whilst the subjectivity of the statistical
incident data provided by schools, youth provisions and FE colleges can lead to
questions about the reliability of the data itself, what remains important is the
embedding of the process of recording and reporting incidents, rather than the
output. This adoption and implementation of incident reporting procedures is a
sign that the ‘Get Sorted’ project has facilitated cultural change, as well as the
process itself contributing to ongoing cultural change (Ch8: 8.9). In less than
three years the ‘Get Sorted’ project has established the reporting and
monitoring of incidents as a general administrative function of schools, rather
than an ‘auditing’ tool avoided by schools for fear of negative judgements on
their management of pupil behaviour, and the implications for their reputation if
pupil substance misuse is identified (Ch8: 8.6; 8.9).
273
LEA promoted substance misuse education policies have also given schools
confidence to communicate to parents what pupils are taught regarding
substance misuse, and to address positively concerns raised by parents as to
the content and appropriateness of such lessons (Ch8: 8.8; 8.9).
The effectiveness of the ‘Get Sorted’ project in identifying, appropriately
disseminating to, and supporting the implementation of, substance misuse
policy by the ‘wider workforce’ has been recognised at a national level, with the
Co-ordinator for Substance Misuse Education sitting on the Welsh Assembly
Government Workforce Development group, whose focus is the implementation
of DANOS across Wales (WAG, 2005).
9.9 ‘Get Sorted’ as a Council resource
The documentary analysis highlighted the cross-cutting nature of substance
misuse policy as a potential pitfall due to the lack of clarity and agreement of
cross-departmental responsibility at Government level (Drugscope, 2004; Ch3:
3.5.1; 3.6; Ch6: 6.5). This can be directly translated to Local Government
settings, where key statutory sector partners can often be difficult to engage
and the co-ordination and monitoring of substance misuse education often
overlooked as an LEA or Council responsibility (Davies et al., 2002; ESTYN,
2007; WAG, 2008a).
The ‘Get Sorted’ project has provided both the LEA and the wider Council with a
visible, pro-active response to the criticisms within the NACRO report in 2002
(Davies et al., 2002) as well as addressing simultaneously local need, strategic
aims, and national policy regarding substance misuse education. Whilst the ‘Get
Sorted’ project, on behalf of the Council, has created a robust and effective
infrastructure that actively supports, co-ordinates and monitors a range of
providers and individuals in the delivery of substance misuse education,
misguided branding had led to the initial assumption that it is a substance
misuse programme rather than recognition as an innovative infrastructure.
(Ch8; 8.11).
In improving the knowledge and confidence of educators, the ‘Get Sorted’
project - as a cost-effective, sustainable, capacity building project - supports
274
the Council’s priorities set out in the Community Plan (RCT, 2004). It has also
addressed a number of the goals and key actions in the context of the
educational environment (ibid.; Appendix xxvi). ‘Get Sorted’ also supports the
implementation of the LEA’s Education Plan (RCT, 2007) and School
Effectiveness Plan (RCT, 2008a), in particular in its ability to engage and
involve external providers of education. Through the creation and management
of effective communication networks, the ‘Get Sorted’ project has demonstrated
its ability to cleverly co-ordinate a wide range of external inputs from within the
LEA setting to ensure effective, consistent and equitable substance misuse
education provision.
The Co-ordinator for Substance Misuse Education is the identified lead on the
action pertaining to partnership working in order to secure positive outcomes for
children and young people within the RCT Education and Lifelong Learning
Supplementary Education Strategy Plan 2006–2007 (RCT, 2007; Appendix
xxvi). The ‘Get Sorted’ project contributes to all three priorities of this plan;
promoting the interests of vulnerable children; higher standards of achievement;
and promoting learning as a lifelong process, through the provision of advice
and signposting, the policy integration and ‘sift and sort’ function, increasing the
knowledge and confidence of teachers to deliver substance misuse education
and the provision of training opportunities and in-class support. Again, through
the services provided by the ‘Get Sorted’ project and its partnership ethos, the
‘Get Sorted’ project has also impacted on three of the five action themes set out
in the RCT Community Plan: Safer Communities; Our Health and Wellbeing;
and Learning for Growth (RCT, 2004; Appendix xxvi).
The ‘Get Sorted’ project leads both the implementation of a multi-agency
partnership approach (ESTYN, 2007), and the creation of opportunities for the
Council to contribute to partnership initiatives (Ch8: 8.4). In ‘absorbing’ the
challenges of partnership working, the ‘Get Sorted’ project is able to support
ongoing partnerships on behalf of the LEA and the Council, therefore improving
the links and practical working arrangements between the Council and its
partners, including the voluntary sector (Appendix xxvii).
275
The establishment of the ‘Get Sorted’ project and its effectiveness in creating a
central point of contact to co-ordinate the consistent and equitable provision of
substance misuse education and provide advice, support and good practice and
policy guidance, has ‘de-politicised’ substance misuse education in RCT (Ch8:
8.4). The ‘Get Sorted’ project’s inclusive and pro-active approach has enabled
the project to negotiate what was a highly politically charged environment, and
in turn manage queries and concerns that may arise from the political arena.
Providing quarterly progress reports, and highlighting achievements to local
Councillors and key policy makers, has ensured they remain informed of
developments and strategic progress and, via ‘Get Sorted’, have access to
those directly involved in the delivery of substance misuse education (Ch6:
6.6.5).
The revision and supported dissemination of the incident guidelines documents
has allowed the LEA to meet its responsibilities in supporting schools to
manage substance misuse incidents, as well as understand and manage the
wider emotive issues surrounding substance misuse (ESTYN, 2007). The ‘Get
Sorted’ project has played an important role in rationalising the information sent
to schools regarding available services by making the connections with other
council services and initiatives, both in practice and in person, prior to
communicating with schools. Literature sent to schools to support the
implementation of the SAFE programme made particular links to other services
and initiatives, such as transition projects, community focused schools’
initiatives, and the Healthy Schools Scheme (Lancett, 2005).
The ‘Get Sorted’ project has, however, experienced difficulties in responding to
the Council priority of branding within a multi-agency service provision
environment (Ch8: 8.10). The branding of the ‘Get Sorted’ project led to
confusion regarding the nature of the service and in turn, the multi-faceted
nature of the ‘Get Sorted’ project led to further difficulties for individuals in fully
understanding the concept of ‘Get Sorted’ as an infrastructure rather than a
programme, and its ability accurately to relay this information to others (Ch8:
8.10).
276
The success of the ‘Get Sorted’ model in creating an infrastructure has led to its
application in other priority areas identified by the LEA (RCT, 2008a). In the last
12 months the ‘Get Sorted’ team has taken the lead in addressing the
uncoordinated and inconsistent provision of education and measures to address
and prevent bullying, the disengagement of young people and the provision of
sex and relationships education. By utilising the existing communication
networks they have developed, and by engaging existing partners, the ‘Get
Sorted’ project has managed to make considerable inroads into addressing the
issues of bullying, disengagement and sexual health within a partnership
approach.
9.10 Chapter summary
The judgements made in this chapter show that the ‘Get Sorted’ project has
been successful in impacting positively on all seven of the identified themes.
This study has observed the innovative approach undertaken by the ‘Get
Sorted’ project in addressing the factors the documentary analysis identified
that can impede the delivery of effective substance misuse education. Rather
than impose another programme on top of existing provision, focusing upon the
co-ordination of a range of programmes has had significant positive impact in
Rhondda Cynon Taf (ESTYN, 2007).
In response to the action necessary to reduce the ineffectiveness of substance
misuse education (identified in the findings of the documentary analysis and
identified at the beginning of this chapter), the judgements made within this
chapter evidence that the ‘Get Sorted’ project has,

improved communication between policy makers and practitioners
whilst embedding Government policy within practice and ensuring
policy was informed by good practice;

brought consistency to the approach of delivering substance misuse
education across stakeholders with differing standpoints and existing
programmes;

ensured practice was informed by relevant research.
277
The ‘Get Sorted’ project has improved the relationships between providers and
partners and removed the barriers to enable effective partnership working. In
doing so it has brought structure, co-ordination and consistency to the provision
of substance misuse education in RCT.
“Because of ‘Get Sorted’ there is far more structure in RCT than
anywhere else in Wales. Substance misuse education is more pulled
together, more coherent. What’s been achieved in RCT is mindblowing”. (Stakeholder D)
The impact ‘Get Sorted’ has had within RCT has been recognised at a national
level in both the education field and the substance misuse field (ESTYN, 2007;
WAG, 2008a). Its ability to bridge the traditional gap between the two fields on
both a strategic and a practitioner level, has promoted a positive coherent
approach, a shared vision and commitment from all to achieve that vision.
278
Chapter 10. Discussion
10.1 Introduction
This study has evaluated the ‘Get Sorted’ project and concluded that it has
been successful in creating and maintaining an infrastructure to support
substance misuse education in Rhondda Cynon Taf. This study has detailed the
direct contribution made by the ‘Get Sorted’ project to addressing the needs of
RCT, in improving the delivery of substance misuse education for children and
young people, and providing a central point of contact for practitioners and
policy makers, whilst providing open and effective communication channels
between the two.
The findings evidence that ‘Get Sorted’ has effected the cultural change
necessary to improve consistency in the provision, content and delivery of
substance misuse education. The project has done this by changing the
attitudes and perceptions of educators, and promoting substance misuse
education as an educational process rather than purely a substance misuse
intervention. This has been achieved by increasing the knowledge and
confidence of teachers to approach the delivery of substance misuse education
in line with other school processes, and by integrating substance misuse policy,
strategy, research and practice into a whole school approach.
The merits of the ‘Get Sorted’ project as a support mechanism for the
implementation of substance misuse policy and practice are contextualised in
the wider sense through its links to identified standards. The ‘Get Sorted’ project
actively encompasses all aspects of the Welsh Assembly Government guidance
circular 17/02 (2002) - including policy development, the sharing and monitoring
of good practice, and the management of substance misuse related incidents and through its identification as a model of good practice in the ESTYN
evaluation (2007) of this guidance document, has itself become a standard for
other initiatives.
This chapter discusses how this study has answered the research questions
posed, both the initial set at the start of the documentary analysis and the
subsequent set formulated to evaluate the ‘Get Sorted’ project. This chapter
279
also outlines the methodological considerations of this study and explores
considerations for practitioner research; substance misuse education; and
future research and study.
10.2 Research questions
The key findings of this study are summarised in this section in relation to the
research questions they serve to answer under the sub headings of
‘Documentary Analysis’ and ‘Evaluation of the ‘Get Sorted’ Project’. Evidence
used to answer the research questions posed for the documentary analysis has
been drawn from data set one. Similarly, evidence used to answer the research
questions posed for the evaluation of the ‘Get Sorted’ project have been drawn
from the findings of Stake’s (1967) analysis of the data corpus, therefore,
evidence is sourced from data sets one, two and three.
Documentary Analysis
In order to explore the reasons for the ongoing provision of what is deemed
‘ineffective’ drug education (ACMD, 2006), historical documentary analysis was
undertaken to answer the following questions:

How has Government policy on drug education been informed in the
last 30 years?

What have been the predominant approaches to drug education over
the last three decades?

How has drug education developed over the last 30 years?

How has public perception and media coverage affected the
provision and content of drug education over the last 30 years?
10.2.1 How has Government policy on drug education been informed in
the last 30 years?
Giving the responsibility for drug education to schools whilst placing it within a
health or criminal justice agenda (WAG, 2008b; HM Government, 2008),
Government policy has diminished the likelihood of drug education achieving its
intended outcomes (Clements et al, 1988; Allot et al., 1999). Over the last 30
280
years the development and direction of Government policy has been subject to
the dominance and control of both public opinion and of the media, but in recent
years the inclusion of practitioners in supporting policy development has been
evident (WAG, 2000; WAG 2008b; Ch3: 3.5.1).
The input of drug education practitioners (Cohen, 2005), and the use of nonmanipulated research findings (Coggans et al., 1991), is necessary for
Government policy to achieve fully its intended outcomes. Practitioners are best
placed to inform policy makers regarding realistic aims, objectives and
outcomes for drug education, necessary to ensure effectiveness can be
adequately measured (Cohen, 2005). In turn, Government policy has a role in
encouraging the long-term, focused, ongoing evaluation of drug education
programmes and supporting the application of policy into practice. Future policy
developments should reflect research findings, and not just public opinion, to
guarantee consistency and co-ordination. Policy that encourages the delivery of
drug education opportunities for young people in a wide range of settings will, in
turn, promote a consistent message and co-ordinated approach that supports
the provision in schools (Crosswaite, Tooby and Cyster, 2004).
The cross-departmental nature of the implementation of drug education policy
has limited its ability to impact within wider Government drug policy (Drugscope,
2004; Ch3: 3.4.1). Clear roles of responsibility and accountability within
substance misuse strategy are assisting in the enhanced co-operation and
commitment to drug education of relevant stakeholders (WAG, 2008b). Coordination is necessary to ensure that the drug education agenda is firmly
embedded within the responsibilities of a number of Government departments.
10.2.2 What have been the predominant approaches to drug education
over the last three decades?
Whilst five discernible types of drug education can be identified: Information
Based; Life skills and Values Deficit; Resistance Training; Alternatives Based;
and Peer Education, many programmes in existence today are a mix of a
number of these types (Ch4: 4.6; Coggans et al., 1999; Lowden and Powney,
1999). The unrealistic success criteria against which the effectiveness of drug
education is measured means that whilst there is a wealth of research available,
281
adequate evaluations of both individual approaches and hybrid approaches
remain limited (Coggans et al., 1999; Lowden and Powney, 1999; McBride,
2003; Fitzgerald, 2006; Ch4: 4.5). Future development of drug education
packages needs to incorporate relevant evaluative methodologies, and set
realistic timescales for the measurement of effectiveness (Lowden and Powney,
1999; McBride, 2003). The aim of any drug education programme needs to be
clearly outlined from the outset, and its success must be measured against its
objectives (Stead and Angus, 2004). Its replication elsewhere must also not fall
prey to the assumption that one programme or approach will meet all needs
(HEBS, 1997; Lowden and Powney, 1999; Ch4: 4.6).
Whatever the approach to drug education schools choose to employ,
implementation and evaluation needs to be planned, comprehensive and
supported (WAG, 2002a; ACMD, 2006; ESTYN, 2007; Ch5: 5.6.4). The aims
and intended outcomes of drug education should be based on the needs of
young people, rather than reflecting the philosophical or moral standpoint of
teachers (Coggans and McKellar, 1994; Coggans and Watson, 1995; Beck,
1998) or the ease of delivery (EMCDDA, 2008; DCSF, 2008). The sustainability
of effective drug education within the school setting is dependant on its
integration into the wider school curriculum (Stead et al, 2007) and the
confidence of educators to deliver it (Fitzgerald, 2006; DCSF, 2008). A
consistent approach to drug education in schools is necessary, with the
provision of baseline, multi-faceted, cross-curricula drug education at all stages
throughout a pupil’s school career (NICE, 2007c). Pupils should have access to
knowledge about drugs and their effects on the body through the science
curriculum, leaving other areas of the curriculum, such as PSE, a statutory
requirement in Wales (WAG, 2008c), to tackle a range of wider issues such as
legality, attitudes and reasons for use. A recent report from the Department for
Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) called for PSHE in England to become
a statutory subject in order to improve the quality of drug and alcohol education
and also the quality of training available to teachers, both at initial teacher
training and continued professional development stages (DCSF, 2008). More
detailed information should be made available for those with specific interest or
need, and be delivered by individuals with the adequate training to confidently
282
impart drug information through appropriate methods (POST, 1996; Fitzgerald,
2006; RSA, 2007). Its place in a wider educational agenda that incorporates
wider educational theory, would ensure drug education is shaped and tailored to
meet learners’ needs (Lowden and Powney, 1999) rather than concerned with
the delivery of a particular ‘one size fits all’ programme, and allow the
employment of existing educational tools in the assessment of the learning
experience (Coggans et al., 1991; Lowden and Powney, 1999; HEBS, 2003).
10.2.3 How has drug education developed over the last 30 years?
Drug education has developed in two opposing directions over the last 30
years. Whilst Government policy has identified its desired direction, this has not
always been in line with research findings and practitioner experience
(Anderson, 1988; Bagnall and Plant, 1987; Davies, 1986; Rhodes, 1990;
Coggans et al 1991; Ch5: 5.6.1). The anti-drug campaigning of the late 1980’s
as the Government’s attempt to educate individuals about drugs was in stark
contrast to the provision of harm reduction based ‘information giving’
approaches employed by specialist drug agencies during the same period
(Rhodes, 1990). The battle between prevention and harm reduction approaches
to drug education has ebbed somewhat since the mid 1990’s. However, there is
still some way to go in the move away from funding, and public opinion (shaped
by the media), remaining the predominant drivers for developments in drug
education (Beck, 1998). Developed Government policy and guidance that
supports the ‘information giving’ and ‘life skills’ approaches (WAG, 2002a) has
provided the ‘educational intervention’ middle ground, where drug educators
can choose to employ a range of delivery methods to suit individual need that
promotes a broader exploration of drug related issues. Paradoxically,
Government policy remains very much in the prevention paradigm in relation to
evaluative research into success or effectiveness (Ch5: 5.6.1), hindering the
evolution of tailored approaches to drug education in favour of ‘tried and tested’,
rigid programmes (Cohen, 1996a; Lowden and Powney, 1999; HEBS, 2003;
Des Jarlais et al., 2006; RSA, 2007).
Research has shown what works in relation to drug education and factors that
can influence its effectiveness (Swadi and Zeitlin, 1987; Goodstadt, 1990;
283
Tobler and Stratton, 1997; Lowden and Powney, 1999; Coggans et al, 1999;
ACMD, 2006). This research has a place in informing the development of new,
and the adaptation of existing, educational intervention approaches to drug
education. The break away from the sole focus on the measurement of societal
impact, and the employment of educational strategies to evaluate individual
impact, enables schools to play a more active role in the provision of effective
drug education, and ultimately the implementation of Government policy
(Goodstadt and Willet, 1989; Coggans et al, 1991; Lowden and Powney, 1999;
Stead and Angus, 2004). The key to providing appropriate, relevant and
effective drug education is that this process is conducted in partnership with
young people as well as other organisations, trained and competent to meet the
varied needs and enhance the learning experience of pupils (Coggans et al.,
1999; Lowden and Powney, 1999; WAG, 2002a; McGrath et al., 2006b).
10.2.4 How has public perception and media coverage affected the
provision and content of drug education over the last 30 years?
Over the last 30 years, public perception and media coverage has been central
not only to the provision and content of drug education, but also the direction
and development of drug education policy and the application of research
findings into the effectiveness of approaches. The interdependent relationship
between drug education practice, policy and research, and public opinion on the
same topic is a complicated one. On the one hand, research findings are held
up as incontestable if they support the media’s manipulation of public opinion;
however on the other hand, if they challenge public opinion or the status quo
they are disregarded or undermined (Anderson, 1988; Bagnall and Plant, 1987;
Davies, 1986; Rhodes, 1990; Coggans et al 1991). The subject of drugs is an
emotive issue, one upon which a large number of people hold strong opinions
that, in the main, tend to be based on limited or no direct experience or
understanding of what is a complex issue. The negative portrayal of drugs and
drug users in the media (Rhodes, 1990), makes both the refocusing of provision
and objective research into the effectiveness of such provision extremely
difficult, due to the powerful influence the media plays in shaping public opinion,
as well an individual’s own personal norms and values (Ch5: 5.6.1). This
situation also leads to provision, policy and research in this area being subject
284
to significant scrutiny or dismissal if findings move away from public opinion
(Coggans et al, 1991). With the media sat firmly in the prevention camp,
Government policy has traditionally followed suit, even if this has meant
ignoring significant research findings regarding the effectiveness of campaigns
and education packages, that they themselves have commissioned (ibid.,
Anderson, 1988; Bagnall and Plant, 1987; Davies, 1986; Rhodes, 1990).
The findings from the historical documentary analysis were utilised in the
establishment of the ‘Get Sorted’ project as an initiative at a local authority level
designed to establish an infrastructure for the supported delivery of schoolbased substance misuse education.
Evaluation of the ‘Get Sorted’ Project
The use of Stake’s (1967) Countenance Theory as an analytic approach to the
data corpus has enabled a multi-faceted evaluation of the ‘Get Sorted’ project.
Stake’s (1967) matrices have facilitated evidence from the three data sets being
used to converge on aspects of the project from a number of angles. This has
resulted in a broad evidence base from which answers to the following research
questions, posed at the beginning of this part of the study, are given:

Has the initiative improved communication between key stakeholders
regarding substance misuse education?

Has the support for schools in the delivery of substance misuse
education improved?

Has the support for schools in the management of substance misuse
incidents improved?

Has the initiative increased the confidence of teachers in addressing
the substance misuse education needs of pupils?

Can the initiative as a model for cultural change be replicated in other
areas to address other issues faced by a local authority?
Within the discussion of each of these research questions, a summary of
evidence is given alongside discussion of areas still requiring development, as
appropriate.
285
10.2.5 Has the initiative improved communication between key
stakeholders regarding substance misuse education?
Summary of evidence
The study evidences the improvement in communication between key
stakeholders at all levels (Ch8: 8.4; Ch8: 8.5; Ch9: 9.4). In establishing effective
two-way communication networks at a practitioner level, the ‘Get Sorted’ project
has encouraged the identification and sharing of good practice, supporting the
multi-agency delivery of substance misuse education. Communication between
practitioners and policy makers, via the ‘Get Sorted’ team, has also been
improved and thus supports the development and monitoring of strategic
actions as evidenced in the RCT Substance Misuse Action Plans (RCT, 2005a;
Ch8: 8.4; Ch8: 8.5; Ch9: 9.3; Ch9: 9.4). Strategic actions are developed based
on the information provided by practitioners regarding gaps in provision, and are
reviewed in light of practitioners’ feedback of their experiences of implementing
strategic actions.
In improving the communication networks, interviews with stakeholders (data
set three) confirm that the ‘Get Sorted’ project has also improved the
relationships between providers, and has supported a meaningful and
productive multi-agency approach to the provision and delivery of substance
misuse education (Ch8: 8.4; Ch8: 8.5; Ch9: 9.3; Ch9: 9.4). This collaborative
approach has removed the duplication of the same substance misuse education
sessions delivered in different settings, which has in turn led to improvement of
the learning experiences of children and young people involved in substance
misuse education. The development of the ‘Harder to Reach’ communication
strategy (Appendix xxiii) has created appropriate opportunities for engaging
identified groups in substance misuse education. The ‘Get Sorted’ project’s
focus on identifying particular groups has been recognised as good practice by
the Welsh Assembly Government and is referenced in WAG Guidance (WAG,
2008a). It has also promoted the need for the provision of substance misuse
education for ‘harder to reach’ groups to focus on the quality of the
methodologies employed, rather than the quantity of education delivered.
286
Further developments
Analysis of project related data (data set two) and evaluative focus group data
(data set three) evidences that there has been some increase in communication
with parents and the general public as stakeholders in substance misuse
education. The development of the ‘Get Sorted’ communication strategy
(Appendix xxii) has facilitated the co-ordinated dissemination and monitoring of
key messages to the general public regarding substance misuse education.
However, further research needs to be undertaken regarding the effectiveness
of these messages in increasing understanding of substance misuse issues.
The data shows that whilst there is some public awareness of the existence of
the ‘Get Sorted’ project and its link to substance misuse issues, there is little
evidence to show there is any understanding of the rationale behind, or aims of,
the project.
10.2.6 Has the support for schools in the delivery of substance misuse
education improved?
Summary of evidence
There is considerable evidence from data sets two and three that the ‘Get
Sorted’ project has improved the both the practical and procedural support for
schools in the delivery of substance misuse education (Ch8: 8.7; Ch8: 8.8; Ch9:
9.5). In creating the ‘Get Sorted’ CD Rom, ‘Get Sorted’ has given schools a
comprehensive resource with which to inform their planning, delivery and
evaluation of substance misuse education. Exemplar curriculum linked lesson
plans and associated resources and materials; good practice guidance,
including age appropriate information; substance misuse education policy
templates; and sources of further help and support, all contained on the CD
Rom, have encouraged and enabled schools to take ownership of their
provision of substance misuse education (Ch8: 8.7). Initial consultation with
school staff (as part of data set two) evidences the above having been identified
by schools as required prior to the establishment of the project. The ‘Get Sorted’
CD Rom therefore evidences a practical response to this request. In directly
responding to the needs identified by schools, the impact of the production and
implementation of the CD Rom has been particularly successful. The
287
implementation of the CD Rom has been effective, which is evidenced by its
widespread use across school and the feedback of PSE teachers during
interviews (data set three). The success of the ‘Get Sorted’ CD Rom is further
stated by requests to purchase it from other Local Authority areas (Ch9: 9.6).
The adoption of the agreed key message for substance misuse education has
also increased schools’ access to consistent and appropriate external inputs, as
all partners can offer assurance that their input is in line with a County Borough
wide approach (Ch8: 8.5; Ch8: 8.7; Ch9: 9.5; Ch9: 9.7). Stakeholder data (data
set three) identifies the visibility of an agreed County wide approach as
particularly useful in the monitoring of the implementation and progress of newly
established programmes. The WAG funded national substance misuse
programme (the All Wales Core Programme) has also benefited from support
from the ‘Get Sorted’ project to understand how the programme fits into a coordinated County wide approach (Ch8: 8.5). In the opinion of stakeholders, this
structure to the co-ordination of multi-agency provision in RCT has been the key
to improving coherency and consistency in the delivery of substance misuse
education (Ch8: 8.8; 8.8; Ch9: 9.10). The LEA’s commitment to, and promotion
of, the agreed key message has also offered support to schools, who can feel
secure and confident to communicate to parents that their approach to the
delivery of substance misuse education is advocated by the LEA (Ch8: 8.8;
8.9).
Practical, hands-on support for teachers, available from the ‘Get Sorted’ team in
the form of team teaching, has also impacted on the confidence of teachers to
deliver substance misuse education. This type of support has given them the
tools with which to teach, such as exemplar curriculum linked lesson plans,
based on employing interactive pedagogies, and the skills to manage what they
perceive to be ‘difficult’ or ‘unplanned’ questions from pupils (Ch 8: 8.2.5; 8.7).
Evidence shows the positive impact this team teaching approach has had on
the self reported level of teachers’ confidence to delivery substance misuse
education. Providing materials and supporting teachers’ application of skills and
knowledge within the classroom has consolidated their confidence to deliver
substance misuse education as part of the school curriculum (Ch8: 8.7). This
support for teachers addresses criticisms of the isolation of substance misuse
288
education from the wider educational agenda (Jones et al., 2006; Cahill, 2007).
The CD Rom has also given schools the means to provide multi-faceted, cross
curricular drug education at all stages of a pupil’s school career (NICE, 2007c).
Further developments
Whilst the requirement to update teaching resources and materials and provide
update training (including training for new staff) will be ongoing, evidence
identifies there are no obvious further developments necessary in terms of
support for the delivery of substance misuse education at this time. In
consideration of the evidence summarised in section 10.2.2 of this chapter, it
will be necessary to ensure that future provision remains planned,
comprehensive and supported (WAG, 2002a; ACMD, 2006; ESTYN, 2007; Ch5:
5.6.4), tailored to the needs of pupils (EMCDDA, 2008; DCSF, 2008) and part of
a whole school curriculum (Stead et al, 2007).
10.2.7 Has the support for schools in the management of substance
misuse incidents improved?
Summary of evidence
Evidence identifies that the revision and supported dissemination of the
substance misuse incident guidelines has been pivotal in providing the
necessary procedural information and advice to support schools in the
management of incidents (Ch 8: 8.4; Ch8: 8.6; Ch8: 8.9; Ch9: 9.9), as required
by WAG Guidance (WAG, 2002a). The development of effective incident
reporting procedures, and the creation of data management systems to monitor
incidents, has resulted in targeted support being made available when incidents
are identified (Ch8: 8.6; 8.9). For the majority of schools, the reporting of
substance misuse incident data has almost become an administrative task,
rather than a feared ‘auditing’ procedure with potentially dire repercussions for
the school’s reputation, as was previously perceived (Ch8: 8.9; Ch9: 9.8). The
establishment of accessible data collection procedures has also created a much
needed baseline (Ch6: 6.6.4; Ch8: 8.9) against which progress towards
reducing the number of substance misuse incidents can be measured
(Appendix xxiv).
289
Evidence from data set three illustrates that the ‘Get Sorted’ project has
established a coherent, consistent and holistic approach to the management of
substance misuse incidents for schools. Project related data from data set two
supports this by evidencing the provision of telephone and face to face practical
advice and support for schools in dealing with incidents. All head teachers
interviewed reported feeling more confident in their ability to manage substance
misuse incidents in the knowledge that the ‘Get Sorted’ team is available to
advise on procedure and signpost to other services (Ch8: 8.6; Ch8: 8.9 Ch9:
9.3; Ch9: 9.6). Head teachers also reported increased confidence in the LEA
response to community issues that impact on their schools, especially in the
primary school sector in the targeting of drug related litter on school premises
(Ch8: 8.6).
Evidence shows that the performance target set by the Home Office and WAG
(to reduce the number of incidents in RCT schools by 5% over three years) has
been significantly exceeded. Project related data from data set two evidences a
28.8% reduction in reported incidents within two years. However, further
analysis of the data corpus highlights issues surrounding the reliability of
statistics based on self-reported data (Ch8: 8.9). Whilst the bias of self-reported
data limits the conclusions that can be drawn regarding the reduction in the
number of incidents, this research question is concerned with the level of
support provided. The qualitative data from data set three therefore evidences
the improvement in the support for schools dealing with substance misuse
incidents (Ch8: 8.9).
Further developments
Whilst improved support for the management of incidents and the systems for
monitoring the number and nature of incidents are evidenced, there is limited
evidence to show how this incident data is used to inform other services.
Incident statistics (data set two) evidence an 88% increase in referral on to
specialist agencies, however, there are no evident, robust links between the
‘Get Sorted’ project and non-substance misuse specific agencies (e.g. social
services). The project would benefit from the development of closer links with
such agencies in order to encourage their communication with schools in the
290
monitoring of the referral outcomes for young people involved in substance
misuse incidents.
The development of teaching materials designed to address specific substance
misuse related issues faced by schools would also provide a further dimension
of support for schools in the management of substance misuse incidents.
10.2.8 Has the initiative increased the confidence of teachers in
addressing the substance misuse education needs of pupils?
Summary of evidence
The service provided by the ‘Get Sorted’ project has increased the confidence
of teachers to address the substance misuse education needs of pupils and is
evidenced through the project related data (‘Get Sorted’ exit questionnaires –
data set two) and interviews with PSE teachers (data set three). The
improvement in self-reported confidence levels of educators positively impacts
on the creation of a ‘safe, supportive learning environment’ for children and
young people (WAG, 2002a p.13).
The provision of up to date exemplar lesson plans and resources within the ‘Get
Sorted’ CD Rom, and the direct in-class support offered by the ‘Get Sorted’
team to use such materials, has contributed to this increase in confidence. The
data from data sets two and three evidence an improvement in the level of
confidence of teachers when the antecedent situation prior to the establishment
of the ‘Get Sorted’ project (Ch8: 8.2.5) is compared with the data gathered from
interviews with PSE teachers (Ch8: 8.7). Documentary analysis findings
concluded that sustained support and training (including effective and
appropriate resources) is essential if teachers are to feel confident, motivated
and equipped to deliver effective, evidence-based, substance misuse education
practice (Sumnall et al., 2006; Jones et al., 2006). The focus on familiar
teaching methodology within the ‘Get Sorted’ exemplar lesson plans has also
increased teachers’ confidence to view their roles as informed facilitators of
substance misuse education rather than subject experts (Ch8: 8.7; RSA, 2007).
In encouraging the use of interactive teaching approaches, the ‘Get Sorted’
project has shifted the focus of the delivery of substance misuse education from
291
the traditional expert didactic approach, to an interactive pedagogy that
responds to the input of the learners, that is more in line with evolved teaching
approaches encouraged in the 3-19 Skills Framework (WAG, 2008d). The
notion of interactivity is underpinned by the theoretical framework developed by
both empirical studies (Dusenbury & Falco, 1995; Tobler & Stratton, 1997;
Cuijpers, 2002) and qualitative studies (Botvin & Griffin, 2007; Stead et al,
2007) that have concluded that an interactive approach is a crucial element in
determining the effectiveness of substance misuse education. Stead et al.
(2007), in their study of the implementation of the Blueprint programme, found
that pupils would like lessons to be more interactive (in terms of pupil to pupil
interaction facilitated by a teacher) and emotionally engaging, and to help them
better link and apply the information provided to their own lives and future
circumstances. The methodologies promoted through the exemplar lesson
plans have encouraged teachers (through familiarity with their own pedagogies)
to tailor lessons to fit existing teaching and learning styles as evidenced through
interviews with PSE teachers in data set three. The ‘Get Sorted’ exemplar
lesson plans have also encouraged teachers to apply pupil centred teaching
approaches associated with established teaching strategies such as critical
thinking skills, and literacy and numeracy as espoused by the 3-19 Skills
Framework (WAG, 2008d).
Data gathered from interviews with head teachers has evidenced that in
providing a central point of contact for schools within the LEA (Ch8: 8.5), the
‘Get Sorted’ project has enabled the content and provision of substance misuse
education to be co-ordinated (Ch8: 8.8). The project has also fostered an
holistic approach to the management of specific substance misuse issues as
encouraged by WAG Guidance (WAG, 2002a). The bilingual service provision
of the ‘Get Sorted’ project has also improved the confidence of Welsh medium
schoolteachers to address the language needs of their pupils with up to date
tailored resources, and to overcome these traditional barriers to delivering
substance misuse education in Welsh (Ch8: 8.7; Ch9: 9.6).
The face to face relationships built between the ‘Get Sorted’ team and schools
have enabled schools to feel confident to contact ‘Get Sorted’ for information
and advice (Ch8: 8.7; Ch8: 8.8; Ch9: 9.5). The pro-active approach of the ‘Get
292
Sorted’ team and their flexibility in meeting individual needs has, in turn,
supported schools to address pupil needs more readily. The approach of the
‘Get Sorted’ project has been particularly successful due to the ‘hands on’
nature of contact with teachers. Findings from interviews with head teachers
(data set three) identified that the direct support was most valued as the
demonstration element of the ‘Get Sorted’ approach gave the team more
credibility in the eyes of teaching staff (Ch8: 8.7).
Further developments
Whilst the evidence from data sets two and three clearly shows the increase in
self reported confidence of teachers to plan and deliver substance misuse
education, the project would benefit from further developing the confidence of
teachers to identify the substance misuse education needs of pupils. The
identification of pupil needs has previously been established as a central pillar
to the effective delivery of substance misuse education (HEBS, 1997; Lowden
and Powney, 1999). Whilst identification of broad need is currently undertaken
by the ‘Get Sorted’ team, the identification of individual need (in addition to
identification of prior learning) is necessary to further improve the educational
experience for pupils (ibid.). Evidence supports the success of the ‘Get Sorted’
project’s pro-active approach, which could be employed to support the
identification of pupils’ needs.
The project would also benefit from developing methods of assessing the
confidence of teachers in the long term to ensure that improvements in
confidence are maintained, possibly through the implementation of lesson
observations.
10.2.9 Can the initiative as a model for cultural change be replicated in
other areas to address other issues faced by a local authority?
Summary of evidence
Evidence suggests that the ‘Get Sorted’ project has affected significant cultural
change within the area of substance misuse education in terms of improving the
relationships and communication between those delivering substance misuse
education (Ch9: 9.8). Analysis of project related data (data set two) shows that
293
stakeholder agendas played a central role in creating barriers to the initial
implementation of the ‘Get Sorted’ project. Hostility and mistrust between
providers of substance misuse education fuelled a culture of blame that
undermined the effective delivery of substance misuse education across RCT
(Ch6: 6.8.2). Documentary analysis findings concluded that a lack of consensus
on the aims of substance misuse education underpins the conflict between
stakeholders that impedes the effective co-ordination and communication
necessary to support the effective provision of drug education (Coggans et al.,
1991; Beck 1998; Ch6: 6.1). Analysis of qualitative research data (data set
three) evidences that this culture has undergone significant positive change as
reported by stakeholders and head teachers (Ch8: 8.4). Providers have been
brought into partnership with each other by the ‘Get Sorted’ project from a
position of support rather then opposition or coercion and clear roles and
expectations have been set. Improved communication has led to a reduction in
the level of conflict, and increased trust between providers, which has been
supported by more direct visible leadership and support from LEA (Ch8: 8.8)
and is observed through the level of partnership collaboration (Ch8: 8.4). Initial
steps to address other issues faced by the LEA in the same way, such as
bullying and disengagement, have also been successful (Ch8: 8.10; Ch9: 9.9).
The evidence points to several key strengths of the ‘Get Sorted’ project that
enable it to affect the cultural change necessary for continuous improvement,
such as the pro-active approach and the promotion of an agreed key message.
However, all centre on the project’s ability to communicate openly, honestly and
- most importantly - appropriately, with a wide range of individuals and groups.
In promoting and facilitating inclusive, multi-way communication between
providers of substance misuse education, the evidence confirms that the ‘Get
Sorted’ project has created and identified opportunities for effective partnership
working that contributes to improving consistency (Ch8: 8.4). The facilitation of
these communication networks, and the capacity of the ‘Get Sorted’ team, have
also enabled ‘Get Sorted’ to facilitate multi-agency initiatives on a practical
level, thus ‘absorbing’ and resolving the difficulties inherent in partnership
working (ibid).
294
The ‘Get Sorted’ project’s pro-active, integrated approach to supporting
consistency, visibly communicates to professionals the strategic aims of the
RCT Substance Misuse Action Plan (RCT, 2005a), and the commitment given
to the provision of substance misuse education by the LEA (Davies et al., 2002;
ESTYN, 2007; WAG, 2008a Ch8: 8.8). The evidence identifies the outreach
based, pro-active approach employed by the ‘Get Sorted’ team communicates
the practical support available to teachers and educators and helps them to
understand their contributions to wider strategic aims (Ch8: 8.9). In integrating
substance misuse policy, strategy and practice into the existing policy, strategy
and practice relevant to particular audiences, the ‘Get Sorted’ project has
implemented change. This change has resulted in increased awareness of
policy, increased consistency in the implementation of policy and increased
accountability for adhering to policy, without increasing the workloads of nonspecialist staff (Ch8: 8.6; 8.9; Ch9: 9.5; Ch9: 9.8). Project related data (initial
consultation with schools - data set two) evidences that prior to the
establishment of the ‘Get Sorted’ project only 38% of secondary head teachers
and 12% or primary cluster convenors were aware of the WAG Guidance
document Substance Misuse: Children and Young People (WAG, 2002a;
Appendix iii). All head teachers interviewed (data set three) reported increased
awareness of substance misuse policy through the dissemination of the
substance misuse incident guideline document and also the ‘Get Sorted’ CD
Rom. There is also evidence (performance monitoring – data set two; interviews
- data set three) of schools accessing the support of the ‘Get Sorted’ team
regarding complex policy applications (Ch8: 8.9) and the integration of
substance misuse policy into wider school policies (Ch8: 8.9).
The success of the initial work undertaken by the ‘Get Sorted’ team in the areas
of bullying and disengagement, is attributable to the methodologies employed
by the ‘Get Sorted’ project to implement a multi-agency approach to
consistency, supported by sophisticated, effective and appropriate
communication networks at all levels. This study has enabled identification of
the key elements that have made ‘Get Sorted’ an effective model for cultural
change, and therefore emphasises the value of the project as a Council
resource and facilitates its replication in other service areas.
295
Further developments
The evidence identified difficulties that have stemmed from the branding of the
project (Ch8: 8.10). Linked to the further developments required in section
10.2.5, evidence suggests that the project needs to focus on developing the
understanding of the wider public regarding its aims and rationale, if it is to be
replicated in other areas to address other issues faced by a local authority.
Replication in other areas, without clarifying the role of the project to other
agencies and services, would lead to further confusion. Interview data from
stakeholders identifies that the marketing of the team as ‘advisors’ (Ch8: 8.10)
may be beneficial to aiding understanding of the role of the project in supporting
others rather than delivering educational programmes. This may also be
beneficial in facilitating the projects move away from a substance misuse
specific focus.
10.3 Methodological considerations
The ‘Get Sorted’ project was initiated as a response to a particular situation with
a group of stakeholders subject to the direct influence of a funding body. The
project was developed and implemented to address practice issues rather than
to answer research questions. Therefore, there were practical limitations
governing the choice of methodology employed to gather the project related
data in data set two. Whilst these methods had been selected to meet project
related requirements, there were useful conclusions drawn from this data set
that supported the creation of a broader research picture. However, analysis of
the data corpus brought to light the practical limitations that governed this data
set. These limitations have not compromised the findings of this study, however,
the research process has indicated further conclusions that could have been
drawn from this data set if alternative methods had been employed. One of
these limitations was the financing of the project, which restricted the capacity
of the team to gather project related data for research purposes over and above
what was required by funders. The explicit requirement of the project’s funders
was to measure the progress of the project across the local authority region,
therefore this governed the focus of data collection. Reliance on the selfreported nature of some of the data gathered also limited the conclusions that
296
could be drawn of the longer term impact of input from the ‘Get Sorted’ team, for
example, the confidence levels of teachers.
Reflecting on the attempt to gather data in various ways within the three data
sets, parallels can be drawn with the dual role of practitioner and researcher.
The methods used to collect project related data for data set two reflect the
practical need of the practitioner to evidence the monitoring of project progress
towards identified targets to external funders. In this case, the reporting of
project data to funders required a mainly quantitative methodological approach
to data collection and analysis in the provision of statistical progress
information. The qualitative methodological approach taken in data set three, for
the evaluation of the ‘Get Sorted’ project, reflects the researchers need to
undertake separate and original research. The qualitative approach to the initial
consultation exercises in data set two had provided the most interesting and
insightful data and it was from the perspective of researcher that the decision
was made to expand the qualitative aspect of the study for data set three. The
range of methodologies employed gave a broad picture of a complex situation
from a number of angles.
This approach may be seen as a positive benefit in recognising the complexity
of social situations that include multiple participants interpreting their
experiences. Law (2004) has argued that applying broader and flexible
methodologies is more appropriate to address this complexity. This is a point
previously acknowledged by Aunger (1995), who also proposes that multiple
methodologies can work more effectively in complex situations. This supports
the adoption of the multi-method approach to this study, attempting to obtain a
contextualised picture of the ‘Get Sorted’ project and its impact in RCT.
Stake’s (1967) Countenance Theory was selected as an analytic approach to
the data corpus as it offered a structured framework within which both
qualitative and quantitative data could co-exist, as well as offering a systematic
approach to the analysis of data. In this way, countenance theory reflected the
research paradigm as well as accommodating the differing perspectives of
stakeholders regarding the role and aim of substance misuse education.
297
Potential difficulties were identified at the outset in applying Countenance
Theory to this study, regarding the nature of what was being studied and the
nature of the study itself. These difficulties were realised during the testing of
the matrices due to the wealth of data available and the fact the ‘Get Sorted’
project was not a programme of education. The difficulties experienced centred
on the rigidity of Stake’s description matrix in compartmentalising the intents
and observations at the antecedent, transaction and outcome stages (see
Chapter 2: Figure 2.2; Appendix iv).
Although Stake’s (1967) description matrix attempts to capture the complexity of
the data, to employ it as designed to evaluate an educational ‘programme’ still
forces the data to be interpreted in linear structures. Whilst Countenance
Theory enables distinction to be made between which transactions and
outcomes were intended and what was actually observed, the linear structure of
the description matrix did not fully account for the nature of the data source, nor
the ‘zigzag’ (Eriksen, 1995) interdependency between theory and data. This
resulted in inevitable overlap between intentions and observations at all stages,
as well as the antecedent, transaction and outcome stages themselves. Eriksen
(1995) refers to ‘zigzags’, which better reflects the interdependency of theory
and data, with one modifying the other as the process develops.
“We may envisage the search for this kind of general insight as a
zigzag movement between the observation of fact and theoretical
reasoning, where new facts modify the theory and (modified) theory
accounts for the facts.” (Eriksen, 1995 p.28).
When analysing data within the antecedent stage, it became obvious that the
retrospective nature of stakeholder perceptions (as gathered in data set three)
was causing a ‘blurring’ between the intents and the observations. There was
also a ‘blurring’ between the transactions and outcomes stages in the data
collected and analysed making subsequent findings in data set three impossible
to categorise within these stages. This therefore made the organisation of data
within the description matrix to identify horizontal lines of relationships between
the data, as directed by Stake (1967), impracticable. The issues associated with
the inherent conflict for practitioners undertaking research into their own
situations further compounded this situation (as discussed in section 10.4).
298
These difficulties were overcome by modifying the description matrix (as
described in Chapter two section 2.4.1) to fit the research setting. The impact of
this necessary modification was considerable, as it provided a more flexible
response to the organisation of data from various sources in various ways, in
order to interpret the data corpus. Themes derived from thematic analysis of
data set three provided a further dimension to the organisation of the data within
the description matrix which complemented the discussion of the level
congruence between the intents and observations.
The judgement matrix within Stake’s (1967) theory did not require modification
and its application was straightforward. The judgement matrix was useful in
addressing potential criticisms of practitioners regarding the validity of
judgements made (see section 10.4), as it offered judgements to be made in the
context of identified standards. Including both internal and external standards
provided the wider context in which the evaluation of the ‘Get Sorted’ project
fitted.
Whilst the modification of the description matrix improved the fit of Stake’s
(1967) analysis to this study, it was unable to ensure an exact fit due to the
nature of the data within the data corpus. As previously discussed, the selection
of methods for gathering the project related data in data set two was governed
by the practical requirements of the ‘Get Sorted’ project rather than for research
purposes. At times this led to incompatibility of data that limited comparison
across data sets during Stake’s (1967) analysis. On reflection, the selection of
an alternative methodological approach to data set two may well have eased
the process of analysing the data corpus. If this study was to be repeated, either
the nature of the data sources used, or further refinements to the description
matrix, would need to be considered. Despite the difficulties encountered, the
use of Stake’s (1967) Countenance Theory as an analytic approach to the data
corpus was of best fit for this study.
299
10.4 Considerations for practitioner research
As the originator and also the manager of the ‘Get Sorted’ project, the author
was inextricably linked to the subject, and central to the execution, of the study
both as a practitioner and a researcher. The findings of the initial historical
documentary analysis led the author to design the ‘Get Sorted’ project to
address these findings as well as test whether the co-ordinated approach,
possible through the development of an infrastructure, could in fact remove
some of the barriers to effective substance misuse education (see Chapter 6
section 6.1).
In the course of this work, the author has experienced some difficulty
negotiating the conflict between ‘practitioner’ and ‘researcher’. The description
matrix within Stake’s (1967) analysis lends itself to easier application by the
practitioner and, similarly, the judgement matrix to the researcher. In
documenting the findings of this study, the author’s practitioner role strove to
describe and document all aspects of the research; however the researcher role
endeavoured to capture the bigger picture within a more theoretical framework.
Utilising thematic analysis proved essential in addressing this issue. This
method of analysis provided discussion themes for the presentation of the
findings and subsequent judgements, and refined the description to balance the
practitioner and researcher perspectives. The research process of applying
thematic analysis created themes, central to the success of the ‘Get Sorted’
project, that were not originally recognised in practice (such as the project as a
Council resource) and illustrate how the process of research has enlightened
practice. The process of modifying and applying Stake’s (1967) Countenance
Theory in order to analyse the data corpus within the themes derived from the
thematic analysis of data set three, has created further opportunity for
evaluative measurement of the ‘Get Sorted’ project.
The difficulties that emerged in applying Stake’s (1967) matrices during the data
analysis stage centred on the challenges inherent in practitioner research. As
the researcher and also the practitioner, one is not only an active part of the
process of research, but also an active part in the process of what is being
studied. The process of research intrinsically affected and modified ideas and
300
theories utilised as researcher and as practitioner, thus modifying the practice
being studied, and directly influencing the research methodologies governing
how it was studied.
Issues of reflexivity were a central consideration in establishing the study’s
credibility in the eyes of its researcher, practitioner and policy maker target
audiences. Reflexivity is crucial in social research as the practitioner /
researcher cannot ignore their prior knowledge, own agenda, beliefs and
values, without being subject to scrutiny from the reader. Hyde (1987) identifies
a lack of reflexivity in those providing education, as they have:
“significantly underestimated the role played by the philosophies of
those who shape programme development, implementation, research
and evaluation.” (Hyde, 1987 p.131).
As the originator of the ‘Get Sorted’ project, the author’s values have influenced
their practice, therefore they need to be identified and recognised as central to
such practice, and influential in this research (Hyde, 1987; Cronbach, 1978;
Krathwohl, 1980; Scriven, 1974). The complex relationship between the author
as both a practitioner and a researcher required acknowledgement that there
was personal knowledge of the situation that was studied, and knowledge of
some of the individuals data had been collected from.
Another difficulty experienced in exercising the dual roles of researcher and
practitioner centred on issues of validity. The political driver to prematurely
evaluate substance misuse education, usually a stipulated prerequisite of
funding, leads practitioners to question the validity and credibility of evaluative
findings (Lowden and Powney, 1999). Whilst the identification and acceptance
of reflexivity is standard and to be expected within the methodological
discussions of the research field, it is still an issue of contention for substance
misuse education practitioners. Within the substance misuse education field
there still exists the negative perception that the practitioner undertaking
evaluative research into their own practice, is likely to skew their findings to
reflect favourably upon that practice in order to secure its longevity. This lack of
understanding of the process of research also leads practitioners to assume
that research findings have little meaning in terms of informing their practice, as
301
the assumption is that researchers are not adequately au fait regarding the
complexities of the subject they are studying. This notion is supported by the
findings of St. Clair, Chen and Taylor’s (2007) study of the use of research by
adult literacy practitioners.
“Many teachers tend to use their own values, beliefs and experiences
as their method for deciding whether or not a research study was
“valid”, rather than evidence presented in the study.” (St. Clair et al.,
2007, pg. 4)
This issue of validity and acceptability played a part in the choice of Stake’s
(1967) Countenance Theory as an analytic approach. As a practitionerresearcher the author wanted to produce findings that were useful to both
practitioners and researchers and that acknowledged current issues within, and
external pressures upon, the practice of substance misuse education. As a
structured, transparent and tangible framework, Countenance Theory provided
some level of practitioner detachment that minimised the questioning of validity.
Stake’s (1967) analysis also provided meaningful judgements rather than
merely identifying the difficulties of evaluating complex, ‘soft’, outcome based
practice (Blueprint, 2009). Having been measured against external standards,
these judgements were more likely to be viewed by practitioners as having
some degree of objectivity and therefore helpful in informing their practice.
As a practitioner, the author’s criticisms of a number of previous substance
misuse education evaluations, centred upon their simplistic presentation of
substance misuse education (Clements et al, 1988; Rhodes, 1990; Cohen,
1992; Coggans and McKellar, 1994; POST, 1996), a lack of recognition of the
context in which substance misuse education was delivered (Cohen, 1992;
Coggans and McKellar, 1994; SCRE, 2000) and the difficulties experienced by
practitioners due to the external pressure put upon initiatives to meet unrealistic
aims (Cohen, 1996b; Beck, 1998; ACMD, 2006). Through the use of Stake’s
(1967) matrices to support analysis of the data corpus, this study has attempted
to address these aforementioned criticisms. In approaching the data collection
for this study from a number of methodological perspectives, the analysis of the
data corpus facilitated by Stake’s (1967) matrices provides a rounded and multifaceted account of what was studied.
302
Dadds (2004) advocates the sense of conviction and passion practitioners have
about the value of their work, as being a vital attribute for research. Whilst
practitioner knowledge and experience has enhanced this research, the
commitment on both a professional and personal level to the subject of the
research, has at times interrupted the process. Whilst this has not impeded the
production of findings, it did make the presentation of findings more difficult than
expected. It was in the editing process that the balance between the practitioner
striving to describe every detail, and the researcher seeking the bigger picture
within a theoretical framework, was achieved.
This study has evidenced the impact of the ‘Get Sorted’ project, as well as
evidencing the value of documenting the process of evaluation, including
highlighting the practical challenges experienced.
“By publicly documenting the learning journeys we undertake in the
process we are offering not just practical educational theories but also
‘living educational theories’ (McNiff and Whitehead, 2002:4), since
our accounts are stories of the insights that emerge from our real life
experiences. In doing this, we make ourselves publicly accountable
by showing, through careful documentation, how our research leads
to improvements in education.” (Dadds, 2004, pg.8)
This study has also identified significant lessons to be learnt in terms of
undertaking practitioner research in the future. The drive to pre-empt and
appease practitioners’ potential criticisms has at times overly complicated the
focus of the study and led to earlier drafts of the presentation of findings
appearing confused and verbose. This drive also set the tone of earlier drafts,
and the use of practitioner focused descriptions led to the appearance of ill
applied terminology from a research perspective. Allowing the practitioner
perspective to dominate the research process also resulted in an overemphasis on the reporting of findings at the expense of providing clear detail of
the research process itself. Putting the practitioner role to one side ceased the
ongoing battle for dominance between the dual roles. Whilst one agrees with
Dadds (2004) that practitioners are best placed to undertake research, potential
criticisms from fellow practitioners need to be acknowledged and explored by
practitioners embarking on evaluative research regarding substance misuse
education if the lessons from this study are to be learnt. One possible solution
303
to diffusing questions of objectivity and validity posed by practitioners is to
undertake collaborative research. Kemmis and McTaggart (1998) support this
suggestion, arguing that bringing about social and educational change is more
effective if practitioners undertake research as a collective, as this increases the
opportunities for enhancing understanding of both practice and research, and
supports the wider application of research findings to practice.
10.5 Considerations for substance misuse education
The process of undertaking this research has raised significant questions for
practitioners involved in the delivery of substance misuse education regarding
the fundamental assumptions upon which their practice is based (Beck, 1998;
McBride, 2003). Documentary analysis showed that the simplified messages of
the polarised standpoints of prevention and harm reduction are equally
ineffective (Clements et al., 1988; Wragg, 1992; Cohen, 1996b; ACMD, 2006).
The ‘just say no’ prevention approach asserts that young people have little
cognitive ability to understand more complex information, or to question the
simplistic messages given to them that may not reflect their personal situation
(Cohen, 1996b; O’Connor et al, 1999; Stead et al., 2007). Paradoxically, the
judgement free, information giving approach of harm reduction, asserts that
young people have the level of cognitive ability necessary to apply this
knowledge to their own personal situation, despite it being questionable whether
most adults are able to do this. If the information giving approach has been
evidenced as the least effective method of delivering substance misuse
education (Dorn and Murji, 1992; McGrath et al.,2006b), have practitioners who
advocate the harm reduction approach chosen to do so based on theoretical
knowledge, or as a way of registering their opposition to the prevention
standpoint? (Des Jarlais et al., 2006).
What is needed to rectify the destructive split between the two standpoints is a
framework that acknowledges the need to find the ‘middle ground’. This
framework needs to support the employment of appropriate educational
methods that can be tailored to meet identified need (HEBS, 1997; Lowden and
Powney, 1999), and that is understood across the board by policy makers,
politicians, funders, practitioners, parents, young people, substance users and
304
the general public (NPHS, 2006). This study has evidenced that the ‘Get Sorted’
project has gone some way in establishing such a framework.
If the substance misuse education messages given to young people are
inconsistent or not appropriately tailored to their educational and social needs,
young people experience additional difficulties in attempting to apply those
messages outside the classroom (Cohen, 1996b; O’Connor et al, 1999). For
those young people who may already be using drugs as a way of coping with
society, inappropriate messages cause additional stress and alienation, which
in turn is likely to increase substance use (Dorn, 1986; Rhodes, 1990). Where
the messages given may be appropriate, the environment in which they are
given is often wrong (Newcombe, 1988; Cohen, 2005). For young people using
substances, educational intervention is not necessarily appropriate within the
generic school environment. In these respects, despite our best intentions, in
delivering the substance misuse education programmes currently available in
schools, we may actually be contributing to the difficulties experienced by young
people.
The focus of substance misuse education needs to shift away from purely
subject specific expert knowledge, towards the provision of a learning
environment that is tailored to the learning and development needs of
beneficiaries (HEBS, 1997; Lowden and Powney, 1999). Effective messages do
not have to be obvious e.g. ‘Don’t do drugs because….’ or ‘if you are going to
try drugs make sure you….’; if anything, the moralistic framework in which they
are conveyed becomes a barrier to effectiveness (Coggans and McKellar, 1994;
Coggans and Watson, 1995). The more we make substance misuse messages
and the agenda behind them obvious, the more we are failing to create the
learning environments necessary to explore the wider context in which
substance use occurs, and to allow young people to effectively apply this
knowledge to their own situation in order to keep themselves safe. A softer,
holistic approach to the delivery of substance misuse messages within a nonsubject specific framework removes the responsibility that adults inadvertently
place on young people to make ‘morally correct,’ adult life choices (SCRE,
2000) when they are only capable of making choices appropriate to their age
and experience. Positioning substance misuse education within wider life skills,
305
decision making, personal safety or community safety education projects,
embeds the substance misuse messages within a wider context alongside the
acquisition of generic tools that aid young people to negotiate interactive
situations (Goodstadt and Willet, 1989; Coggans et al, 1991; HEBS, 1997;
Lowden and Powney, 1999).
The political scrutiny of substance misuse education, the dominance the media
and the general public have over the content of substance misuse education
programmes, and the over-reliance on inappropriate evaluation methodologies
as the predominant criterion for funding, renders substance misuse education
ineffective (Cohen, 1996a; Beck, 1998).
Government policy is at a crossroads; whilst their promotion of prevention
based substance misuse education has appeased the media and the general
public in the past, research shows it has been ineffective in preventing drug use
(Clements et al, 1988; Beck, 1998; Allot et al., 1999; ACMD, 2006; McGrath et
al., 2006a). Over the course of this research, a number of documents and
studies have been published that call for both the Government and practitioners
to rethink the philosophy behind the provision of school based substance
misuse education in order to increase its effectiveness (Beck, 1998; ACMD,
2006; Jones et al., 2006; ESTYN, 2007). Some practitioners, who have yet to
explore honestly and objectively the nature of the philosophies that underpin
recognised approaches to the delivery of substance misuse education, have not
embraced this notion, nor questioned how realistic the aim of preventing drug
use is. Instead these practitioners have interpreted such findings as criticisms of
their practice rather than long-awaited acknowledgement that the tools and
expectations they have been given to implement and measure the effectiveness
of their practice are insufficient and unfit for purpose.
There is an immediate need for the development of a shared, agreed vision,
and accessible terminology that does not imply that substance misuse
education can achieve unrealistic goals (Dorn and Murji, 1992; Jansen et al.,
1996; Cohen, 1996b; Beck, 1998; Allot et al., 1999; ACMD, 2006). This vision
needs to challenge the automatic interpretation of experimental substance use
by young people as a mark of the failure of substance misuse education, rather
306
than a stage of adolescence where self-identity is tested (Beck, 1998). This
vision needs to be clearly communicated to all stakeholders, the media and the
general public. The latest substance misuse strategy for Wales (WAG, 2008b)
acknowledges this issue of terminology and has placed substance misuse
education within the ‘Preventing Harm’ priority action and separated it from
other forms of prevention activity.
Substance misuse education alone can no longer be expected to reduce the
demand for drugs in isolation from other interventions (Clements et al, 1988;
Beck, 1998; Allot et al., 1999; WAG, 2002a; HEBS, 2003; ACMD, 2006; WAG,
2008a; WAG, 2008b). To reduce the demand for drugs we need to challenge
the function substance use fulfils for young people. Beyond the experimental
stage, young people’s drug use is a symptom of their ability to cope in society.
In supporting young people to negotiate their position within society and explore
techniques that allow them to cope with societal situations, adults and
professionals are in a position to contribute to a reduction in the demand for
drugs (Goodstadt and Willet, 1989; Coggans et al, 1991; Lowden and Powney,
1999; Cohen, 2005).
From the author’s experience as a substance misuse practitioner, it is young
people’s belief in themselves, and their knowledge and understanding of
society, the nature of social interactions, and their place and role in society, that
keeps them safe from problematic drug use / misuse. Substance misuse
education interventions that seek to support the development of young people’s
perceptions of their roles in society, need to assess and address the issue of
self efficacy. Bandura (1994) defines self efficacy as people's beliefs about their
capabilities to produce designated levels of performance that exercise influence
over events that affect their lives. Self-efficacy beliefs determine how people
feel, think, motivate themselves and behave. Such beliefs produce these
diverse effects through four major processes that include cognitive,
motivational, affective and selection processes (Bandura, 1994). As young
people are increasingly participating in adult society at a younger age, they
perceive themselves to be adults based on their experiences, yet their cognitive
and emotional skills generally remain at the level of their chronological age.
Paradoxically, adults tend to treat young people as children in education
307
settings, yet expect them to make real adult choices outside of the classroom
based on the information given to them in the classroom. Assessing a young
person’s level of self efficacy and responding appropriately, encourages young
people to take an active part in their learning, the development and review of
substance misuse education practice, and the setting of a realistic agenda for
drug education, rather than remaining passive in the process.
The substance misuse education field needs to go through an ‘identity crisis’
process, to explore its fundamental aims and underpinning philosophy, without
the threat of losing funding and political backing (Beck, 1998; McBride, 2003).
This process would enable improved practitioner and policy maker knowledge
and confidence in the role substance misuse education plays in equipping
young people to function within society, rather than preventing the use of
substances. It would also bring a sense of unity to the substance misuse
education field, through the identification of informed reasoning behind practice
and provision (ibid.).
The continual adaptation of substance misuse education practice to meet the
challenges of implementing unsuitable policy and fulfilling unrealistic
expectations, is testament to the passion, commitment and innovation of
practitioners within this field. This study has evidenced that it is possible for
practitioners to analyse their practice and provide robust evidence to challenge
ineffective policy. It is through this type of research that the development and
implementation of suitable policy, realistic expectations and effective substance
misuse education is achievable.
308
10.6 Considerations for further research
A study of this nature offers a number of considerations for further research.
Four suggestions are offered in this section and include:

the replication of the principles of the ‘Get Sorted’ project in another
local authority area;

the replication of the principles of the ‘Get Sorted’ project to address
other subject related issue faced by RCT local authority;

an evaluative study of the long term impact of the ‘Get Sorted’ project
on substance misuse education in Rhondda Cynon Taf;

examination of the relationship between the underpinning
assumptions of people working in the substance misuse field in terms
of their practice and the cultures pervading the areas in which they
work.
Rhondda Cynon Taf (RCT) is currently viewed by the Welsh Assembly
Government as one of the most successful local authority areas in Wales at
tackling substance misuse issues and visibly supporting the provision of
consistent substance misuse education (ESTYN, 2007; WAG 2008a). The
commitment to substance misuse education in RCT has enabled innovation in a
complex, multi-faceted area. The ‘Get Sorted’ project is unique to Wales, and
has drawn the attention of policy makers towards the need to create an
infrastructure that promotes and co-ordinates partnership working, and also
meets strategic and policy responsibilities, as well as the needs of children and
young people, professionals, parents and communities, regarding substance
misuse education.
The author, in the capacity of Education specialist on the Welsh Assembly
Government’s ministerial Advisory Panel on Substance Misuse (APoSM), is
now a member of the recently convened Substance Misuse Education Steering
Group for Wales. The remit of this all Wales Steering Group includes the review
of substance misuse education practice in Wales and the provision of
recommendations for improving the co-ordination and consistency of multiagency provision at a local authority level. In the development of the SAFE
309
programme (Appendix xx) in partnership with the national Welsh Assembly
Government funded All Wales Police Core Programme (Appendix xx), RCT has
managed to mould a national programme to fit local need, whilst at the same
time consolidating effective partnership communication and joint working within
the locality. The Substance Misuse Steering Group has requested that the
findings of the evaluation of the SAFE programme are presented to them in
order to provide a basis for discussion. The findings of this study will also serve
to inform discussion at a Welsh Assembly Government level regarding the
replication of the principles of the ‘Get Sorted’ project in other geographical
areas, providing evidence of the positive impact the establishment of an
infrastructure has had on the co-ordination and consistency of substance
misuse education in Rhondda Cynon Taf.
The ‘rolling out’ of the implementation of local infrastructures to support coordinated and consistent substance misuse education across other
geographical areas in Wales would allow for the undertaking of a comparative
study into the impact of their establishment, implementation and impact.
Utilising Stake’s (1967) Countenance Theory would allow for a further level of
analysis in the form of ‘relative comparison’ as described by Stake (Appendix iv)
that, due to the uniqueness of the ‘Get Sorted’ project, was not available to this
study. Relative comparison uses the descriptive data and characteristics from
similar programmes as a further set of standards against which to evaluate.
Determining whether these relative standards have been met offers a wider
context for judgements to be framed and would allow for further evaluative data
pertaining to the ‘Get Sorted’ project to be produced.
At a local authority level, further study into the effectiveness of utilising the
principles of the ‘Get Sorted’ project to build the capacity of educators and
facilitate a co-ordinated partnership approach to the delivery of sex and
relationships education would be of benefit to Rhondda Cynon Taf. Elements of
the ‘Get Sorted’ project approach such as policy development and
implementation and the building of communication networks between providers
has already been applied to this area and has been positively received by
schools. A sex and relationships guidelines document has been prepared with
the provision of programme planning support and in-class team teaching
310
support being made available from academic year 2010-2011. This study would
enable comparisons to be made across subject areas and provide further
evidence regarding the benefit of the Local Authority investment into a
dedicated team to manage an infrastructure that encourages and co-ordinates a
partnership approach to addressing community issues.
As the nature of substance misuse constantly changes, and developments in
education evolve, the tools with which to delivery substance misuse education
need to adapt appropriately. Whilst this study has focused on the establishment
and impact of the ‘Get Sorted’ project in its first three years, additional research
in five years time to assess whether the project has provided long term coordination and consistency in the provision of substance misuse education in
RCT would enhance the evidence base. Evaluating the impact of the ‘Get
Sorted’ project on substance misuse education would involve comparison of the
effectiveness of messages from different providers with various target groups
and whether the partnership approach contributes to increasing effectiveness. A
realist evaluation approach (Pawson and Tilley, 1997) would be of interest to
measure the impact of improvements in partnership working (created by the
‘Get Sorted’ project) on the education of young people, allowing for
measurements of increased knowledge and / or societal change. In terms of
measuring the increase in knowledge and confidence of educators, this study
focused on analysing the changing positions of schools across a local authority
region. Further research would provide the opportunity to analyse changing
positions at an individual level and also at a school level through the use of a
case study or action research. These findings would provide a further dimension
to this existing study.
An examination of the relationship between the underpinning assumptions of
professionals working in the substance misuse field (regarding their practice)
and the cultures pervading the areas in which they work would seek to expand
on some of the issues raised in this study. An examination of how the
underpinning assumptions of the prevention and harm reduction standpoints
exist independently of the individuals working in the substance misuse field,
would offer insight into how this has affected the evolution of substance misuse
policy. It would also offer insight into the criteria against which substance
311
misuse education is measured to deem its effectiveness or success. This
avenue of study would throw further light onto the reasoning behind the
perceived ‘failure’ of substance misuse education and provide supporting
evidence to the substance misuse field regarding the exploration of its’
underpinning philosophy as called for by the author in the previous section.
10.7 Chapter summary
This study has investigated the underlying causes of ineffective substance
misuse education, and has identified and offered solutions to the difficulties
experienced by practitioners of substance misuse education related to policy,
practice and research. It has consolidated existing research in this area, and
has explored the nature of the confusion and conflict that exists between policy
makers, providers and the general public, regarding the value and merit of
differing approaches to drug education. This has been achieved by providing an
historical account of the significant developments in this area, and a broader
understanding of the philosophies behind such developments. The findings
illustrate the conflict that exists between the ‘prevention’ and ‘harm reduction’
approaches to substance misuse education in attempting to achieve
predominance as the most effective. Analysis of the assumptions that underpin
these opposed paradigms, in conjunction with Burrell and Morgan’s (1979)
subjective-objective dimension of assumptions within social sciences, offers an
original contribution to this debate. This directly contributes to future discussion
regarding the criteria against which the effectiveness of substance misuse
education is measured. It also contributes to the debate regarding how realistic
current expectations are of the impact of substance misuse education
programmes on the prevention of drug taking.
In applying the research findings of the documentary analysis to practice, this
study provides evidence that shifting the focus from measuring the
effectiveness of individual programmes, to the creation of a local authority
infrastructure, promotes collaboration between providers, thus improving the
effectiveness of the education they deliver. This application of research into
practice also offers an original contribution to the development of future
substance misuse education policy. The findings of this study provide evidence
312
that shifting the focus of substance misuse policy towards improving the
organisation of education at a local level has been successful in significantly
improving the communication and co-operation between those delivering
programmes. This study also provides evidence that this approach supports the
co-ordinated dissemination and implementation of substance misuse policy in
schools as well as across a range of other organisations working with young
people, bringing consistency to the messages given to young people.
The modification of Stake’s Countenance Theory of Educational Evaluation
(1967) and its application as an analytic approach to this study contributes to
future methodological discussions regarding the evaluation of substance misuse
education interventions. In providing an analytic framework, the modified
matrices support the analysis of data from different methodological
perspectives. This is particularly helpful when studying the complex nature of
substance misuse education, as the utilisation of a number of sources of data
enables the creation of a broad picture of what is being studied. Stake’s (1967)
analysis also enables evidenced judgements to be made about the
effectiveness of substance misuse education initiatives within a wider
educational context.
This study has successfully achieved its aim of identifying the reasons behind
the ongoing delivery of ‘ineffective’ school-based substance misuse education
in the UK (ACMD, 2006). It has also provided evaluative evidence of the
success of the ‘Get Sorted’ project as a research based infrastructure in coordinating substance misuse education within a local authority area. In Rhondda
Cynon Taf, the implementation of the ‘Get Sorted’ project has improved the
effectiveness of the multi-agency delivery of substance misuse education and
established co-ordination and consistency.
313
References
ACCAC (2000) Personal and Social Education Framework Key Stages 1-4 in
Wales. Cardiff.
Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, (1984) Prevention. London: HMSO.
Advisory Council on Misuse of Drugs, (1993) Drug Education in Schools: the
need for new impetus. London: HMSO.
Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, (2003) Hidden Harm: Responding to
the needs of children of problem drug users. London: HMSO.
Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (2006) Pathways To Problems.
Hazardous use of tobacco, alcohol and other drugs by young people in the UK
and its implications for policy. Home Office, London.
Albera, D., (1988) Open Systems and Closed Minds: the limitations of naivety in
social anthropology – a native’s view. Man (N.S.): Vol. 23, pp 435-452.
Allott, R., Paxton, R., Leonard, R., (1999) Drug education: a review of British
Government policy and evidence of effectiveness. Health Education Research
Theory and Practice: Vol 14, pp 491-505.
Anderson, D., (1988) The megaphone solution: Government attempts to cure
social problems with mass media campaigns. Social Affairs Unit.
Appell, G. N., (1980) Epistemological Issues in Anthropological Enquiry.
Canberra Anthropology: Vol. 4, pp 1-27.
Armstrong, B. K., de Klerk, N. H., Shean, R. E., Dunn, D. A. and Dolin, P. J.,
(1990) Influence of education and advertising on the uptake of smoking by
children. The Medical Journal of Australia: Vol. 152, pp 117-124.
Ashton, M., (1995) The evidence is slim that education can prevent drug use.
Druglink: Vol. 10 (3), pp 6-7.
Aunger, R., (1995) On Ethnography. Story telling or science?. Current
Anthropology: Vol. 36, pp 97-130.
Badderley, A. D., (2001) Is working memory still working? American
Psychologist: Vol 56. pp 851-864.
Bagnall, G., Plant, M. A., (1987) The Government’s initial campaign. British
Journal of Addiction: Vol 295 (6599), pp 660-661.
Bagnall, G., Plant, M. A., (1987) Education on drugs and alcohol: past
disappointments and future challenges. Health Education Research: Vol 2 (4),
pp 417-422.
314
Baker, O., (1998) Czar czar galore. Druglink: Vol. 13 (1), pp 9-12.
Balding, J., (2004) Young people in 2003: The health related behaviour
questionnaire results for 15,526 young people between the ages of 10 and 15.
Exeter: School Health Education Unit.
Bandura, A., (1994) Self Efficacy. In V.S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
human behaviour: Vol 4, pp 71-78. New York: Academic Press.
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli,C., Caprara, G.V., Pastorelli, C., (1996) Multifaceted
Impact of Self Efficacy Beliefs on Academic Functioning. Child Development:
Vol 67 (3), pp 1206-1222.
Bandura, A., (1997) Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behaviour change.
Psychological Review: Vol. 84, pp 191-215.
Bangert-Drowns, R., (1988) The effects of school-based drug substance abuse
education – a meta-analysis. Journal of Drug Education: Vol. 18, pp 243-264.
Bauman, K., Ennett, S., (1996) On the importance of peer influence for
adolescent drug use: commonly neglected considerations. Addiction: Vol. 91,
pp 185–198.
BBC News (2006) http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/education/5345046.stm
Published 2006/09/14 11:45:13 GMT.
Beck, J., E., (1998) 100 years of “Just Say No” versus “Just Say Know”: Reevaluating drug education goals for the coming century. Evaluation Review: Vol
22 (1), pp 15-45.
Bellis, M. A., (2006) Alcohol profiles for England. Liverpool: Liverpool John
Moores University.
BERA, (2004) Revised Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research. 13 p.
Berberian, R. M., Gross, C., Lovejoy, J. and Paparella, S., (1976) The
effectiveness of drug education programs: a critical review. Health Education
Monographs, no. 4, pp 377-398.
Berry, P. and McKenna, G., (1995) Adolescents with attitude: using video and
the national curriculum to broaden drug education in schools. Drugs Education
Prevention and Policy: Vol. 2 (1), pp 59-64.
Blaxter, L., Hughes, C. and Tight, M., (2001) How to Research. Maidenhead:
Open University Press.
Blueprint, (2009) Blueprint Drugs Evaluation: The response of pupils and
parents to the Programme. London: The Home Office.
315
Botvin, G. J., (1990) Substance Abuse Prevention: Theory, Practice and
Effectiveness, in Tony M. and Wilson J. [eds.], Drugs and Crime. Chicago:
Chicago University Press.
Botvin, G. J., Dusenbury, L., (1989) Substance Abuse Prevention and the
Promotion of Competence, in Bond, L. and Compass, B. [eds.], Primary
Prevention and Promotion in the Schools. London: Sage.
Botvin, G. J., Griffin, K. W., (2007) School-based programmes to prevent
alcohol, tobacco and other drug use. International Review of Psychiatry: Vol 19
(6), pp 607-615.
Braun, V., Clarke, V., (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative
Research in Psychology: Vol 3 pp 77-101.
Broadbent, D., (1958) Perception and communication. London: Pergamon
Press.
Bry, B. H., (1978) Research design and drug abuse prevention: a review and
recommendations. International Journal of Addiction: Vol. 13, pp 1157-1168.
Budd, J. and McCron, R., (1981) Health Education and the Mass Media: Past,
Present and Potential, in Leathar, D. S., Hastings, G. B. and Davies, J. K. [eds.]
Health Education and the Media. Oxford: Pergammon Press.
Buehler, A., and Droeger, C., (2006) Report on the Prevention of Substance
Abuse. Cologne: Federal Centre for Health Education.
Bukoski, W., (1986) School-based Substance Abuse Prevention. A Review of
Program Research, in Griswald-Ezekoye, S., Kumpher, K. and Bukoski, W.
[eds.] Childhood and Chemical Abuse: Prevention and Intervention. New York:
Haworth Press.
Burgess, R., (1992) A guide to working with schools. Druglink: Vol. 7 (1), pp 1011.
Burman, E., Parker, I., (1993) Discourse analytic research: repertoires and
readings of texts in action. London: Routledge
Burrell, G. and Morgan, G., (1979) Sociological Paradigms and Organizational
Analysis. London: Heinemann Educational Books.
Cabinet Office (2004) Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy for England. London:
Cabinet Office.
Cahill, H., (2007) Challenges in Adopting Evidence-based School Drug
Education Programmes. Drug and Alcohol Review: Vol 26 (6), pp 673-679
316
Canning, U., Millward, L., Raj, T. and Warm, D., (2004) Drug use prevention
among young people: a review of reviews. Wetherby: Health Development
Agency.
Capalaces, R. and Starr, J., (1973) The negative message of anti-drug spots:
does it get across? Public Telecommunications Review 1, pp 64-66.
Careers Wales, (2007) Pupil destination data for Rhondda Cynon Taf 2007
(unpublished).
Clarke, D., (2005) Use of drug and alcohol related information in university
students. Swansea: Wired.
Clements, I., Cohen, J., O’Hare, P., (1988) Beyond “Just Say No”. Druglink: Vol
3 (3), pp 8-9.
Coffield, F. and Gofton, L., (1994) Drugs and young people. London: Institute
for Public Policy Research.
Cohen, J., Manion, L. and Morrison, K., (2000) Research Methods in Education.
London: Routledge Falmer.
Cohen, J., (2005) Policy and Practice in Drug Education. A practical handbook
for schools, youth projects and other organisations that work with young people
aged 11-18. Liverpool: Healthwise.
Cohen, J., (1996a) Drug education: politics, propaganda and censorship.
International Journal of Drug Policy: Vol 7 (3), pp 153-157.
Cohen, J., (1996b) Drugs in the classroom: politics, propaganda and
censorship. Druglink: Vol. 11 (2), pp 8-10.
Cohen, J. (1992) Achieving a reduction in drug related harm through education.
3rd International Conference on the Reduction of Drug Related Harm.
Melbourne, Australia: Tameside Metropolitan Borough.
Cohen, J., Clements, I. and Kay, J., (1990) Taking drugs seriously: a manual of
harm reduction education on drugs. Liverpool: Healthwise.
Coggans, N., Shewan, D., Henderson, M., Davies, J. and O’Hagan, F.,(1989)
National evaluation of drug education in Scotland: final report. Glasgow:
University of Stathclyde.
Coggans, N., Shewan, D., Henderson, M. and Davies, J. B., (1991) The Impact
of School-based Drug Education. British Journal of Addiction: Vol. 86 (9), pp
1099-1109.
Coggans, N. and McKellar, S., (1994) Drug use among peers. Drugs:
education, prevention and policy: Vol 1, pp 15-26.
317
Coggans, N. and Watson, J., (1995) Drug Education: Approaches,
Effectiveness and Implications for Delivery. HEBS Working Paper No. 1.
Edinburgh: Health Education Board for Scotland.
Coggans, N., Haw, S. and Watson, J., (1999) Education and Drug Misuse:
school interventions, in Stark, C. and Kidd, B. [eds.], Illegal Drug Use in the
United Kingdom: prevention, treatment and enforcement. London, Ashgate.
Craik, F. I. M., a Routh, D., Broadbent, D., (1983) On the transfer from
temporary to permanent memory. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, Vol 302 (1110), Functional
Aspects of Human Memory pp 341-359.
Cronbach, L., (1963) Course Improvement Through Evaluation. Teachers
College Record: 64, pp 672-683.
Cronbach, L. J., (1978) Designing evaluations of educational and social
programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Crosswaite, C., Tooby, J., Cyster, R., (2004) SPICED: Evaluation of a drug
education project in Kirklees Primary Schools. Health Education Journal Vol 63
(1) pp 61-69.
Cuijpers, P., (2003) Three decades of drug prevention research. Drugs
Education Prevention and Policy: Vol 10 (1), pp 7-20.
Dadds, M., (2004) Teacher Researchers Perspectives of practitioner research.
Bedfordshire: National College for School Leadership.
Davies, J., (1986) Unsolved problems with mass media drug education
campaigns: three cautionary tales. Health Education Research, pp 69-74.
Davies, J. B. and Coggans, N. (1992) Does drug education work? in Plant, M.,
Ritson and Robertson, R. (Eds.), Alcohol and drugs: the Scottish experience.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Davies, R., Giles. C., McManus, J., (2002) Rhondda Cynon Taf Substance
Misuse Needs Population Needs Analysis. Swansea: NACRO Cymru
De Haes, W. and Schuurman, J., (1975) Results of an evaluation study of three
drug education methods. International Journal of Health Education: Vol. 18, pp
1-16.
Deepwell, F., (2002) Towards Capturing Complexity: an interactive framework
for institutional evaluation. Educational Technology and Society: Vol. 5(3).
Dembo, R., (1981) Critical Issues and Experiences in Drug Treatment and
Prevention Evaluation, in International Journal of the Addictions. Vol. 16 (8), pp
189-208.
318
Denscombe, M., (1998) The Good Research Guide for small-scale social
research projects., Buckingham, Open University Press.
Department for Education, (1995) Drug Prevention and Schools. London:
Department for Education.
Department for Education and Employment/School Curriculum and Assessment
Authority, (1995) Drug Education: Curriculum Guidance for Schools. London:
Department for Education and Employment/School Curriculum and Assessment
Authority.
Department for Education and Employment, (1997) Innovation in Drug
Education. London: Department for Education and Employment.
Department for Education and Skills, Department of Health (2004a) National
Healthy School status: a guide for Schools. London: HM Government.
Department for Education and Skills, (2004b) Drugs: Guidance for Schools.
London: Department for Education and Skills.
Department for Schools, Children and Families, (2007) The Children’s Plan:
Building brighter futures. London: Department for Schools, Children and
Families.
Department for Schools, Children and Families, (2008) Drug Education: An
Entitlement For All: A report to Government by the Advisory Group on Drug and
Alcohol Education. London: Department for Schools, Children and Families.
Des Jarlais, D., C., Sloboda, Z., Friedman, S., R., Tempalski, B., McKnight, C.,
Braine, N., (2006) ‘Diffusion of the D.A.R.E and Syringe Exchange Programs’
American Journal of Public Health. Vol 96 (8), pp 1354–1358.
Dorn, N. and Murji, K., (1992) Drug prevention: a review of the English
language literature. ISDD Research Monograph 5. London: Institute for the
Study of Drug Dependence.
Dorn, N., (1986) Media campaigns. Druglink: Vol 1 (2), pp 8-9.
Dorn, N. and South, N., (1983) Message in a Bottle. London: Gower.
Dorn, N., Thompson, A. and Hvidfeldt, K., (1977) The DEDE Project: technical
report on the drug (legal and illegal) education development project, assessing
effects of the prototype course ‘Fact and feeling about drugs but decisions in
situations’ in use in English and Danish schools. London: ISDD.
Dorn, N., (1973) Activity effectiveness and evaluation in health education about
drugs. Community Health: Vol. 5, pp 13-18.
Drug Education Prevention and Prevention Information Service, (2005) Media
Messages: A Review of Drug Related Messages Reaching Young People.
London: Drugscope.
319
Drugs Prevention Advisory Service and Home Office (2000) Lets Get Real:
Communicating with the Public about Drugs. London: HMSO.
Drugs Prevention Advisory Service, (2002) Drug Education in Schools: Making
it more effective. DPAS Briefing Paper. London: DPAS.
Druglink, (1987) DES funds drug training. Druglink: Vol. 2 (6).
Druglink, (1991) Drug education under scrutiny. Druglink: Vol. 6 (2), p. 7.
Druglink, (1994a) Education set to be main policy battleground. Druglink: Vol. 9
(4), p. 7.
Druglink, (1994b) New drug strategies for England and Scotland. Druglink: Vol.
9 (6), p. 6.
Druglink, (1995a) History out as dangers stressed in official rewrite of teaching
guide. Druglink: Vol. 10 (3), p. 6.
Druglink, (1995b) Cabinet reshuffle leaves policies intact. Druglink: Vol. 10 (5),
p. 8.
Druglink, (2000) Hellawell calls for higher level of debate. Druglink: Vol. 15 (2),
p. 8.
Druglink, (2002) US study finds drug education ineffective. Druglink: Vol. 17 (5),
p. 6.
Drugscope, (2004) Druglink Guide to UK Drug Policy. London: Drugscope.
Dudai, Y., (2004) The neurobiology of consolidations, or how stable is the
engram? Annual Review of Psychology: Vol 55. pp 51-86.
Dusenbury, L., Falco, M., Lake, A., (1997) A review of the evaluation of 47 drug
abuse prevention curricula available nationally. Journal of School Health 67(4),
pp 127-32.
Eagleton, T., (2003) After Theory. London: Penguin.
Easthope, G., (1992) Bums on Seats: A speculation on the future of drug
training in Britain. Druglink: Vol 7 (3), pp 8-11.
Eiser, C., Eiser, J.R., Bocker, M., (1988) Teachers’ evaluations of a ‘life-skills’
approach to drugs education. Educational Research: Vol 30, (3), pp 202-210.
Ellickson, P. L. and Bell, R. M., (1990a) Drug Prevention in Junior High: a Multisite Longitudinal Test. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
Ellickson, P. L. and Bell, R. M., (1990b) Prospects for Preventing Drug Use
among Young Adolescents, CA: Rand Corporation.
320
EMCDDA (2008) The State of the Drugs Problem in Europe. Lisbon: European
Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction.
Ennet, S. T., Rosenbaum, D. P., Flewelling, R. L., Bieler, G. S., Ringwalt, C. L.
and Bailey, S. L., (1994) Long-Term Evaluation of Drug Abuse Resistance
Education. Addictive Behaviours: Vol. 19, pp 113-125.
Eriksen, T. H., (1995) Small Places, Large Issues. An introduction to Social and
Cultural Anthropology (2nd Ed.) London: Pluto.
ESTYN, (2003) Best Value Inspection of Rhondda Cynon Taf Education
Authority: Primary Education Provision, Cardiff: Crown Copyright.
ESTYN, (2004) Estyn Evaluation Of Drug Abuse And Resistance Training
(DARE) Programme In Rhondda Fawr. Cardiff: Welsh Assembly Government.
ESTYN, (2007) Education about Substance Misuse: Evaluation of the
implementation and impact in schools of the guidance ‘Substance Misuse:
Children and Young People’ in Welsh Assembly Government Circular 17:02.
Cardiff: Welsh Assembly Government.
Eysenck, M., Keane, M., (2005) Cognitive Psychology A Student’s Handbook.
Hove: Psychology Press.
Faggiano, F., Vigna-Taglianti, F. D., Versino, E., Zambon, A., Borraccino, A.,
Lemma, P., (2005) School-based prevention for illicit drugs use. Cochrane
Database of Systematic Reviews. Issue 2.
Fitzgerald, N., (2006) Drug & Alcohol Education Consultancy Service for
Mainstream Secondary Schools. Glasgow: Glasgow City Councils.
Forrest, J., (1999) Health Education in Bryce, T. G. K. and Humes, W. M. [eds.]
Scottish Education. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Foxcroft, D. R., Lister-Sharp, D., Lowe, G., (1997) Alcohol misuse prevention for
young people: a systematic review reveals methodological concerns and lack of
reliable evidence of effectiveness. Addiction Vol 92(5), pp 531-7
Gillis, D., (1989) Boston, A City that Acted Early. A talk to the London
Community Against Crack Conference, 27 October. London: Corporation of
London.
Gilvarry, E., (1996) Use of alcohol and drugs among young people: influences
and responses. Current Opinion in Psychiatry: Vol. 9, pp 268-272.
Glynn, T. [ed.], (1983) Drug abuse: prevention research. Rockville, MD: NIDA.
Goddard, E., Higgins, V., Department of Health, (2003) Smoking, drinking and
drug use among young people in England in 2002: provisional results.
Department of Health 17p.
321
Goodstadt, M. S., (1990) School-based drug education research findings: What
have we learned? What can be done? in Rey, K., Faegre, C. and Lowrey, P.
[eds.] Prevention Research Findings: 1988, OSAP Prevention Monograph 3,
Rockville, MD: Office for Substance Abuse Prevention.
Goodstadt, M. S. and Willet, M. M., (1989) Opportunities for school-based drug
education: implications from the Ontario schools drugs surveys, 1977-1985.
Canadian Journal of Education: Vol. 14 (3), pp 338-351.
Gottfredson, D. C., Wilson, D. B., (2006) Characteristics of effective school
based substance abuse prevention. Prevention Science 4: pp 27-38.
Government Statistical Service (1998) The National Assembly for Wales Welsh
Health Survey 1998. London: HMSO.
Green, A., (1996) Do police have a role in education? Druglink: Vol. 11 (2), p. 7.
Green, J., Thorogood, N., (2004) Qualitative methods for health research.
London: Sage Publications.
Hansard, House of Commons Debates, (1988) December, Col. 421-424.
Hansard, Written Answers, (1988) December, Col. 716.
Hansard, House of Commons Debates, (1989a), May, Col. 452-453.
Hansard, House of Commons Debates, (1989b), June, Col. 470-480, 512-524.
Hansard, House of Commons Debates, (1989c), July, Col. 647-661, 684-700.
Hansard, House of Commons Debates, (1989d), December, Col. 595-609, 611613, 626-631.
Hansard, Written Answers, (1989e) December, Col. 566.
Hansard, House of Commons Debates, (2003a) 23 January, Col. 147WH149WH.
Hansard, House of Lords Debates, (2003b) 11 June, Col. 288-312.
Hansard, House of Commons Debates, (2005a) 18 January, Col. 769-774.
Hansard, House of Commons Debates, (2005b) 25 February, Col. 560-561.
Hansard, House of Commons Standing Committee, (2005c) Drugs Bill 27
January, Col. 11-14.
322
Hansen, W. B., (1990) Theory and Implementation of the Social Influence
Model of Primary Prevention, in Rey, K., Faegre, C. and Lowrey, P. [eds.]
Prevention Research Findings: 1988, OSAP Prevention Monograph 3,
Rockville, MD: Office for Substance Abuse Prevention.
Hattie, J., (1999) Influences on student learning. Inaugural Lecture: Professor of
Education. University of Auckland. Published 14/01/2004 5:44:07 a.m. pp29.
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/chou015/Desktop/Influences%20on%
20student%20learning.htm
Hawkins, J. D., Abbott, R., Catalano, R. F. and Gillmore, M. R., (1985)
Assessing Effectiveness of Drug Abuse Prevention: Implementation Issues
Relevant to Long-Term Effects and Replication, in Leukefeld, C. G. and
Bukoski, W. J. [eds.] (1991) Drug Abuse Prevention Intervention Research:
Methodological Issues. Research Monograph, No. 107. Rockville, MD: NIDA.
Health Education Board for Scotland, (2003) Drug Education: approaches,
effectiveness and implications for delivery. HEBS Working Paper 1. Edinburgh:
Health Education Board for Scotland.
Health Education Board for Scotland, (1997) Drugs in Scotland: Informing the
challenge. Edinburgh: Health Education Board for Scotland.
Health Education Board for Scotland and Scottish Drugs Forum, (1992) Drug
Problems in Scotland. Edinburgh: Health Education Board for Scotland.
Health Information Analysis Team, (2006) Health Needs Assessment 2006 –
Substance Misuse. Cardiff: National Public Health Service for Wales.
H M Government (1995) Tackling Drugs Together. A Strategy for England
1995-1998. London: HMSO.
H M Government (2004) The Children’s Act. London: HMSO.
H M Government (2006) Every Child Matters: Change for Children. Young
People and Drugs. London: HMSO.
H M Government (2007) Safe. Sensible. Social. The next steps in the National
Alcohol Strategy. London: HMSO.
H M Government (2008) Drugs: Protecting families and communities. The 2008
Drug Strategy. London: HMSO.
Home Affairs Select Committee, (2005) Home Affairs Committee Report: The
Government’s Drugs Policy: is it working? London: Houses of Parliament.
Home Office (1985) Tackling Drug Misuse. London: HMSO.
Home Office (1994) Tackling Drugs Together. A Consultation Document on a
Strategy for England 1995-1998. London: HMSO.
323
Home Office (1998) Tackling Drugs to Build a Better Britain: The Governments
Ten-year Strategy for Tackling Drug Misuse. London: HMSO.
Home Office (2004) Updated Drug Strategy. London: HMSO.
Hornick, R. and Yanovitsky, I., (2003) Using Theory to Design Evaluations of
Communication Campaigns: The Case of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media
Campaign. Communication Theory: Vol. 13 (2), pp 204-224.
Hyde, A., (1987) Theory Used in Ethnographic Educational Evaluations.
Negotiating Values in Anthropology and Education Quarterly: Vol. 18 (3) pp
131-148.
Ingold, T., (2000) The perception of the environment. Essays in livelihood,
dwelling and skill. London: Routledge.
Ives, R. and Clements, I., (1996) Drug education in schools: a review. Child
Soc: Vol 10, pp 14-27.
Jansen, M., Glynn, T. and Howard, J., (1996) Prevention of alcohol, tobacco
and other drug abuse: federal efforts to stimulate prevention research.
American Behavioural Scientist: Vol. 39, pp 790-807.
Jessor, R. and Jessor, S., (1977) Problem Behaviour and Psychological
Development: A Longitudinal Study of Youth. New York: Academic Press.
Jones, L., Sumnall, H., Witty, K., Wareing, M., McVeigh, J., Bellis. M. A., (2006)
A review of community-based interventions to reduce substance misuse among
vulnerable and disadvantaged young people. National Collaborating Centre for
Drug Prevention, Centre for Public Health, Liverpool: John Moores University.
Kandel, D., (1980) Development Stages in Adolescent Drug Involvement, in
Lettieri, D., Sayers, M. and Pearson, H. [eds.] Theories on Drug Abuse:
Selected Contemporary Perspectives. Rockville, MD: NIDA.
Kearney, A. and Hines, M., (1980) Evaluation of the Effectiveness of a Drug
Prevention Education Programme. Journal of Drug Education: Vol. 10 (2), pp
127-34.
Keene, J., Williams, M., (1996) Who DAREs wins? Drug Prevention and the
police in schools. Druglink: Vol 11 (2) pp 16-18.
Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., (1988) The Action Research Planner. Geelong:
Deakin University.
Kinder, B., Pape, N. and Walfish, S., (1980) Drug and alcohol education
programs: a review of outcome studies. International Journal of the Addictions:
Vol. 15, pp 1035-1054.
324
Kirk, J., Miller, M., (1986) Reliability and validity in qualitative research.
Newbury Park, C.A: Sage.
Krathwohl, D. R., (1980) The Myth of Value-Free Evaluation. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis: Vol. 2 (1) pp 37-45.
Lancett, M., (2006) Evaluation of the SAFE Project in the Rhondda Fawr
(unpublished).
Law, J., (2004) After Method: mess in social science research. London:
Routledge.
LeCompte, M., Preissle, J., (1993) Ethnography and Qualitative Design in
Educational Research (second edition). London: Academic Press Ltd.
Leathar, D.S., Hastings, G.B., Squair, S.I., (1985) Evaluation of the Scottish
Health Education Group’s 1985 drug abuse campaign. University of Strathclyde
Advertising Research Unit.
Leitner, M., Shapland, J. and Wiles, P., (1993) Drug usage and drugs
prevention. London: HMSO.
Lenton, S.and Single, E., (1998) The definition of harm reduction. Drug and
Alcohol Review: Vol. 17 (2), pp 213-220.
Local Government Data Unit – Wales, (2005) Welsh Index of Multiple
Deprivation 2005. Cardiff: Welsh Assembly Government.
Lowden, K. and Powney, J., (1999) Drug Education in Scottish Schools 19961999 in SCRE Report Appendix 2 (2000). Edinburgh: Scottish Council for
Research in Education.
McBride, N., (2003) A systematic review of school drug education. Health
Education Research, Vol. 18 (6), pp729-742.
McGrath, Y., Sumnall, H., Edmonds, K., (2006a) Review of grey literature on
drug prevention among young people. London: Health Development
Agency/NICE.
McGrath, Y., Sumnall, H., McVeigh, J., Bellis, M., (2006b) Drug use prevention
among young people: a review of reviews. London: National Institute for Health
and Clinical Excellence.
McNiff, J., Whitehead, J., (2002) Action research: Principles and practice.
London: RoutledgeFalmer.
McWhirter, J., M., Wetton, N., M., Perry, D., & South, N., (2004) Young people
and risk: towards a shared understanding. London: Home Office.
325
Mackinnon, D. P., Weber, M. D. and Pentz, M.A., (1988) How do school based
drug education programs work and for whom? Drugs and Society: Vol. 3, pp
125-143.
May, T., (1998) Social Research Issues, Methods and Process. Buckingham:
Open University Press.
Mayer, R., (2004) Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery
learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist
Vol 59 (1) pp 14–19.
Milburn, K., (1996) Peer Education. Young People and Sexual Health: a critical
review. HEBS Working Paper No 2. Edinburgh: Health Education Board for
Scotland.
Miles, M., B., Huberman, A., M., (1994) Qualitative data analysis. Newbury
Park, C.A: Sage
Milton, K., (2005) Emotions. The Australian Journal of Anthropology: Vol 16, pp
198-211.
Moore, A., Miller, W., (2005) Living the high life. The role of drug taking in young
people’s lives. Drugs and Alcohol Today, Vol 5(2), August 2005 p29
Morgan, O., Griffith, C., Toson, B., (2006) Trends in deaths related to drug
misuse in England and Wales 1993 – 2004. Health Statistics Quarterly, Vol 31
pp 23-27.
Mott, J. (1986) Estimating the prevalence of drug misuse. Home Office
Research Bulletin: Vol 21 pp 57-60.
Mouly, G. J., (1978) Educational research: the art and science of investigation.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Myerhoff, B., Ruby, J., (1982) A Crack in the Mirror: Reflexive perspectives in
anthropology. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Nairne , J. S., (2002) Remembering over the short term: The case against the
standard model. Annual review of Psychology: Vol 53. pp 53-81.
National Assembly for Wales (2000a) Tackling Substance Misuse in Wales – A
Partnership Approach. Cardiff: The National Assembly for Wales.
National Assembly for Wales (2000b) Extending Entitlement: supporting young
people in Wales. Cardiff: Corporate Policy Unit, National Assembly for Wales.
National Assembly for Wales, (2002) Health Behaviour of School-Aged Children
(HBSC) 1996-2000. Cardiff: The National Assembly for Wales.
326
National Assembly for Wales (2007) National Curriculum Assessment and
Public Examination results 2007. Cardiff: The National Assembly for Wales
National Assembly for Wales, (2008) Key Statistics for Rhondda Cynon Taff.
Cardiff: The National Assembly for Wales.
National Curriculum Council, (1990) Curriculum Guidance 5: Health Education.
York: NCC.
NICE, (2007a) Community-based interventions for the reduction of substance
misuse among vulnerable and disadvantaged young people. London: National
Institute of Clinical Excellence.
NICE, (2007b) Costing statement: School-based intervention on alcohol.
London: National Institute of Clinical Excellence.
NICE, (2007c) Interventions in schools to prevent and reduce alcohol use
among children and young people. London, National Institute of Clinical
Excellence.
National Public Health Service: Wider Determinants & Inequalities Team (2006)
Intervention to Change the Wider Determinants of Health: What Works?
Briefings based on Systematic Reviews and Health Evidence Bulletins Wales.
Drug Misuse. Cardiff: NPHS.
Nevo, D., (1983) The Conceptualisation of Educational Evaluation: An
Analytical Review of the Literature. Review of Educational Research: Vol. 53 (1)
pp 117-128.
Newcombe, R., (1992) The reduction of drug-related harm: a conceptual
framework for theory, practice and research, in O’Hare, P. A., Newcombe, R.,
Matthews, A., Buning, E. C. and Drucker, E. [eds.] The Reduction of DrugRelated Harm. London: Routledge.
Newcomb, M. D. and Bentler, P. M., (1988) Consequences of Adolescent Drug
Use. Newbury Park: Sage.
Norman, E. and Turner, S., (1994) Prevention programmes for adolescents in
the USA. The International Journal of Drug Policy: Vol. 5, pp 90-97.
O'Connor, L., Evans, R., Coggans, N. and ACPO (1999) Drug education in
schools: identifying the added value of the police service within a model of best
practice., London: Roehampton Institute.
Okely, J., (1983) The Traveller-Gypsies. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Orme, J., Starkey, F., (1999) Young people’s views on drug education in
schools: implications for health promotion and health education. Health
Education. Vol 99(4), pp 142-153.
327
Palin, M. N., (1987) The effectiveness of drug education programmes: a review
of the literature. Sydney: Department of Technical and Further Education, NSW.
Parlett M., Hamilton, D., (1977) Evaluation as Illumination. In Partlett M.,
Dearden, G., (Eds.) Introduction to Illuminative Evaluation: Studies in Higher
Education, Cardiff-by-the-Sea, CA: Pacific Soundings Press.
Patton, M., (1982) Practical evaluation. Beverly Hills CA: Sage.
Pawson, R., Tilley, N., (1997) Realistic Evaluation, London: Sage.
Paxton, R., (1998) Looking for clues – does the strategy stand up to scrutiny?
Druglink: Vol. 13 (1), pp 13-16.
Polich, J., Ellickson, P., Reuter, P. and Kalan, J., (1984) Strategies for
Controlling Adolescent Drug Use. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
POST Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, (1996) Cannabis,
Ecstacy, Amphetamines and LSD. London: POST.
Potter, J., Wetherell, M., (1987) Discourse and Social Psychology. London:
Sage.
Power, R., (1989) Drugs and the media: prevention campaigns and television.
In MacGregor, S., (1989) Drugs and British society: responses to a social
problem of the Eighties. London: Routledge, pp 129-142.
Pudney, S. E., Badillo, C., Bryan, M., Burton, J., Conti, G., Iacovou, M.,
Estimating the size of the UK illicit drug market in Measuring different aspects of
problem drug use: methodological developments. London: Home Office Online
16/06 pp 46-120.
Reilly, C. and Homel, P., (1990) Strategies for the Prevention of Drug and
Alcohol Problems. Sydney: Directorate of the Drug Offensive, NSW Department
of Health.
Resnick, H. and Gibbs, J., (1988) Types of peer program approaches, in
Adolescent peer pressure: theory correlates and program implications for drug
abuse prevention, NIDA. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human
Services.
Reuter, P., Stevens, A., (2007) An Analysis of UK Drug Policy. Executive
Summary. London: UK Drug Policy Commission.
Rhodes, J. and Jason, L., (1990) The Social Stress Model of Alcohol and Other
Drug Abuse: A Basis for Comprehensive Community-Based Prevention, in Rey,
K., Faegre, C. and Lowrey, P. [eds.] Prevention Research Findings: 1988,
OSAP Prevention Monograph 3, Rockville, MD: Office for Substance Abuse
Prevention.
328
Rhodes, T., (1990) The politics of anti-drug campaigns. Druglink: Vol 5 (3), pp
16-18.
Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council, (2003) Rhondda Cynon Taf
Substance Misuse Strategic Action Plan 2003-2006.
Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council, (2004) A Better Life: Our
Community Plan 2004 – 2014 A Programme of change to create a new future.
Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council, (2005a) Rhondda Cynon Taf
Substance Misuse Strategic Action Plan 2005-2008.
Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council, Rhondda Cynon Taf Local Health
Board, (2005b) Improving Health and Well-being for all in RCT; Health, Social
Care and Well-being Strategy 2005-2008.
Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council, (2005c) Commissioning Strategy
for Preventative Services 2005-2008: Needs analysis technical resource
document.
Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council, (2007) Education and Lifelong
Learning Supplementary Education Strategy Plan 2006–2007.
Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council (2008a) School Effectiveness
Business Plan 2008-2011.
Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council, (2008b) Children and Young
People’s Plan 2008-2011.
Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council, Rhondda Cynon Taf Local Health
Board, (2008c) Health, Social Care and Wellbeing Strategy 2008-2011.
Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council, Merthyr Tydfil County Council
(2008d) Community Safety Partnership Joint Strategic Assessment 2008-2009.
Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council (2009) Education and Lifelong
Learning ESTYN Inspection Self Assessment Report 2009
Richards, L., (2005) Handling qualitative data: A practical guide. London: Sage
Publications.
Robertson, N., (1998) Parents who aren’t scared about drugs – and other
curiosities. Druglink: Vol. 13 (4), pp 14-15.
Rosenbaum, D. P., Flewelling, R. L., Bailey, S. L., Ringwalt, C. L., Wilkinson, D.
L., (1994) Cops in the classroom: a longitudinal study of drug abuse resistance
training (DARE). Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency: Vol. 31, pp 331.
329
Rothman, J., Friedman, V., (2002) Action Evaluation: Helping to Define, Assess,
and Achieve Organizational Goals.
http://www.aepro.org/inprint/papers/aedayton.html.
Roe, S., (2005) Drug misuse declared: findings from the 2004/05 HSBC Survey.
London: Home Office.
RSA - Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures &
Commerce, (2007) Drugs – facing facts. The report of the RSA Commission on
Illegal Drugs, Communities and Public Policy. London: RSA.
Ruby, J., (1980) Exposing yourself: reflexivity, anthropology and film. Semiotica:
Vol. 30, pp153-179.
Schacter, D. L., Wagner, A. D., Buckner, R. L., (2000) Memory systems of
1999. in Tulving, E., Craik, F., (Eds) The Oxford handbook of memory. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Schaps, E., DiBartolo, R., Moskowitz, J., Palley, C. S., Churgin, S., (1981) A
review of 127 drug abuse prevention program evaluations. Journal of Drug
Issues: Vol. 11, pp 17-43.
Scottish Council for Research in Education (2000) Drug Education, context and
approaches: a review of the literature. Scottish Council for Research in
Education, Edinburgh.
Scriven, M., (1965) The Methodology of Evaluation. Bloomington: Indiana
University.
Scriven, M., (1974) The Concept of Evaluation, in Apple, M. W., Subkoviak, M.
J., and H.S. Lufler, H. S., (Eds.) Educational Evaluation: Analysis and
Responsibility. Berkeley: McCutchan.
Shapiro, J., (1985) Evaluation of a Worksite Program in Health Science and
Medicine: An application of Stake’s Model of Contingency and Congruence.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis: Vol. 7 (1) pp 47-56.
Shiffrin, R. M., (1999) 30 years of memory. In Izawa, C., (Ed) On human
memory: Evolution progress and reflections of the 30th anniversary of the
Atkinson-Shiffrin model. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Shope, J. T., Dielman, T. E., Butchart, A. T., Campanelli, P. C., Kloska,
D. D. (1992) An elementary school-based alcohol misuse prevention
program: A follow-up evaluation. Journal of Studies on Alcohol: Vol.
53 (2) pp 106-121.
Sillitoe, P., (1998) The Development of Indigenous Knowledge a new applied
anthropology. Current Anthropology: Vol. 39, pp 223-252.
330
Silverman, D., (2006) Interpreting qualitative data. Methods for analysing talk,
text and interaction. London: Sage publications.
Silverman, M., (1990) Prevention Research: Impediments, Barriers and
Inadequacies, in Rey, K., Faegre, C. and Lowrey, P. (Eds.) Prevention
Research Findings: 1988, OSAP Prevention Monograph 3, Rockville, MD:
Office for Substance Abuse Prevention.
Spooner, C. Hall, W., (2002) Preventing drug misuse by young people: we need
to do more than ‘just say no’. Journal of Addiction: Vol. 97 (5), pp 478-481.
St. Clair, R., Chen, C., Taylor, L., (2007) How adult literacy practitioners use
research. TCALL Occasional Research Paper No.2.
http://www.tcall.tamu.edu/orp/orp2.htm.
Stake, R. E., (1967) The Countenance of Educational Evaluation. Teachers
College Record: Vol. 68, pp 523-540.
Stake, R. E., (1980) Program evaluation, particularly responsive evaluation. In
Dockrell, W. B., Hamilton, D., (Eds.), Rethinking educational research. London:
Hodder and Stoughton.
Stake, R. E., (1981) Interview: Interview with Robert E Stake Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis: Vol. 3 (1), pp 91-94.
Stake, R. E., (2004) Standards-based and responsive evaluation. California:
Sage.
Stead, M., Angus, K., (2004) Literature Review into the Effectiveness of School
Drug Education. Scotland: Scottish Executive Education Department.
Stead, M., MacKintosh, A. M., McDermott, L., Eadie, D., Macneil, M., Stradling,
R., Minty, S., (2007) Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Drug Education in
Scottish Schools. Social research: Research findings 17. Edinburgh: Scottish
Executive.
Suchman, E., (1976) Evaluative Research. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
Sumnall, H., Jones, L., Burrell, K., Witty, K., McVeigh, J., Bellis, M., (2006)
Annual review of drug prevention. Liverpool: National Collaborating Centre for
Drug Prevention.
Swadi, H. and Zeitlin, H. (1987) Drug education to school children – does it
really work? British Journal of Addiction: Vol. 2 (4), pp 741-746.
Swisher, J. and Hu, T., (1983) Alternatives to Drug Abuse: Some Are and Some
Are Not, in Glynn, T. [ed.] Drug Abuse Prevention Research. Rockville, MD:
NIDA.
331
Taylor, P.A., Maguire, T. O., (1965) A theoretical evaluation model. University of
Illinois: Department of Educational Psychology.
Thomas, M., (2005) Substance misuse prevention and education. A review of
the current evidence base (draft). Cardiff: National Public Health Service.
Tobler, N., (1986) Meta-analysis of 143 adolescent drug prevention
programmes: quantitative outcome results of program participants compared to
a control or comparison group. Journal of Drug Issues: Vol. 16 (4), pp 537-67.
Tobler, N. and Stratton, H., (1997) Effectiveness of school-based Drug
Prevention Programs: A meta-analysis of the research. The Journal of Primary
Prevention: Vol. 17 (3).
Tones, B. K., (1981) Health education and the Misuse of Mass Media. Journal
of the Institute of Health Education: Vol. 19, pp 73-76.
Tregidga, J., Williamson, H., Noaks, L., (2005) Realism, Relevance and
Respect? A formative evaluation of the All Wales Police Schools Liaison
Programme. Cardiff: Cardiff University.
Tyler, S. A., (1986) Post-Modern Ethnography: from Document of the Occult to
Occult Document, in Clifford, J. A., Marcus, G. E., Writing Culture: the poetics
and politics of ethnography. California: University of California Press. pp 122141.
Von Glasersfeld, E., (1989) Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching.
Synthese, Vol 80, pp 121-40.
Wallack, L., (1985) Mass media, youth and the prevention of substance abuse:
towards an integrated approach. Journal of Child Cont Soc: Vol. 18, pp 153180.
Weiss, C., (1976) Using research in the policy process: potential and
constraints. Policy Studies Journal Vol 4, pp 224-228.
Weiss, C., (1977) Using social research in public policy making. Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books.
Weiss, C., (1987) The circuitry of enlightenment. Knowledge: Creation,
Diffusion, Utilisation Vol. 8, pp 274-281.
Welsh Assembly Government (2000a) Tackling Substance misuse in Wales – a
partnership approach. Cardiff: Welsh Assembly Government.
Welsh Assembly Government (2000b) HSBC Health and Wellbeing for Children
and Young People. Action in response to the issues raised by the health
behaviour in school aged children (HSBC) Study 1986-2000. Cardiff: Welsh
Assembly Government.
332
Welsh Assembly Government (2001) The Learning Country, A Paving
Document. A comprehensive Education and Lifelong Learning Programme to
2010 in Wales. Cardiff: Welsh Assembly Government.
Welsh Assembly Government, (2002a) Substance Misuse: Children and Young
People. Guidance Circular, 17/02. Cardiff: Department for Training and
Education, Welsh Assembly Government.
Welsh Assembly Government, (2002b) Youth Work Curriculum Statement for
Wales, in National Assembly for Wales (2000) Extending Entitlement: Support
for 11-25 year olds in Wales. Direction and guidance. Cardiff: Corporate Policy
Unit, National Assembly for Wales.
Welsh Assembly Government, (2003) The Learning Country: Learning
Pathways 14-19. Action Plan. Cardiff: Department for Training and Education,
Welsh Assembly Government.
Welsh Assembly Government, (2004) Children and Young People: Rights to
Action. Cardiff: Children’s Framework Team, Welsh Assembly Government.
Welsh Assembly Government, (2005) Drug and Alcohol National Occupational
Standards (DANOS) and Other Relevant National Occupational Standards
(NOS): Guidance for Organisations and Individuals. Cardiff: Welsh Assembly
Government.
Welsh Assembly Government, (2006a) The Service Framework for Children
and Young People Who Use or Misuse Substances In Wales Consultation
Document. Cardiff: Welsh Assembly Government.
Welsh Assembly Government (2006b) The Welsh National Database for
Substance Misuse. First Annual Report 2005-06. Cardiff: Welsh Assembly
Government.
Welsh Assembly Government, (2006c) Substance Misuse Treatment
Framework for Wales. Cardiff: Welsh Assembly Government.
Welsh Assembly Government, (2006d) The National Service Framework (NSF)
for Children, Young People and Maternity Services in Wales. Cardiff: Welsh
Assembly Government.
Welsh Assembly Government, (2007) Young people: Youth work: Youth
Service. National Youth Service Strategy for Wales. Cardiff: Department for
Education, Lifelong Learning and Skills, Welsh Assembly Government.
Welsh Assembly Government, (2008a) Guidance on Good Practice for the
provision of services for Children and Younger People who Use or Misuse
Substances in Wales. Cardiff: Welsh Assembly Government.
333
Welsh Assembly Government, (2008b) Working Together to Reduce Harm. The
Substance Misuse Strategy for Wales 2008 – 2018. Cardiff: Welsh Assembly
Government.
Welsh Assembly Government, (2008c) A revised Curriculum for Wales. Cardiff:
Welsh Assembly Government.
Welsh Assembly Government (2008d) The 3-19 Skills Framework. Cardiff:
Welsh Assembly Government.
Whelan, S and Moody, D., (1994) DARE, Mansfield: an evaluation of a drug
prevention programme for children attending a middle school in Mansfield,
Notts. Nottingham: North Nottingham Health Promotion and Nottingham Drug
Prevention Team.
White, D. and Pitts, M., (1998) Educating young people about drugs: a
systematic review. Addiction: Vol. 93 (10), pp 1475-87.
Willig, C., (2003) Discourse analysis. in Smith, J. A., [ed] Qualitative
psychology: a practical guide to research methods. London: Sage. pp 159-183.
Wixted, J. T., (2004) The psychology and neuroscience of forgetting. Annual
Review of Psychology: Vol 55. pp 235-269.
Wragg, J., (1992) An Evaluation of a Model of Drug Education. National
Campaign Against Drug Abuse Monograph, No. 22. Canberra: Australian
Government Publishing Service.
Wragg, J., (1986) Drug and alcohol education: the development, design and
longitudinal evaluation of an early childhood programme. Australian
Psychologist: Vol. 21 (2), pp 283-298.
334
Appendix i: Critique of mass media campaigns
There is evident concern about the imagery behind mass media anti-drug
campaigns. Dorn (1986) criticises the stereotyping of drug users in Government
media campaigns in England and Wales, arguing that the experience of young
people undermines this stereotyping, and in turn, the message attached to it.
Comparisons are drawn between the UK wide campaigns and a concurrent
campaign in Scotland that used the slogan ‘Choose Life, Not Drugs’. Dorn (ibid)
argued that the Scottish campaign that focused on the underlying reasons for
drug use, rather than moral judgements, was more effective; however Dorn
(ibid) was unable to provide quantitative evidence.
Another criticism is the large financial implication of the provision of media
campaigns. It can be argued that the campaigns took resources away from front
line services that were endeavouring to combat all facets of drug use and
related problems, not just the specific issues highlighted by campaigns (Power
1989). At least three of the articles post 1988 use the evidence generated
against the effectiveness and merit of media campaigns, to argue for
fundamental changes in Government strategy. Clements, et al., (1988) in
particular, seem to argue that the way forward for drug education is to base it on
educational principles rather than solely a simplified health message.
Although there seems to have been a crescendo of criticism of media
campaigns at the end of the 1980’s, it is important to remember that as early as
1985 the British Medical Journal was questioning the validity of this approach in
providing information, and expressing concern about the less obvious effects of
such hard hitting campaigns. However, at the same time it was argued by some
that television programming, advertising and mass media campaigns had a
place if used effectively (Wallack, 1985).
The media coverage during the latter part of the 1980’s largely contributed to
the increased public fear of illegal drugs. It made it impossible for public debate
to inform policy and strategy, as the messages portrayed, while appearing
entirely rational, were implicitly moral rather than educational, and at best
confusing (Rhodes, 1990). Rhodes proceeds to state that educationally,
335
messages portrayed by media campaigns cannot be justified, as the factual
accuracy on which they are based is often dubious. The moral certainties that
drive the tackling of the ‘drug problem’ take precedence over ‘objective niceties’,
with truth being a common casualty in media campaigns (Beck, 1998). An
opinion poll showed that by 1989 the British public deemed illegal drugs to be
the single greatest threat to the UK (Hansard, 1989b). If the government,
through the media, was seeking to engage drug users, it failed, as the outcome
of campaigns resulted in their alienation (Rhodes, 1990). The implications for
drug users, following the campaigns in the late 1980’s, were severe, with
Hansard materials portraying the unchallenged view that users faced, that drug
use was ‘stupid’ and ‘ridiculous’ and that they themselves were immoral and
lacked ‘social responsibility’ (Hansard, 1989b).
336
Appendix ii: DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education)
For the past decade DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) has been one
of the most high profile and controversial approaches to drug education. Its
clear cut and simple moral message and strict prevention aims have made it
popular with politicians and policy makers. However, educationalists and
researchers have had many doubts about its real impact on young people, drug
use and demand reduction.
Background
Possibly the most well known resistance education programme, DARE was
conceived by Daryl Gates, a Los Angeles Police Chief and based on Evan’s
(1976) social influence model. The DARE Programme was first implemented in
the USA in 1983. DARE UK has been in existence since 1994 in an attempt to
co-ordinate its relevance and use in Britain. Numerous evaluations in both the
UK and USA have been undertaken over the last 20 years, with the majority of
the more recent ones being largely negative in their findings regarding the long
term impact on young people’s behaviour (Rosenbaum et al, 1994; Ennet et al,
1994). DARE has been criticised on a number of levels, mainly for its unrealistic
aim of preventing drug use through the use of shock tactics to deliver an over
simplified, moral message. It has also been criticised for its lack of development
over the years and its inability, as a rigid programme, to meet specific needs of
differing geographical and cultural areas (Keene and Williams, 1996; O’Connor
et al, 1999).
Delivery
Recent good practice in drug education has stated that teachers are best
placed to deliver school based drug education due to their established
relationships with pupils (DfE, 1995; WAG, 2002a; ESTYN, 2007). However, the
DARE programme places the police as the sole educators. Ownership of the
DARE programme is kept by the organisation itself and officers delivering it,
with little or no involvement by teachers in its delivery or development (ESTYN,
2004). Officers are trained for two weeks to deliver the programme, which has
raised questions from both educationalists and the police as to whether the
337
range of teaching skills necessary to deliver such a topic can even be touched
upon in so short a time (Ennet et al, 1994; Green, 1996). Even where police
input is clearly specified, officers often go beyond their remit, even when
unqualified to do so (O’Connor et al, 1999). Sustainability is also criticised, as
the programme is solely dependant on a police commitment to staff it, with
questions raised as to the police agenda for doing so. The programme has
been open to further criticism for allowing its benefits as an education
programme to be hijacked by the benefits to the police of building positive
relationships with children from a young age (ESTYN, 2004).
Keene and Williams (1996) review of the effectiveness of DARE and its
appropriateness within a British context, argued that as increased respect for
the police was seen as a valid outcome of the DARE programme, it could be
surmised that police involvement in drug education was more about improving
public relations with the police than about education itself. They argued that
whilst increased understanding of the police was desirable, the use of drug
education as a vehicle was inappropriate and, whilst benefiting the police, did
not benefit the children they are attempting to educate. Whilst this may be a
valid secondary outcome, the police were criticised as viewing this as a primary
outcome (ibid). The impact of DARE on young people’s knowledge, attitudes or
behaviour is rarely mentioned as a primary goal (O’Connor et al, 1999).
Coverage
Traditionally DARE is an 18 week course delivered to Year 6 pupils within the
school environment. Criticisms regarding the time commitment necessary to
complete the course eventually led to its revision in the UK to a 12 week course.
A recent UK evaluation of the situation, has led to the conclusion that
involvement in the DARE programme can often be to the detriment of other
areas of the school curriculum (ESTYN, 2004). Questions have been raised
regarding the sustainable resourcing of the DARE programme by the Police,
and its contribution to increased stress on school’s Personal and Social
Education (PSE) timetables (Green, 1996).
338
A study undertaken by the University of North Carolina in 2002 also showed
DARE and other similar drug resistance education prevention packages to be
ineffective, concluding that they were a waste of tax payers’ money. The study
found that despite the Federal Government promoting proven packages of drug
education, schools were more likely to take up the heavily marketed packages
such as DARE (Druglink, 2002). In response to the criticisms highlighted by this
study, DARE claimed that the study used an out-dated version of the DARE
programme to measure effectiveness, and that the version in use at the time
had been amended to address these criticisms. The US research and education
organisation, REASON, claimed that the constant changes to the DARE
curriculum was in fact a tactic employed by DARE to ensure that any evaluation
into its effectiveness would be based continually on out of date material, and
therefore inconclusive in its findings (Druglink, 2002).
Some districts in the US have since terminated their use of the DARE
programme as they argue there have been no measurable outcomes relating to
a reduction in drug use over the last 20 years. It can be argued that the rigidity
of the programme may very well lead to its termination within the UK, as it has
undergone very little adaptation in relation to UK policy and trends in UK drug
use. The rigid programme also shows no differentiation in meeting varied
learning needs (ESTYN, 2004). This lack of adaptation to meet UK needs has
led to a marked divide in the aims and philosophy of this programme, and
others currently in implementation in the UK (Cohen, 1996b). The wider benefits
of the DARE programme, associated with parental and community involvement,
are often overshadowed by the numerous educational criticisms. These
criticisms are further compounded by the willingness of DARE to work in
isolation, and reticence to be involved at a multi-agency, partnership level
(ESTYN, 2004). A possible explanation for this self elected isolation could be
linked to the limited adaptation of the programme for use in the UK, and the
confusion that surrounds the difference in UK and US terminology.
339
Underpinning assumptions
The DARE programme describes its work as purely preventative. The term
prevention within a US context is solely concerned with the prevention of drug
use, which differs from the UK, where over the last decade the term prevention
has evolved to mean the prevention of drug related harm as well as drug use.
Whilst within UK policy harm reduction has gathered momentum and credibility
as a realistic, mature, responsible approach, within a US context it is still
regarded as a lenient stance that condones and encourages the use of drugs
(Hansard, 1989b). This terminology barrier has led to further elective isolation of
the DARE programme within the UK, and the creation of an almost evangelical
style of support for the programme (ESTYN, 2004), possibly based on the belief
that without it other drug education programmes will seek to condone and
encourage drug use. The unrealistic aim of preventing drug use, and the lack of
recognition of the role of harm reduction within prevention, has left DARE
unable to address any development necessary for the programme to make a
valid contribution to drug education in the UK (Cohen, 1996b).
DARE in the political arena
Over the last ten years the provision of DARE as an established and wellresearched education programme has been used as a political tool. President
Reagan’s high profile declaration of a ‘war on drugs’ in the mid 1980’s led to a
British perception in the media and amongst politicians, that the US was some
way ahead of the UK in tackling the drugs problem. In turn this assumption led
to the perception that an educational programme from the US would be based
on better research than that available in the UK, and in turn therefore effective.
The belief that the drugs problem in America was far worse than that in Britain
led politicians to believe that US drug education packages could give Britain a
head start (Hansard, 1989b). It has also been used by the Government as an
example of a hard line approach to drug education with ensured consistency
(Hansard, 2005a), and by the Police as an example of a more holistic approach
on their part in tackling the drugs issue and combining enforcement and
education (ESTYN, 2004).
340
DARE research
Subsequent UK research into the effectiveness of the DARE programme has
raised questions. Objective evaluations of DARE have been mostly negative in
their findings regarding the measurement of its effectiveness in meeting its aim
of preventing drug use. The first UK evaluation of DARE concluded that the
evident improvements were minimal (Whelan and Moody, 1994). Using
measurements taken prior to the trial and shortly afterwards, they expressed
disappointment that despite the resource intensive nature of the programme, no
clear or generalised advances in knowledge or attitude regarding drug use were
evident. In the past, DARE have been accused of attempting to combat any
negative research findings either through programme change, in order to render
the research out of date (Druglink, 2002), or by questioning the objectivity of the
research itself. It can be argued that this has led to the majority of research into
the effectiveness of the DARE programme appearing vague and inconclusive,
which in turn raises questions as to whether resistance education as a whole is
a necessary part of effective drug education (Allot et al, 1999).
Whelan and Moody’s (1994) findings were echoed by Ennet et al’s (1994) metaanalysis of DARE outcome evaluations. The study of 36 US schools evidenced
limited positive outcomes. The meta-analysis concluded that the DARE
programme has little, if any, impact on drug use. The review was confined only
to short-term outcomes due to the shortage of available follow-up studies;
however it reported no continuing impact on behaviour immediately after the
programme, and no measurable impact on the reduction of drug use up to two
years afterwards. Ennet et al (1994) estimated that an interactive style of drug
education where pupils were encouraged to undertake research based tasks
was likely to have three times the impact of DARE on the development of social
skills and knowledge. They went on to warn of the negative consequences for
drug prevention if interactive teaching continued to be put to one side in favour
of implementing DARE. This assertion can be equated with the limitations
associated with schools relying too heavily on external providers of substance
misuse education (WAG, 2002a; McGrath et al., 2006b) whose roles and skills
have been called into question regarding their ability to undertake more
interactive styles of teaching and embrace participative learning in line with
341
developments in education (Paxton, 1998). Whelan and Moody’s (1994)
evaluation also recommended that DARE move towards a more interactive style
of delivery; Green (1996), however, warns that the move from information giving
to more interactive forms of learning, has serious implications for classroom
delivery for the police, as they are not equipped to manage this.
Keene and Williams (1996) reviewed two UK packages that they described as
‘anglicised DARE’ - the London based RIDE (Resistance In Drug Education)
programme, and Hampshire’s Getting It Right package. Whilst RIDE employed
the format of DARE, it attempted to involve teachers more in the delivery and it
approached drug education from a cross curricular stance. Getting It Right was
less specifically about drugs and included elements of safety and crime
reduction. Despite both packages attempting to focus on reduced police and
increased teacher input, they were both criticised for their emphasis on creating
better relationships for the police with schools, parents and school governors
(Green, 1996).
The story of DARE in the UK illustrates the conflict between policy makers and
practitioners that has dogged drug education for the past three decades. On the
one hand, policy makers have felt the need to promote prevention strategies
that do not appear to be ‘soft’ on drugs. On the other hand, practitioners and
researchers have criticised the spending of large sums of money on education
packages that have no provable benefits.
342
Appendix iii: Initial consultation with schools: Key findings
A total of 36 semi-structured interviews were held with head teachers of schools
in Rhondda Cynon Taff. The following key findings are the result of the
responses of the 19 secondary school heads and 17 primary heads (as primary
sector cluster convenors) interviewed. The findings of the secondary school
consultation shows a general consensus across the secondary sector, however,
the primary findings show a significant difference between the perceptions of
schools.
Secondary schools
68% reported substance misuse was of some concern for their school;
74% reported substance misuse was of little concern for their pupils;
47% reported substance misuse was of little concern and 53% reported it to be
of some concern for parents;
48% reported substance misuse education (smed) was delivered by teachers
followed by 33% reporting it was delivered by the substance misuse agency
TEDS;
Illegal drugs were the primary focus for smed delivered to pupils in Yrs 7 and
10;
47% reported differentiated smed for alternative curriculum (smed included in
ASDAN / OCN delivery);
37% reported differentiated smed for SEN pupils;
53% reported delivering smed in specific year groups rather than every year;
79% rated smed as having some impact on pupils;
47% evaluated smed (80% of which through progress files);
41% identified needing more support in general (regarding developing
programmes and the delivery of smed);
34% identified training and information for staff needed from LEA;
38% reported awareness of the WAG Guidance Circular 17/02.
45% rated old RCT substance misuse guidelines (produced in 1996) as
unusable;
89% expressed interest in participating in a working group.
343
Primary schools
10% reported substance misuse was of no concern for their school, however,
3% reported it to be of significant concern for their school;
34% reported substance misuse to be of no concern, however, 22% reported it
to be of some concern for their pupils;
3% reported substance misuse to be of no concern for parents, however 9%
reported it to be of significant concern for parents;
48% reported that smed was delivered by teachers, followed by 23% reporting it
was delivered by the Police;
44% identified that staff did not require any substance misuse training;
40% wanted more external input into the delivery of smed;
30% identified that more resources and teaching materials were needed to be
provided by the LEA;
12% reported awareness of the WAG Guidance Circular 17/02.
The following recommendations were made to the Senior Management Team
within the LEA as a result of these consultation exercises with schools:
Secondary schools:
1. The production of a bilingual, flexible, life skills based, learning
programme and resources to cover Key Stages 2-5 to ensure
consistency, in consultation with pupils, schools, ESIS and external
providers.
2. The production of a bilingual, flexible, life skills based, learning
programme and appropriate resources for Special Schools in order to
meet the diverse needs of pupils, in consultation with pupils, schools,
ESIS and outside providers.
3. Regular sharing of good practice and updating on new
developments/research, to support staff delivering substance misuse
education, i.e. the setting up of a forum or newsletter.
4. Training made available to staff delivering substance misuse education
(both drug information and teaching methodology).
5. Updating of the RCT Guidelines for Substance Misuse in Schools, to
ensure LEA support for and monitoring of substance misuse incidents
within schools and consistent policy.
344
6. Development of tools to evaluate substance misuse education within
schools.
7. Support for initiatives that promote involvement and support from the
wider community.
8. Ongoing support for schools through the Co-ordinator for Substance
Misuse Education.
Primary schools:
1. The production of a bilingual, workshop based, learning programme and
resources tailored for Key Stages 1 & 2, that supports the transition from
primary to secondary, to ensure consistency, in consultation with pupils,
schools, ESIS and external providers.
2. Regular sharing of good practice and updating on new
developments/research, to support primary school staff, i.e. the setting
up of a forum or newsletter.
3. Training made available to staff delivering substance misuse education
(both drug information and teaching methodology).
4. Updating of the RCT Guidelines for Substance Misuse in Schools, to
ensure LEA support for and monitoring of substance misuse incidents
within schools, (including drug related litter on school premises) and
consistent policy.
5. Support for initiatives that promote involvement and support from parents
and the wider community.
6. Provide a contact list for schools, of personnel, organisations and
agencies that offer help and support in the area of substance misuse.
7. Development, of guidance on appropriate substance misuse information
for each Key Stage, in consultation with ESIS.
8. Ongoing support for schools through the Co-ordinator for Substance
Misuse Education.
345
Appendix iv: Stake’s Countenance Theory of Educational Evaluation
(1967)
Stake’s countenance theory was conceptualised following his dismay at what he
perceived to be the narrow data selection used for formal evaluation purposes,
and formulated for curriculum studies in the late 1960’s. Believing in the
importance of contextual description and discussion, and identifying durable
relationships (Cronbach, 1963) and the need for the evaluator to provide
judgement of worth (Scriven, 1965), Stake’s countenance theory presents a
matrix that allows for a wealth of data to be analysed, to provide a fully
illuminative, yet responsive evaluation. The matrix is in fact a description matrix
and judgement matrix which, when employed together, allow for the evaluator to
record antecedent, transaction and outcome stages within four classes; intents,
observations, standards and judgements (see Figure 8.4a). Countenance
theory aims to capture the complexity of educational change or innovation
through the measurement of congruence between these classes, and the
exploration of contingency between each stage, to provide the basis for judging
worth. It effectively encourages 360° evaluation, allowing for latitudinal and
longitudinal comparisons of attitudes, confidence and perceptions to be made at
antecedent, transaction and outcome stages, therefore providing a clear
structure for practice analysis. It enables the evaluator to separate the intents
from what was observed, and place both within the context of standards in order
to make a valid judgement of worth.
INTENTS
OBSERVATIONS
STANDARDS JUDGEMENTS
Congruence
Antecedents
Logical
Empirical
Contingency
Contingency
Rationale
Congruence
Logical
Empirical
Contingency
Contingency
Transactions
Congruence
Outcomes
DESCRIPTION MATRIX
JUDGEMENT MATRIX
Stake’s matrix for data analysis (adapted)
346
Data collection
Stake (1967) encourages a range of data collection methods from a range of
sources as a useful tool in distinguishing between antecedent, transaction and
outcome data. Taylor and Maguire (1965) identified five distinct groups with
important opinions on education - including teachers, parents, subject-specific
experts, pupils and spokespersons for society - whose views needed to be
sought in order to inform a robust evaluation. Stake (1967) reiterates that an
evaluation needs to portray both the negatives and positives perceived by these
five groups, and ensure that their views are systematically gathered, processed
and analysed.
Data Analysis
Stake’s (1967) data matrices allow for a systematic approach to data selection
and analysis. This allows the researcher to distinguish between antecedent,
transaction and outcome data in both the description and judgement matrices,
enabling an analysis of the data on a number of levels. It also allows the
researcher to break free from the traditionally narrow, outcome-only focus of
formal evaluations, and employ a more holistic approach to judging the worth of
what is being studied. The recording of data within each matrix offers the
researcher a logical route of analysis for the range of data available, and the
ability to make judgements.
Contingency and congruence
In Stake’s model (1967) contingency and congruence are the two principle ways
of processing descriptive evaluation data. The amount of congruence between
the intents and observation cells is described, to assess whether the intended
happened. It is rare that any programme can prove full congruence, through all
intended antecedents, transactions and outcomes coming to pass. Congruence
does not identify outcomes as reliable or valid, merely that the intended
occurred. The exploration of contingencies allows the researcher to search for
relationships that permit improvement among the variables. The use of the term
‘contingency’ in this way is open to scrutiny as it over complicates what may
well be better understood as the ‘relationship’ or ‘link’ between antecedent and
347
transaction stage, and the transaction and outcome stage. Stake describes
contingencies as logical and intuitive and supported by a history of
endorsements, and for this reason, intuitive contingencies need to be
scrutinised by appropriate juries (Stake, 1967). Within the intents, the
contingency criterion is one of logic. Within the observations, the criterion is one
of empirical evidence. Both contingencies and congruence are subject to
judgement. Congruence and non-congruence varies with different viewpoints,
as importance differs from person to person. Contingencies are dependant on
individual morale and practical factors.
The description matrix
Intents and observations
Intents and observations shape the descriptive data within the description
matrix. Intents focus on what educators intend, and observations, on what
observers perceive. Intents include planned for environmental conditions,
planned for educational content, desired or hoped for effects and anticipated or
feared effects. They also include the goals and plans of others e.g.
stakeholders. In essence they are a priority listing of all that may happen, and
allow the evaluator to examine what was intended and what may have
happened by chance. It is also reasonable to expect these intents to change
over time.
Most of the descriptive data within the matrix falls into the observation category,
describing surroundings, events and consequences. Observations can be direct
and personal to the evaluator, as well as gathered through the use of
instruments like interviews and questionnaires. Whilst the evaluator makes
subjective decisions in the necessary limiting of elements for study, the use of
intents and observations enables the search for unwanted side effects and
incidental gains.
348
The judgement matrix
Standards and judgements
Any measurement of goals, whether local or national, requires explicit
standards against which to measure. Standards are benchmarks of
performance that have widespread reference value, not just individual
reference. As standards vary from reference group to reference group Stake
(1967) recommends that the identification of the standards held by each group
is part of the evaluator’s responsibility. Stake criticises the unspecified criteria of
informal evaluation, as well as the carefully specified criteria of formal
evaluation, which leads to less concern for standards of acceptability. He
argues that what little formal evaluation exists, is concerned with too few criteria
and has too much tolerance of implicit standards, ignoring the relevance of
relative comparison.
“It is a great misfortune that the best trained evaluators have been
looking at education with a microscope rather than with a panoramic
view finder” (Stake, 1967, pg. 535).
Comparing and judging
Stake identifies two bases for judging the characteristics of an educational
programme; absolute standards that are reflected in personal judgements, and
relative standards that are reflected by characteristics of alternative
programmes (see Figure 8.4b). There can be multiple sets of standards against
which absolute comparison can take place, as these reflect the differing views
of stakeholders and reference groups. Each set of standards indicates the
acceptable and meritorious levels for antecedents, transactions and outcomes,
and Stake (1967) identifies that where standards may not be available, they
should be estimated. An evaluator must determine whether these standards
have been met in order to inform judgement; however, the assigning of weight
and importance to a set of standards is part of the subjective process of
evaluation. Evaluators must employ rational judgement in assigning importance
to the standards of each reference group, to ensure successful and meaningful
educational evaluation.
349
STANDARDS
DESCRIPTIVE
DATA FROM
ONE
PROGRAMME
ABSOLUTE COMPARISON
OF
EXCELLENCE
RELATIVE COMPARISON
DESCRIPTIVE
DATA FROM
ANOTHER
PROGRAMME
JUDGEMENTS
Stake’s process of judging merit (adapted)
Relative comparison uses the descriptive data from similar programmes as the
standards against which to evaluate. In this study relative comparison proved
difficult, due to the uniqueness of the ‘Get Sorted’ project, and the lack of
available research data within this area. For this reason this evaluation was
undertaken within a single programme rather than on a comparative basis.
350
Appendix v: School Consultation June/July 2003
1.
2.
How much of a concern is substance misuse for your school?
NONE
LITTLE
SOME
1
2
|
3
4
5
|
6
7
8
|
SIGNIFICANT
9
10
How much of a concern is substance misuse for your pupils?
NONE
LITTLE
SOME
1
2
|
3
4
5
|
6
7
8
|
SIGNIFICANT
9
10
3.
How much of a concern is substance misuse for the parents of your pupils?
NONE
LITTLE
SOME
SIGNIFICANT
1
2
|
3
4
5
|
6
7
8 |
9
10
4.
Current substance misuse education provision
Who is it delivered by?
What is the method of delivery?
5.
Are there any differences in substance misuse education for pupils involved in
alternative curriculum activities?
YES / NO
Or those with special educational needs?
YES / NO
6.
How would you rate current frequency of substance misuse education?
NONE WHEN NEEDED / INCIDENT
SPECIFIC YEARS
EVERY YEAR
1
2
|
3
4
5
|
6
7
8
|
9
10
7.
How would you rate current effectiveness of substance misuse education?
NOT AT ALL
LITTLE
SOME IMPACT
MEASURABLE
1
2
|
3
4
5
|
6
7
8
|
9
10
8.
Is substance misuse education currently evaluated? If so, how?
9.
What training or support needs have been identified by staff with regards to substance
misuse education?
10.
Are there any future developments in substance misuse education that you would like
to see in either your school or in the Authority?
11.
How can the Authority support substance misuse education in your school?
12.
Substance Misuse – Guidelines for incidents
Who is responsible for implementation?
In your view, is the current policy useable?
13.
Would you be interested in attending a working group re: substance misuse education?
351
YOUNG PERSON’S CONSULTATION November 2003
1. What substance misuse education have you received?
2. Where did you receive it?
3. Who taught you?
4. What were you taught?
5. What were the good bits?
6. What were the bad bits?
7. What do you think you should be taught?
8. What do you think you shouldn’t be taught?
9. How do you think you should be taught?
10. Who do you think should teach you?
11. Do you think the media’s coverage of drugs is helpful in educating
people about drugs?
1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 11 = Whole Group Questions
7 / 8 = Group Work Questions
9 / 10 = Sticker Questions
5 / 6 = Post It Questions
352
Appendix vi: Initial consultation with young people: Key findings
A total of 10 focus groups were held with young people aged 11-21 years in
Rhondda Cynon Taf. The following key findings are the result of the responses
of the 109 young people interviewed.
21% reported school as the main place they had received substance misuse
education (smed);
11% reported having received no smed;
Teachers were most commonly named as the provider of smed (18%), closely
followed by TEDS (16%) and then family members (14%);
32% reported that the effects of drugs was what was most commonly taught;
19% reported general awareness raising as the best part of the sessions
followed by 17% reporting the effects / risks being the best part;
21% rated smed as boring (citing the type of delivery as the reason);
15% thought they should be shown images of drugs and drug users;
22% thought they shouldn’t be taught about the positive reasons for use;
26% thought smed should be workshop based and 26% thought it should be
discussion based;
5% thought smed should be lecture based;
36% thought they should be taught about substance misuse by a drug worker
and 27% thought it should be taught by a youth worker;
6% thought a teacher should deliver smed;
85% thought they should receive a qualification for participating in smed.
These findings supported the recommendations that were presented to the
Senior Management Team within the LEA as a result of the consultation
exercises with schools:
353
Appendix vii: Entry Assessment Form
Please complete this form and return
to Zoë Lancelott, Substance Misuse
Education
Co-ordinator,
Ty
Trevithick, Abercynon, Mountain Ash,
CF45 4UQ
Dear Colleague
In order to gather information on the substance misuse knowledge and
experience of colleagues working in schools and the youth sector, we have
prepared this questionnaire. You may not be able to answer some of the
questions at this stage, if this is the case please do not worry.
The information collected on this questionnaire will be used to target the support
to be provided by the Get Sorted project. It will also provide information to
inform the development of the project itself.
We would be grateful if you could take a few minutes to complete and return
this form. We can assure confidentiality of all responses received. If you have
any queries regarding this questionnaire please contact (01443) 744386.
Thank you for your time. We look forward to hearing from you soon.
Yours faithfully
Zoë Lancelott
Substance Misuse Education Co-ordinator
A
Personal Profile
A1 Please provide your name:
A2 Please provide your position / job title:
A3 Please provide your organisation’s name:
A4 Are you youth service or school-based?
Youth Service ......
1
- Please move on to question A5
School-based ......
2
- Please answer parts (b) and (c)
(b) Which sector is your school in?
Primary sector ...........................
(c)
1
Secondary sector ......................
Is your school English or Welsh medium?
354
2
English ................
1
Welsh ...................
2
Both .....................
3
A5 Date:
/
Please write in ............
/
A6 How did you first find out about the Get Sorted project?
Please tick all that apply
Get Sorted literature ..................
1
E-mail notification .....................
4
Discussed at a meeting .............
2
Don’t remember ........................
5
Word of mouth ...........................
3
Other (please write in)
B
TX
Dealing with Incidents
One of the objectives of the Get Sorted Project is:
‘Hands on’ support for staff dealing with substance misuse incidents in
both schools and the youth service
B1 Do you require any support with dealing with substance misuse
incidents?
Yes ......................
1
- Please answer question B2 and following
No........................
2
- Please move on to question C1
B2 Have you ever dealt with a substance misuse incident in your current
role?
Yes ......................
1
- Please answer part (b)
No........................
2
- Please move on to question B3
(b) How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the way in which you
were able to deal with the incident?
Very Satisfied ......
1
Fairly Dissatisfied .
3
Fairly Satisfied .....
2
Very Dissatisfied ..
4
Don’t Know ..........
DK
B3 Do you agree or disagree that you feel confident about dealing with
substance misuse incidents?
Strongly agree .....
1
Tend to disagree ..
3
Tend to agree ......
2
Strongly disagree .
4
Don’t Know ..........
DK
B4 How good or poor is the support available to you in dealing with
substance misuse incidents?
Very Good ...........
1
Fairly Poor............
3
Fairly Good ..........
2
Very Poor .............
4
Don’t Know ..........
B5 Were you aware of the support provided by the Get Sorted project
for dealing with substance misuse incidents?
Yes ......................
1
No ........................
2
355
DK
B6 What support or information, if any, would you like from the Get
Sorted project for dealing with substance misuse incidents?
Please tick all that apply
Dealing with incidents training ...
1
Advice on referral for support....
Definition of an incident .............
disposal .....................................
2
Advice
Someone to ask questions of ....
3
on
4
substance
5
Who to report incidents to .........
6
Advice on actions to be taken following an incident .....................................
7
Other (please write in)
TX
B7 What are you hoping to gain, in relation to dealing with substance
misuse incidents, from being involved in the Get Sorted project?
C
Substance Misuse Education
One of the objectives of the Get Sorted Project is:
Specific training and classroom support for professionals delivering
substance misuse education, encompassing drug information and
teaching methodology, to increase knowledge and confidence
C1 Do you require any support with delivering substance misuse
education?
Yes ......................
1
- Please answer question C2 and following
No........................
2
- Please move on to question D1
C2 Have you ever provided substance misuse education in your current
role?
Yes ......................
1
- Please answer part (b) and following
No........................
2
- Please move on to question C3
(b) How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the way in which you
were able to provide substance misuse education?
(c)
Very Satisfied ......
1
Fairly Dissatisfied .
3
Fairly Satisfied .....
2
Very Dissatisfied ..
4
Don’t Know ..........
Did you experience any problems when you provided substance
misuse education?
Yes ......................
1
- Please answer part (d)
No........................
2
- Please move on to question C3
356
DK
(d) What problems did you experience when you provided substance
misuse education?
C3 How good or poor do you feel your substance misuse knowledge is?
Very Good ...........
1
Fairly Poor............
3
Fairly Good ..........
2
Very Poor .............
4
Don’t Know ..........
DK
C4 Thinking about substance misuse education, do you agree or
disagree that you feel confident in the following…?
Strongly
Agree
Tend to Tend to
Agree
Don’t
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Know
Delivering sessions .....................
1
2
3
4
DK
Planning sessions .......................
1
2
3
4
DK
C5 Do you agree or disagree that your colleagues feel confident about
delivering substance misuse education?
Strongly agree .....
1
Tend to disagree ..
3
Tend to agree ......
2
Strongly disagree .
4
Don’t Know ..........
DK
C6 How easy or difficult have you found accessing substance misuse
education that is…?
Very Fairly Fairly Very Don’t
Easy
Easy
Difficult Difficult
Know
Consistent ...................................
1
2
3
4
DK
Up to date ....................................
1
2
3
4
DK
Relevant ......................................
1
2
3
4
DK
C7 What support or information, if any, would you like from the Get
Sorted project for providing substance misuse education?
Please tick all that apply
Classroom/training support .......
children......................................
1
Terminology to use ....................
groups .......................................
2
Format of education ..................
3
Hand
outs/leaflets
for
4
Key
contacts
of
support
5
Age appropriate information......
Other (please write in)
6
TX
357
C8 What do you think are the key messages that any substance misuse
education should include?
C9 What do you consider to be good practice in substance misuse
education?
C10 Have you accessed any substance misuse education training?
Yes ......................
1
- Please answer part (b)
No........................
2
- Please move on to question C11
(b) What substance misuse education training have you accessed?
C11 What are you hoping to gain, in relation to substance misuse
education, from being involved in the Get Sorted project?
D
Appropriate Information
One of the objectives of the Get Sorted Project is:
Guidance on age appropriate information for children and young people
at each Key Stage
D1 Do you require any support or information in relation to age
appropriate information for children and young people?
Yes ......................
1
- Please answer part (b) and following
No........................
2
- Please move on to question E1
(b) What support or information do you require?
358
D2 Have you received any guidance on age appropriate information for
children and young people at each Key Stage?
Yes ......................
1
- Please answer parts (b) and (c)
No........................
2
- Please move on to question D3
(b) How good or poor was the guidance you received?
(c)
Very Good ...........
1
Fairly Poor............
3
Fairly Good ..........
2
Very Poor .............
4
Don’t Know ..........
DK
Do you have any suggestions for improving the guidance on age
appropriate information?
D3 What information do you think should be included in guidance on
age appropriate information?
Please tick all that apply
Appropriate terminology ............
1
How to explain issues ...............
4
What to cover ............................
2
Readily available information ....
5
Level of detail to cover ..............
3
Other (please write in)
TX
D4 What are you hoping to gain, in relation to age appropriate
information for children and young people, from being involved in the
Get Sorted project?
E
Multi-agency Approach
One of the objectives of the Get Sorted Project is:
Implement a multi-agency approach to meeting the strategic objectives
relating to substance misuse education within the Rhondda Cynon Taf
Substance Misuse Action Plan
E1 Do you work in partnership with anyone in respect of substance
misuse issues?
Yes ......................
1
- Please answer part (b)
No........................
2
- Please move on to question E2
(b) If Yes, who do you work in partnership with?
Please tick all that apply
Get Sorted project .....................
1
Children’s Services ...................
359
4
TEDS.........................................
2
Other schools............................
DARE ........................................
providers ...................................
3
Other
youth
5
service
6
Other (please write in)
TX
E2 Do you have any suggestions for achieving a multi-agency approach
relating to substance misuse?
Thank you for completing this questionnaire
Please return to the Get Sorted Project
360
Appendix viii: Exit Assessment Form
Please complete this form and return to
Zoë Lancelott, Substance Misuse
Education Co-ordinator, Ty Trevithick,
Abercynon, Mountain Ash, CF45 4UQ
Dear Colleague
In order to gather information on the substance misuse knowledge and
experience of colleagues working in schools and the youth sector, we have
prepared this questionnaire.
The information collected on this questionnaire will be used to evidence the
impact of the Get Sorted project, as it provides information to compare against
our baseline position. It will also provide information to inform the development
of the project itself.
We would be grateful if you could take a few minutes to complete and return
this form. We can assure confidentiality of all responses received. If you have
any queries regarding this questionnaire please contact (01443) 744386.
Thank you for your time. We look forward to hearing from you soon.
Yours faithfully
Zoë Lancelott
Substance Misuse Education Co-ordinator
A
Personal Profile
A1 Please provide your name:
A2 Please provide your position / job title:
A3 Please provide your organisation’s name:
A4 Are you youth service or school-based?
Youth Service ......
1
- Please move on to question A5
School-based ......
2
- Please answer parts (b) and (c)
(b) Which sector is your school in?
Primary sector ...........................
(c)
1
Secondary sector ......................
Is your school English or Welsh medium?
361
2
English ................
1
Welsh ...................
2
Both .....................
3
A5 Date:
Please write in ............
B
/
/
Dealing with Incidents
One of the objectives of the Get Sorted Project is:
‘Hands on’ support for staff dealing with substance misuse incidents in
both schools and the youth service
B1 Have you received any support from the Get Sorted project for
dealing with substance misuse incidents?
Yes ......................
1
- Please answer question B2 and following
No........................
2
- Please move on to question B4
B2 Since receiving support from the Get Sorted Project, have you dealt
with a substance misuse incident?
Yes ......................
1
- Please answer part (b)
No........................
2
- Please move on to question B3
(b) How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the way in which you
were able to deal with the incident?
Very Satisfied ......
1
Fairly Dissatisfied .
3
Fairly Satisfied .....
2
Very Dissatisfied ..
4
Don’t Know ..........
DK
B3 Do you agree or disagree that you feel more confident about dealing
with substance misuse incidents since receiving support from the
Get Sorted Project?
Strongly agree .....
1
Tend to disagree ..
3
Tend to agree ......
2
Strongly disagree .
4
Don’t Know ..........
DK
B4 How good or poor is the support available to you in dealing with
substance misuse incidents?
Very Good ...........
1
Fairly Poor............
3
Fairly Good ..........
2
Very Poor .............
4
Don’t Know ..........
DK
B5 What further support or information, if any, would you like from the
Get Sorted project for dealing with substance misuse incidents?
Please tick all that apply
Dealing with incidents training ...
1
Advice on referral for support....
Definition of an incident .............
disposal .....................................
2
Advice
Someone to ask questions of ....
3
on
4
substance
5
Who to report incidents to .........
6
Advice on actions to be taken following an incident .....................................
7
Other (please write in)
TX
362
B6
Do you feel you have gained what you were hoping to gain, in relation to
dealing with substance misuse incidents, from being involved in the Get
Sorted project?
Yes ......................
C
1
No ........................
2
Substance Misuse Education
One of the objectives of the Get Sorted Project is:
Specific training and classroom support for professionals delivering
substance misuse education, encompassing drug information and
teaching methodology, to increase knowledge and confidence
C1 Have you received any support from the Get Sorted project for
substance misuse education?
Yes ......................
1
- Please answer question C2 and following
No........................
2
- Please move on to question C4
C2 Since receiving support from the Get Sorted project, have you
provided substance misuse education?
Yes ......................
1
- Please answer part (b) and following
No........................
2
- Please move on to question C3
(b) How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the way in which you
were able to provide substance misuse education?
(c)
Very Satisfied ......
1
Fairly Dissatisfied .
3
Fairly Satisfied .....
2
Very Dissatisfied ..
4
Don’t Know ..........
DK
Did you experience any problems when you provided substance
misuse education?
Yes ......................
1
- Please answer part (d)
No........................
2
- Please move on to question C3
(d) What problems did you experience when you provided substance
misuse education?
C3 Since receiving support from the Get Sorted project, how good or
poor do you feel your substance misuse knowledge is?
Very Good ...........
1
Fairly Poor............
3
Fairly Good ..........
2
Very Poor .............
4
Don’t Know ..........
363
DK
C4 Thinking about substance misuse education, do you agree or
disagree that you feel confident in the following…?
Strongly
Agree
Tend to Tend to
Strongly
Agree Disagree Disagree
Don’t
Know
Delivering sessions .....................
1
2
3
4
DK
Planning sessions .......................
1
2
3
4
DK
C5 Do you agree or disagree that your colleagues feel confident about
delivering substance misuse education?
Strongly agree .....
1
Tend to disagree ..
3
Tend to agree ......
2
Strongly disagree .
4
Don’t Know ..........
DK
C6 How easy or difficult have you found accessing substance misuse
education that is…?
Very
Easy
Fairly
Easy
Fairly
Very
Difficult Difficult
Don’t
Know
Consistent ...................................
1
2
3
4
DK
Up to date ....................................
1
2
3
4
DK
Relevant ......................................
1
2
3
4
DK
C7 What further support or information, if any, would you like from the
Get Sorted project for providing substance misuse education?
Please tick all that apply
Classroom/training support .......
children......................................
1
Terminology to use ....................
groups .......................................
2
Format of education ..................
3
Hand
outs/leaflets
for
4
Key
contacts
of
support
5
Age appropriate information......
Other (please write in)
6
TX
C8 What do you think are the key messages that any substance misuse
education should include?
C9 What do you consider to be good practice in substance misuse
education?
364
C10 Do you feel you have gained what you were hoping to gain, in
relation to substance misuse education, from being involved in the
Get Sorted project?
Yes ......................
D
1
No ........................
2
Appropriate Information
One of the objectives of the Get Sorted Project is:
Guidance on age appropriate information for children and young people
at each Key Stage
D1 Have you received any guidance from the Get Sorted project on age
appropriate information for children and young people at each Key
Stage?
Yes ......................
1
- Please answer parts (b) and (c)
No........................
2
- Please move on to question D3
(b) How good or poor was the guidance you received?
(c)
Very Good ...........
1
Fairly Poor............
3
Fairly Good ..........
2
Very Poor .............
4
Don’t Know ..........
Do you have any suggestions for improving the guidance on age
appropriate information?
D2 What additional information, if any, do you think should be included
in the Get Sorted project guidance on age appropriate information?
D3 Do you require any support or information in relation to age
appropriate information for children and young people?
Yes ......................
1
- Please answer part (b)
No........................
2
- Please move on to question D4
(b) What support or information do you require?
D4 Do you feel you have gained what you were hoping to gain, in
relation to age appropriate information for children and young
people, from being involved in the Get Sorted project?
Yes ......................
1
No ........................
2
365
DK
E
Strategies
One of the objectives of the Get Sorted Project is:
Development of new strategies for engaging hard to reach children and
young people, in substance misuse education
E1 Do you have any suggestions regarding how to engage with hard to
reach groups?
F
Awareness Raising
One of the objectives of the Get Sorted Project is:
Parental and community awareness raising initiatives, to support a
consistent approach to substance misuse education, and its key
messages
F1
G
Do you have any suggestions regarding raising parental and
community awareness of substance misuse?
Communication Networks
One of the objectives of the Get Sorted Project is:
Development of effective communication networks; to facilitate the
sharing of best practice and assist the monitoring and review of
substance misuse education throughout the County Borough
G1 How do you prefer to receive information about projects and
initiatives?
Please tick all that apply
By letter .....................................
1
Via the internet..........................
By telephone .............................
meeting .....................................
2
Through
By e-mail ...................................
3
discussion
4
at
5
Other (please write in)
TX
366
G2 Do you have any suggestions regarding communication of
information relating to the Get Sorted project?
G3 Do you have any suggestions for improving communication networks
to facilitate the sharing of good practice?
H
Multi-agency Approach
One of the objectives of the Get Sorted Project is:
Implement a multi-agency approach to meeting the strategic objectives
relating to substance misuse education within the Rhondda Cynon Taf
Substance Misuse Action Plan
H1 Do you have any suggestions for achieving a multi-agency approach
relating to substance misuse?
Thank you for completing this questionnaire
Please return to the Get Sorted Project
367
Appendix ix: Incident Recording Form
SCHOOL:
DATE OF INCIDENT:
DATE & TIME REPORTED:
REPORTED BY:
NAMES:
YOUNG PERSON(S)
INVOLVED:
HOME CONTACT NUMBER:
DESCRIPTION OF INCIDENT:
CATEGORY OF
INCIDENT
ACTION TAKEN
BY WHOM
CONTACTED
CATEGORIES: Drug Related Litter / Possession / Supply / Under Influence
(PLEASE REFER TO MAIN GUIDELINES Section One - 10)
NAME / DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT / SIZE:
REMOVED BY:
WHERE RETAINED:
OF SUBSTANCE:
SIGNED:_________________
WITNESSED BY:__________________
TITLE:___________________
TITLE:__________________________
DATE:___________________
DATE:__________________________
368
CONTACTS MADE (WHERE APPROPRIATE)
CONTACTS
CONTACT
NAME &
NUMBER
CONTACT
MADE BY
TIME & DATE
CONTACT
MADE
ENQUIRY /
REFERRAL
(APPOINTMENT
TIME)
PARENTS / CARERS
POLICE
AMBULANCE
OTHER HEALTH
PROFESSIONAL
EDUCATION &
CHILDREN’S SERVICES
DUTY TEAM
ENVIRONMENTAL
HEALTH
EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT
DRUG SUPPORT AGENCY
OTHER:
OUTCOME:
ATTACH ANY DETAILS OF ACTION / PLANS AS APPROPRIATE:
SIGNED:_______________________
WITNESSED BY:_________________________
TITLE:_________________________
TITLE:__________________________________
DATE:_________________________
DATE:__________________________________
THIS FORM SHOULD NOW BE KEPT IN A CENTRAL FILE
STATISTICS SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO THE LEA AT THE END OF EACH TERM.
369
Appendix x: Participant Consent Form
Evaluation of Get Sorted
(Support On Relevant Training and Education about Drugs)
Dear Participant
Thank you for agreeing to take part in the above evaluation for the Get Sorted project, which has been
running in Rhondda Cynon Taf for the last year. As a result, we will require you to fill in the form below to
give your consent to take part.
Get Sorted aims to support teachers, youth workers, parents and other professionals in the delivery of
consistent and appropriate substance misuse education and is now undertaking a full evaluation into what
impact this support has had. We are interested in your views regarding the information and support you
may have received. You will be interviewed individually / part of a focus group and be asked to discuss
your views and opinions. This session will last no more than an hour.
The information that you give us regarding your experience of the Get Sorted project and substance
misuse education is absolutely and completely confidential and all data received will be anonymised. If
you wish to withdraw from this study you are free do to so at any time and any information you have given
will be omitted from the study.
Thank you for your support of this evaluation project. The results that we gain from the information given
by yourself will help Get Sorted and the Local Education Authority to ensure that the substance misuse
education available to young people in RCT is consistent, appropriate and beneficial to them. The findings
of this study will also be used as part of a PhD research study into the provision of effective drug education
for young people.
If you have any queries or require further information about this research project please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Many thanks.
Zoë Lancelott
Co-ordinator for Substance Misuse Education
01443 744100
I understand the nature and purpose of the research project and I give my consent to take part. I also
understand that I can withdraw from the research project at any time.
Name:
Signature:
Contact number:
Date:
370
Appendix xi: Parental Consent Form
Evaluation of Get Sorted
(Support On Relevant Training and Education about Drugs)
Dear Parent/Guardian,
Your son/daughter has expressed an interest in taking part in the above evaluation for the Get Sorted
project, which has been running in their school for the last year. As a result, we will require you to fill in the
form below to give your consent for them to take part.
Get Sorted aims to support teachers, youth workers, parents and other professionals in the delivery of
consistent and appropriate substance misuse education. Over the last year, Get Sorted has been
supporting teachers in your child’s school and is now undertaking a full evaluation into what impact this
support has had. We are interested in the views of pupils regarding the substance misuse education they
have received in school. Your son/daughter will be part of a focus group of pupils who will be asked to
discuss their views and opinions. This session will last no more than an hour.
The information that your son/daughter gives us about the substance misuse education they have received
is absolutely and completely confidential and anonymity is guaranteed. If you or your child wish to
withdraw from this study you are free do to so at any time and any information your child has given will be
omitted from the study, please inform the school.
Thank you for your support of this evaluation project. The results that we gain from the information given
by your son/daughter will help Get Sorted and the Local Education Authority to ensure that the substance
misuse education available to young people in RCT is consistent, appropriate and beneficial to them. The
findings of this study will also be used as part of a PhD research study into the provision of effective drug
education for young people.
If you have any queries or require further information about this research project please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Many thanks.
Zoë Lancelott
Co-ordinator for Substance Misuse Education
01443 744100
I understand the nature and purpose of the research project and I give my consent for my son/daughter to
take part. I also understand that my child can withdraw from the research project at any time.
Name of
son/daughter:
Age:
Parent/ Guardian
Name:
Parent/Guardian
Signature:
Parent/Guardian
Address:
Today’s Date:
371
Appendix xii: Semi-structured interview questions for Head teachers
1. How would you rate the situation for schools regarding substance misuse
incidents and substance misuse education prior to Get Sorted setting up in
2004?
What existed? What was needed? Had anything tried and failed?
2. When did you first hear about Get Sorted?
3. What were your intentions / what had you hoped from the setting up of Get
Sorted?
4. What contact have you had with Get Sorted?
5. Is there any difference now support from Get Sorted is available?
6. Have the communication links between you and the LEA / other providers
improved?
7. Incident management arrangements – do you feel you received adequate
support? How does that impact on the school?
8. Has the priority of substance misuse education / concern for substance
misuse changed within the school?
9. Do you feel there is more consistency?
10. Is there anything you would like to see developed?
11. Is there anything you would like to see cut?
12. Do you intend to continue working with Get Sorted?
372
Appendix xiii: Semi-structured interview questions for PSE teachers
1. What contact have you had with Get Sorted? Any training / support?
2. What had you hoped from working with Get Sorted?
3. What sort of a relationship have you got with Get Sorted?
4. Are the lessons and resources on the CD Rom helpful?
5. What do you think about the methodologies?
6. Have the communication links between you and the LEA improved?
7. Do you feel there is more consistency regarding substance misuse
education?
8. Has you approach to substance misuse education changed?
Do staff feel more knowledgeable?
Do staff feel more confident?
9. Is there any difference now support from Get Sorted is available?
10. Do you intend to continue working with Get Sorted?
11. Is there anything you would like to see developed?
12. Is there anything you would like to see cut?
13. Which other orgs support the delivery of substance misuse education in
school?
373
Appendix xiv: Semi-structured interview questions for Stakeholders
1. How would you rate the situation regarding substance misuse incidents and
substance misuse education in RCT prior to Get Sorted setting up in 2004?
What existed? What was needed? Had anything tried and failed?
2. What has been your involvement in Get Sorted?
3. What were your intentions / what had you hoped from the setting up of Get
Sorted?
4. Have these intentions / hopes been realised?
5. What do you see as being the main outcomes to date?
6. Have these outcomes been beneficial to your organisation / RCT in general?
7. Is there any difference now support from Get Sorted is available?
8. Are you in regular contact with Get Sorted?
9. Have the communication links between you and the LEA / other providers
improved?
10. Has the priority of substance misuse education / concern for substance
misuse changed?
11. Do you feel there is more consistency / structure?
12. Is there anything you would like to see developed?
13. Is there anything you would like to see cut?
14. Do you intend to continue working with Get Sorted?
374
Appendix xv: Focus group questions for parents
1. What are your fears regarding substance misuse and your children?
2. Do you find it easy to talk to your children about substance misuse?
3. What support do you expect from your child’s school for your children?
4. Are you confident that schools / LEA are doing enough to prepare children
through substance misuse education?
5. Are you aware of strategies and policies in RCT?
6. Are you aware of Get Sorted?
7. Are you aware of the goals of substance misuse education in RCT?
8. How can Get Sorted improve communication with parents?
9. How can Get Sorted support parents more?
375
Appendix xvi: Focus group questions for pupils
1. Do you know what Get Sorted is?
2. Do you remember taking part in the transition project?
3. Who delivered it?
4. What did you like about it? Why?
5. What didn’t you like about it? Why?
6. What did you learn?
7. Was there anything you wanted to know that the lessons didn’t cover?
8. Did you like how it was delivered – the exercises?
9. How knowledgeable / confident were your teachers?
10. Has it changed the way you think about drugs and alcohol?
376
Appendix xvii: Data set three: Thematic Analysis themes and sub themes
THEME ONE: Perceptions of the Substance Misuse Education situation
prior to Get Sorted
SUB THEME: Sense that there was no clear cut approach.
1.1
SUB THEME: Contentment with the status quo
1.2
SUB THEME: Concerns about the level of the SM problem
1.3
SUB THEME: Perceived lack of resources
1.4
SUB THEME: Lack of knowledge/ confidence
1.5
SUB THEME: Denial of responsibility
1.6
SUB THEME: Perceived lack of parental support
1.7
SUB THEME: Level of pupils knowledge
1.8
THEME TWO: Contact with / awareness of Get Sorted
SUB THEME: Relationship with Get Sorted
SUB THEME: First impressions
SUB THEME: Intention to continue relationship
SUB THEME: Advice and guidance
SUB THEME: General awareness of Get Sorted
SUB THEME: Training packages / multiple contacts
SUB THEME: Resources developed / delivered
SUB THEME: Other services
SUB THEME: Contribution to start up of Get Sorted
SUB THEME: Ongoing regular contact
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.10
THEME THREE: Intents
SUB THEME: Negative intents
SUB THEME: Building on existing provision
SUB THEME: No specific intents – negative tone
SUB THEME: Resources
SUB THEME: New / different approach
SUB THEME: Staff training
SUB THEME: Welsh services / resources
SUB THEME: Access to services
SUB THEME: Development/support of consistent service provision
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
THEME FOUR: Perceptions of Get Sorted provision
SUB THEME: Standard of resources / methodologies
SUB THEME: Confidence
SUB THEME: Communication
SUB THEME: Access to other services/ providers
SUB THEME: Co-ordinated / consistent approach
SUB THEME: Negative perceptions
SUB THEME: Attitudes and values
SUB THEME: Pupil’s level of knowledge
SUB THEME: Incident management
SUB THEME: Pupils values
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
4.10
377
THEME FIVE: Incident management
SUB THEME: Reporting procedures
SUB THEME: Advice and support
SUB THEME: Guidelines
SUB THEME: How is substance misuse education prioritised now?
SUB THEME: Community
SUB THEME: Dissatisfaction
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
THEME SIX: Development needs
SUB THEME: Training
SUB THEME: Partnership
SUB THEME: Resources
SUB THEME: Approaches
SUB THEME: Parental
SUB THEME: Bilingual
SUB THEME: Reporting
SUB THEME: Miscellaneous needs
SUB THEME: Widening access
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
THEME SEVEN: Outcomes
SUB THEME: Co-ordinated consistent approach
SUB THEME: Impact of new approach
SUB THEME: Critical / confusion
SUB THEME: Incident reporting
SUB THEME: Support
SUB THEME: Training outcomes
SUB THEME: Resources
SUB THEME: Source of advice
SUB THEME: Referrals
SUB THEME: Strategic / CBC / LEA development
SUB THEME: No change
SUB THEME: Communication outcomes
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.9
7.10
7.11
7.12
378
Appendix xviii: Approaches to drug education
Information Based Approaches
Since the Government media campaigns of the late 1980’s, information based
drug education has been the most high profile approach to tackling problematic
drug use in young people. However, it has been suggested that the impact of
such an approach has a higher perceived value amongst adults than it does
amongst its target audience (Wragg, 1992).
Information based approaches to drug education are characterised by the
emphasis on giving objective factual information about different drugs and the
short term and long term effects of their use. Underpinning theory is based on
the belief that information leads to abstinence. If young people are given the
straight facts, they are able to assess the risks for themselves and will make
informed healthy choices not to use drugs. Delivery methods include literature
dissemination and the use of video resources, the mass media, and formal and
informal talks.
This type of approach has been criticised for its lack of impact on the reduction
of demand for the use of drugs (Wragg, 1992). Wragg asserts that this
approach arose from the superficial reading of socio-psychological literature,
which has led to the misapplication of univariate psychological theories to a
complex issue (SCRE, 2000). This misapplication of theory renders models
within this approach (e.g. fear arousal models) ineffective, as the moral
undertones are not consonant with the subjective experience of their audience.
Whilst fear arousal interventions may have a high face validity with some young
people, and those individuals with little or no knowledge of illegal drug use
and/or educational processes, they do not hold credibility with the intended
target audience. As an information source, fear arousal messages are not
representative of young people’s knowledge and experience. This contradiction
undermines the effectiveness of this approach and the trustworthiness of
educators. (Capalaces and Starr, 1973; De Haes and Schuurman, 1975;
ACMD, 1984; Power, 1989; Dorn and Murji, 1992; HEBS, 2003).
379
Within this approach, trends are evident over the last three decades. The
situational approach to information giving, utilised in the 1960’s and 1970’s,
sought to inform young people of the characteristics of situations in which they
were likely to be offered drugs. In providing this information young people’s
stereotypical perceptions of these situations would be challenged and they
would be more equipped to recognise and deal with them. This information
giving approach differs from resistance education as it focused on giving
information about the situation, rather than drugs and their effects. (Dorn et al,
1977). Whilst the situational approach achieved some success in increasing
knowledge and decision making skills, it has since been replaced with other
approaches that focus on the incidence of drug use (HEBS, 2003).
Throughout the latter part of the 1980’s, mass media campaigning was
employed as a method of information giving, with the assumption that in
knowing the facts young people would automatically choose not to use drugs.
Despite advice against the use of fear arousal and mass media national
campaigns from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) in 1984,
the late1980’s saw a number of such campaigns aimed at reducing drug
misuse. Further discussion regarding mass media campaigns can be found in
chapter one.
The harm reduction approach aims to remove the likelihood of individuals
experiencing harm associated with drug use, through the giving of accurate
information about drugs and their risks, the development of safer drug use
skills, and the promotion of more accepting attitudes towards drug users (Cohen
at al, 1990). The underlying assumption of this approach is that young people
will take drugs, and so are more likely to avoid the harm of doing so by
receiving drug education with a harm reduction focus. This approach, employed
from the late 1980’s onwards, has often been criticised for its lax approach to
drug use. Many have found it difficult to accept an approach that does not
condemn drug use. However, caution is given that acceptance of drug use
shouldn’t be confused with condoning drug use (HEBS, 2003). Advocates of
harm reduction argue that it is unrealistic not to recognise the part drug use
plays in young people’s lives, and as harm reduction has its basis in public
health models it is able to reduce the negative effects experienced by young
380
people (Newcombe, 1992). It is also best placed to serve young people’s needs
in a credible manner, through information on safe and unsafe drug use, as well
as increasing awareness of the wider implications of drug use on future choices
- including career choices (Coffield and Gofton, 1994).
Life Skills and Values Deficit Approaches
Life skills and values deficit (LSVD) approaches view drug use as a symptom of
an underlying problem in young people’s development and seek to prevent drug
use by addressing these problems at an early age. LSVD approaches focus on
the development of young people’s skills and values in order to compensate for
a lack of personal living skills. Based on sound developmental theories of
delinquency, this theoretical approach to combating drug use developed in the
1970’s and 1980’s. It seeks to address the aspects of a young person’s
development that are lacking and in turn result in drug use (HEBS, 2003). This
approach in terms of drug education is based on three theories: Problem
Behaviour Theory (Jessor and Jessor, 1977); Social Learning Theory (Bandura,
1997); and Stage Theory (Kander, (1980) in SCRE, 2000). Asserting that users
of drugs lack self-esteem, social skills and personal relationship skills which
leads to difficulties for them in resisting pressure, this approach aims to
increase self-esteem, decision-making skills, and to promote morals, in order to
avoid drug use. Drug education that employs the LSVD approach advocates a
varied methodology, including talks, worksheets, role playing and discussion.
This approach has had considerable impact on the increased provision of drug
education by teachers who find security in the familiarity of the methodologies
often employed within the wider Personal and Social Education (PSE)
curriculum within schools (SCRE, 2000). The LSVD also lends itself to inclusion
in a multi-component programme (Dursenbury and Falco, 1995).
Whilst research identifies LSVD approaches as ineffective in preventing
experimental drug use, some argue that it may be effective in reducing further
drug use and inhibiting the move to other drugs (Dorn and Murji, 1992; SCRE,
2000). Coggans et al.’s (1989), large scale evaluation study of drug education in
Scotland concluded that there was no evidence that this approach reduced drug
use or increased anti-drug attitudes. Dorn and Murji (1992) reiterated that
381
evaluations of interventions based within the LSVD approach “produced
inconclusive but generally discouraging results in relation to drug consumption.”
(pg. 16) Kearney and Hines (1980) concluded that this approach has a
significantly larger impact in the primary phase, with noticeably reduced impact
as pupils progressed in their school career.
Values deficit models have evolved from the social engineering movement
(Dorn and Murji, 1992). Studies that have claimed a causal link between low
self esteem and drug use, as this model does, have experienced criticism in
relation to weak, conflicting evidence and flawed methodology (Palin, 1987).
Resistance Training
Like life skills and values deficit approaches, resistance training seeks to
intervene in young people’s lives at an early age and equip them with the skills
deemed to be necessary to avoid drug use. The resistance education approach
relies heavily on the assumption that the main reason for young people’s drug
use is peer pressure. Based on the belief that primary prevention of drug use is
achievable, this approach focuses on equipping children and young people with
the skills to say ‘no’ in relation to drug offer situations. Favoured by the
Government, this approach has often been described as a ‘vote winner’ for
politicians as it promotes a simplified moral message about drug taking (Cohen,
1996b). The vast majority of Government and media campaigns over the last
two decades have used the resistance approach to inform drug education
messages. This approach has also been employed by police-led drug education
initiatives, where the messages given lie within the moral and legal domain.
The theory behind resistance training lies in behaviourist perspectives, believing
in drug education terms that health interventions are most effective in improving
the relationship between a person’s personality and environment. This
approach, with similarities to the social deficit approach, is concerned with
external influences and factors that result in social pressure that might
compromise this relationship (Lowden and Powney, 1999).
Resistance training argues that young people want to be socially accepted as
independent adults, and the making of decisions that compromise their health
382
(e.g. drug taking) is a manifestation of their desire to be different from other
young people. Young people’s inability to view consequences in the long term,
leads to a lack of understanding of the long term risks of drug use; therefore
drug education that is concerned with the teaching of long term effects of drug
taking is useless (SCRE, 2000). Most resistance training approach-based
interventions focus on the identification of sources of pressure, the discrediting
of such sources, and the development of counterarguments based on shortterm reasons not to succumb to social pressure. This type of intervention is
targeted at a young age, before such pressures become evident, and the
outcome intended is to engender the behavioural skills necessary to resist
future pressure (SCRE, 2000).
The direct method of delivery employed by resistance training is concerned with
young people’s acquisition and mastery of key social skills in order to equip
them to resist pressures that promote health-compromising behaviours. It
argues that the easy, simple and retainable messages used to promote
defensive behaviours are more effective if they are meaningful to young people
who can relate them to everyday situations (Lowden and Powney, 1999). The
focus on social skills, rather than life skills, involves the teaching of ‘say no’
techniques, refusal skills and peer resistance, to equip young people with the
skills to resist drug offers. (HEBS, 2003)
The approaches of resistance training and normative education are favoured
more in the US than the UK, but their effectiveness is still passionately debated
in both countries (Dorn and Murji, 1992; Ashton, 1995). Normative education
addresses the fact that drug use is normal and therefore acceptable, and
challenges such views believing that young people are guilty of overestimating
their own drug use and the acceptability of drug use by their peers (SCRE,
2000). Challenges to this view are in the form of credible local information on
drug use in order to ‘reinforce prevailing conservative norms’ (Dorn and Murji,
1992). Some contend that this approach, coupled with resistance training, is
more effective than both information-based and skills deficit approaches, as it
equips young people practically to resist immediate pressures (Polich et al,
1984; Botvin and Dusenbury, 1989; Hansen, 1990).
383
The argument that the family, media and community are pivotal factors in
ensuring a reduction in drug use through moral rejections of social pressure
(Bukoski, 1986), is definitely problematic, if not flawed, at the present time, as
many communities are currently experiencing second generation drug use. This
argument is heavily based on the assumption that parental factors are morally
objective and offer anti-drug based conservative norms (SCRE, 2000).
Alternatives Based Approaches
Again, like the life skills and values deficit approach, alternatives based drug
education seeks to address the underlying causes of drug use rather than
address the drug use itself. Where LSVD perceives personal developmental
problems as the underlying cause of drug use, alternatives based approaches,
however, address social exclusion issues.
The common element in theories supporting alternatives based drug education
is the need to improve an individual’s social environment in order to reduce the
attraction of drugs and drug use. Participation, either individually or as part of a
group, in community-based activities that promote health is identified as the key
to both preventing and reducing drug use (Lowden and Powney, 1999). Whilst
this approach acknowledges the many motives for drug use, it asserts that with
adequate access to fulfilling and stimulating activities to alleviate the boredom
and frustration that cause drug use, an individual is less likely to use drugs
(Lowden and Powney, 1999; HEBS, 2003). It also asserts that an individual’s
awareness of positive, healthy lifestyles, and the opportunities to participate in
them, are inhibited by cultural and social reproduction of certain beliefs and the
material deprivation within some environments (Lowden and Powney, 1999). If
young people are taking drugs to feel better about themselves and their
environment, to prove to them that greater satisfaction can be achieved through
participation in alternative activities results in their discontinued need for drugs
(Swisher and Hu, 1983; Reilly and Hommel, 1988).
The alternatives based approach argues that effective drug education should
incorporate an understanding of the relationship between young people and
their social and cultural contexts. The employment of community-based action
384
and peer groups focused on reducing the perceived negative aspects of youth
sub-cultures, encourages involvement from young people at risk of exclusion
(Lowden and Powney, 1999).
The methods employed by this approach include a wide range of strategies,
initiatives and programmes aimed at improving the social environment and
encouraging participation in the promotion of health and reduction of drug use
(SCRE, 2000). The success of alternatives based drug education is proportional
to the complexity of the response and activities used. An approach that is
integrated with wider community development initiatives, and is adequately
supported by these initiatives, is more likely to reduce drug use (Gillis, 1989).
This complexity however makes evaluation of such education very difficult
(Lowden and Powney, 1999). High intensity alternatives based programmes
that are sufficiently financed, are likely to have the most positive outcomes in
relation to their effectiveness (Tobler, 1986). SiIverman (1990) concludes that
whilst this type of intervention may improve a young person’s interaction with
their own community, and increase their self esteem as well, there is little
evidence to support its effect on drug use. This approach has also been
criticised on the basis of its dependency on intensive resourcing, which has led
in some cases to an inconsistency in the availability of activities (HEBS, 2003).
Peer Education
Peer education seeks to address the perceived problem that young people who
may be in danger of developing problematic drug use are unlikely to be
receptive to anti-drug messages given by figures of authority such as teachers
or the police.
The underpinning theory behind peer education is that young people see peer
educators as more credible sources of drug education (Botvin, 1990). The use
of established interactions between peers, and the associated socialisation and
influence, can promote health-related behaviour change and therefore prevent
and reduce drug use. The main method of peer education is the use of young
people to provide some if not all the teaching of drug education (Lowden and
Powney, 1999).
385
Difficulties arise when attempting to measure the effectiveness of peer drug
education due to the wide range of methodological variations within this
approach. One important influence upon effectiveness, of which criticisms have
been made, is the criteria used to appoint peer educators (Resnick and Gibbs,
1988; Botvin, 1990). Research suggests that the main characteristics of peer
educators tend to be high grades at school and their popularity with the
teachers. Peer tutors selected on these characteristics are not likely to be well
regarded by those likely to use drugs, the group at which this intervention is
aimed (Botvin, 1990). In this situation, the peer educators gain more from the
experience in relation to their own knowledge, self esteem and positive attitude
to the school. Those likely to be the most effective peer educators and benefit
most from the training are rarely selected by teachers (Resnick and Gibbs,
1988). Botvin (1990) warns that the criteria for selection should reflect young
people’s views and needs, rather than those of the teachers, in order to be
attractive and credible to all peers. He argues that effective peer tutors need to
be good communicators who demonstrate responsible attitudes, yet are
unconventional. Often peer tutors lack organisation and in this situation coteaching approaches are more helpful (Botvin, 1990).
Two meta-analysis studies undertaken in the 1980’s on the effectiveness of
peer education approaches, produced conflicting findings. Tobler’s (1986) study
of 143 drug prevention programmes included peer-led, alternatives, knowledge
and affective, knowledge only and affective only approaches. The findings
identified peer education as having the greatest effects on a range of measures
including knowledge, attitudes, drug use and life skills. Bangert and Drowns
(1988) criticised Tobler’s method of meta-analysis and selection of respondents.
Their meta-analysis of 33 outcome evaluations of peer education programmes
had echoed Tobler’s findings on the impact on knowledge and attitudes through
group discussion; however, they found no evidence to support a reduction in
drug use overall. Tobler’s methodology was criticised for only having studied the
evaluations of those programmes where participants had volunteered to take
part in peer led drug education.
386
Appendix xix: NACRO Report (2002) Key issues for substance misuse
education
Criticisms in relation to substance misuse education and the LEA
included:

No local data on drug and alcohol use amongst young people except
those presenting for treatment. Schools are not reporting incidents to the
LEA.

No comprehensive strategy for consulting young people about substance
misuse.

No consistent message for substance misuse education programmes.

Substance misuse education is neither equitable nor consistent.

The belief that delivering substance misuse education will reduce drug
use is not supported by research.
The report made the following recommendations:

The LEA should employ three substance misuse specialist teachers to
work with schools to assist in the implementation of evidence based
education programmes.

School based substance misuse education needs to be set in a
community context.

Consultation with young people should be integrated into the planning of
substance misuse education interventions.

Contact should be made with the post-16 education system to develop
substance misuse prevention.
387
Appendix xx: Key providers of substance misuse education and initiatives
in Rhondda Cynon Taf
There are a number of providers of substance misuse education in RCT with
whom ‘Get Sorted’ works closely, as well as a few key programmes. ‘Get
Sorted’ was established to co-ordinate and support the work of these providers,
to increase general awareness of their services, improve communication
networks, and increase capacity in fulfilling elements of their work extraneous to
their main focus of educational delivery e.g. policy dissemination. Whilst there is
a wide range of individuals providing substance misuse related inputs in
schools, the key partners in the delivery of substance misuse education are
identified below.
Treatment and Education Drug Services (TEDS)
Treatment and Education Drug Services (TEDS) is a voluntary sector charity
whose services cover the whole of RCT. Set up in the late 1980’s, as a
response to local issues in the Taf Ely valley, TEDS now employs almost 50 full
time staff and is one of the largest voluntary sector substance misuse providers
in South Wales. TEDS has provided substance misuse education and training
for all age ranges in a wide range of settings for almost 20 years, and employs
a qualified teacher to manage this aspect of its service provision. The provision
of education and training is free, and the lessons used in school have been
approved by Personal and Social Education (PSE) advisors, and are available
as a scheme of work. TEDS provide substance misuse education for 18 of the
19 comprehensive schools in RCT and also a number of primary schools.
Beneficiaries of training and education, number approximately 8,000 per year,
and have a good reputation across RCT. TEDS also offers support to schools in
other substance misuse related areas, including INSET training for staff, and
referral for pupils to one to one counselling and support.
Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) Programme
DARE was first introduced in primary schools in upper Rhondda Fawr in 1998,
following a visit by a local police officer to see the programme in use in the
USA. The scheme rapidly gained the support of key individuals in upper
388
Rhondda, yet opposition to the establishment of DARE came from a number of
areas, including the Health Promotion Service, Drug and Alcohol Action Team
(DAAT), the Department of Public Health and the Welsh Drug and Alcohol Unit
(ESTYN, 2004). This opposition was due to concerns regarding its main
messages, appropriateness, delivery and educational merit. However, the local
police force went ahead without the participation of the other agencies and
stakeholders, and introduced the DARE programme into schools in the
Rhondda Fawr. Soon afterwards, supporters of DARE called for the roll out of
DARE across RCT; yet critics of DARE suggested that the popularity of DARE
was due more to political support for police-led drug prevention programmes,
than anything particularly positive in the programme itself (ESTYN, 2004). With
strong political backing at the time, those schools already involved with DARE
broke away from wider discussion regarding substance misuse education in
schools, refusing to support any other substance misuse education provision.
By 2004, DARE had become a major political tool, and schools involved in the
programme were more isolated and resistant to any external support offered,
including ‘Get Sorted’. Tensions between the cluster schools in the Rhondda
Fawr and the LEA were further compounded, when both the NACRO report
(2002) and ESTYN’s evaluation of DARE in 2004, concluded that they did not
support a county wide roll out of the programme. Following the introduction of
the All Wales Police Core Programme in 2004, the Police took the decision to
cease their resourcing of the DARE programme in 2005.
All Wales Police Schools Liaison Programme
The Welsh Assembly Government launched the All Wales Schools Programme
in September 2004. As a national community safety programme to be delivered
throughout Wales by the Police, one of its three strands was substance misuse
education. The All Wales Police Schools Liaison Programme (formally known
as the Core Programme) became fully operational across Wales in September
2004 and was less than favourably received by local areas and practitioners
who described the national roll out of a regional programme as ‘clumsy’
(Tregidga et al, 2005 p 5) with little recognition of existing practice.
389
The programme is delivered to main stream pupils in education, and states that
achieving Crime and Disorder reduction within young communities, and
promoting the principles of positive citizenship in school and the wider
community, are its two main aims. There are three strands to the programme
into which lessons are grouped: substance misuse, anti-social behaviour, and
personal safety. Evaluated in 2005, the programme received positive feedback
for breaking down barriers, and improving relationships between pupils and the
Police; however, residual tensions pertaining to the development and
implementation of the programme were still evident (Tregidga et al, 2005).
Developed within the Gwent area in 2002, the programme ‘rolled out’ across
Wales in 2004, with substantial financial support from the Welsh Assembly and
little consultation with local stakeholders. This situation caused difficulties in a
number of local authority areas, which have in the main been resolved, though
some underlying resentment is evident from time to time. 70 Police Officers are
employed on a full time basis to deliver the programme, 7 of whom are
allocated to RCT. Almost 100% of schools in RCT are involved in at least one
aspect of the programme, and the general feedback from schools is positive
about the support they are receiving from the Police.
The ‘Get Sorted’ team works closely with the Co-ordinator to facilitate
introductions to schools and involvement in strategic groups. This support is
also ongoing. As a member of the of the steering group, the Co-ordinator for
Substance Misuse Education supports the professional development of police
officers through observing and assessing their teaching practice. The ‘Get
Sorted’ team also meet with the officers once a term to offer support and
disseminate information to and from the LEA, PET and SMAT.
Substance Awareness For Everyone (SAFE) Programme
Following the introduction of the All Wales Schools Programme, South Wales
Police retracted their support and resources for the DARE programme in the
Rhondda Fawr in 2005, schools which had supported DARE were unhappy at
the loss of an intensive programme, and with political backing, lobbied the
Police and the LEA to provide an alternative. SAFE (Substance Awareness for
Everyone) was designed in June 2005, as a multi-agency response to the
390
delivery of equitable substance misuse education in the primary phase, across
Rhondda Cynon Taf. It was developed in partnership with ‘Get Sorted’ South
Wales Police (All Wales Core Programme), ESIS (the schools advisory service)
and primary head teacher representatives from RCT. SAFE drew on
established good practice and past experience in RCT to ensure both the
educational needs of pupils, and wider local needs, are met. The programme
consists of eight interactive sessions that introduce a number of community
safety issues to pupils, the delivery of which is shared between teachers and
police officers, and supported by the ‘Get Sorted’ team. Session tasks and
homework tasks were designed to promote pupil participation in community
issues, as well as encouraging parental participation and awareness raising.
The programme runs in the following way:

Lesson One – ‘Get Sorted’ lesson (attitudes to drugs and drug use) Delivered by teachers and supported by ‘Get Sorted’

Lesson Two - New Police Input (introduction to SAFE project) Delivered by Police and teachers

Lesson Three - New Police Input (tobacco) - Delivered by Police

Lesson Four - New Police Input (alcohol) - Delivered by Police

Lesson Five - All Wales Core Programme (anti-social behaviour) Delivered by All Wales Officer

Lesson Six - All Wales Core Programme (illegal drugs) - Delivered
by All Wales Officer

Lesson Seven - All Wales Core Programme (round up session dealing with situations) - Delivered by All Wales Officer

Lesson Eight – ‘Get Sorted’ lesson (knowledge quiz) - Delivered by
teachers and supported by ‘Get Sorted’.
Workbooks were designed for pupils alongside a teachers’ resource pack,
including curriculum linked lesson plans and relevant materials. The workbook
was designed to serve as a reference tool for pupils following completion of the
programme. The delivery of these sessions is shared between teachers and
police officers, and supported by the ‘Get Sorted’ team. SAFE has been
391
successfully piloted in three clusters, and following a positive evaluation of the
pilot in May 2006 (Lancett, 2006), SAFE was rolled out across all RCT primary
schools in September 2006.
392
Appendix xxi: Welsh Assembly Government Circular 17/02 ‘Substance
Misuse: Children and Young People’.
Key points of good practice:

Effective prevention starts early.

Use should be made of broad life skill approaches as part of a general
personal and social education (PSE) programme.

Substance misuse education aims to empower children and young
people to make responsible, well informed decisions about substances.

Learning outcomes for substance misuse education should include the
key components of the PSE framework. These are knowledge and
understanding, attitudes and values, skill development and contexts and
experiences.

The values underpinning substance misuse work are: respect for self and
others; trust; honesty and truth; independence of mind and the right to
hold individual views; fairness, justice and sensitivity to the environment.

Responsibility for substance misuse prevention should be identified as a
role for an individual within each organisation.

Substance misuse education should be non-judgemental, without
stereotyping or stigmatisation.

Children and young people need to develop the relevant skills within a
safe supportive learning environment.

Substance misuse education has been shown to be more effective when
it is part of a whole organisation approach.

Teachers and youth workers are best placed to deliver effective
educational programmes.

Ongoing training is an essential component of effective substance
misuse education.

People from organisations external to school or youth organisation can
enhance the substance misuse programme.

Children and young people should be involved in designing and
delivering educational programmes.

Programmes can be enhanced by the use of materials that support good
practice.

Substance misuse education should be monitored and evaluated.
393
Appendix xxii: Get Sorted Communication Strategy Action Plan
PROJECT
Production and
dissemination of
information materials
TACTICAL
OBJECTIVES
Support role out of SAFE
ACTIONS & TARGET
DATES
Produce and disseminate
information pack and
letters for schools: Dec 06
OWNER
CE
STATUS AT December
2006
Completed
Observe officers and
provide feedback
Ensure Get Sorted
represented with
information boards at
SAFE celebration events
CE
Ongoing: 6 completed
Observe all new officers
by end of academic yr 0607
CE
Ongoing
Prepare paper covering
data analysis of yr 6-7
knowledge and
confidence retention
ZL/VJ
Analysis completed ZL
currently preparing
discussion
Deliver 1-1 training for
youth workers as
appropriate: ongoing
Deliver training sessions
to school governors
VJ
1:1 training provided to
new staff at Cwmparc
regener8
None this 1/4
Deliver training to stat
and vol service youth
workers
Deliver training to
governors
Disseminate information
re:substance misuse
related incident
management and
Deliver training to
education including policy statutory service youth
workers
VJ/CE
VJ
Ongoing: issues with
youth service staffing
levels are obstacle;
training provided in
completed
Contact established with
E3 project
394
Provide educational
resources
Map and publicise
provision for harder to
reach groups
Identify and highlight
areas where there is a
lack of and need for
provision
Increase awareness of
LEA’s response to
substance misuse in
schools and youth
centres
Develop relevant
substance misuse
education resources
VJ/ CE
Get Sorted resources
designed for vocational
training group at Coleg
Morgannwg
Ongoing
peer led alcohol training
in discussion in 3 schools
for summer 07
Completed
ongoing
Provide training for
teaching staff in primary
and secondary schools
Disseminate 6th form
materials to schools
requesting
VJ/CE
Develop monthly
information sharing mail
out for substance misuse
education providers
forum
Report findings to PET
MARCH 2006 then
quarterly
VJ
Monitor Harder to Reach
communication strategy
Report findings to PET
MARCH 2006
VJ
piloted but no input from
youth/community
therefore on hold pending
development of
interactive website
ongoing
Deliver presentations as
appropriate
Attend community events
as appropriate
Deliver presentations to
community groups and
attend community events
as appropriate ONGOING
CM/MP
Ongoing
Produce quarterly and
annual reports
Produce quarterly and
annual reports and
provide to
stakeholdersemail/post to
stakeholders including
SMAT and PET
ZL
Ongoing quarterly
Produce monthly
VJ/CE
information sharing email
and encourage partners to
contribute MONTHLY
395
Improve awareness of
partnership agencies
providing support and
communication pathways
Increase awareness of
Get Sorted and services
provided, raise
awareness of benefits to
the community
Improve press exposure
Increase the number of
reports featuring Get
Sorted in the local press
including newspapers and
radio – 5 articles
ZL
Develop monthly
information sharing mail
out for Substance Misuse
Education Providers’
Forum
Report findings to PET
MARCH 2006 then
quarterly
VJ
Complete Substance
Misuse Education
Providers’ Forum
communication strategy
Produce monthly
VJ
information sharing email
and encourage partners to
contribute MONTHLY
Signpost as appropriate
VJ
ongoing
Deliver training to
teaching staff/youth
workers
Improve press exposure
VJ
ongoing
ZL
Ongoing
As before
Attend community events
as appropriate
CM/MP
None this 1/4
Deliver presentations as
appropriate
VJ/CE
None this 1/4
Increase number and
length of reports featuring
Get Sorted in local press
including newspaper
reports and radio – 5
articles
Ongoing
Stories printed in last ¼
related to SAFE training
of officers, bullying event
and t.v. news regarding
support for SAFE
ongoing
As before
396
Produce and disseminate
quarterly and annual
reports
Produce quarterly and
annual reports and
provide to stakeholders
email/post to stakeholders
including SMAT and PET
Maintain database
Provide information
regarding substance
misuse related incidents
Produce quarterly and
annual reports
Complete termly data
collections
ZL
ongoing
Ongoing
ALL
ongoing
ZL
IC
ongoing
Ongoing
Collect termly incident
data from statutory youth
service via area youth
workers
IC
ongoing
Collect termly incident
data from Coleg
Morgannwg
IC
ongoing
Collect termly incident
data from all schools
397
Appendix xxiii: RCT Harder To Reach Communication Strategy Action Plan
PROJECT
TACTICAL
OBJECTIVES
ACTIONS & TARGET
DATES
OWNER
STATUS
Improve access to
consistent, up to date and
relevant substance
misuse education to
children & young people
in a range of settings
including: YOS; nonmainstream educational
and support services;
LAC services.
Improve awareness of
existing provision
Increase the number of
young people engaging
in substance misuse
education in range of
settings including: YOS;
non-mainstream
educational and support
services; LAC services.
Ongoing target.
VJ
Ongoing: peer mentor
scheme produced; peer
led alcohol session
delivered; young
volunteers trained in
Mountain Ash YMCA and
Penyrenglyn Valleys
Kids; six session
magazine/arts project
developed.
Support the development
of relevant materials and
resources
Develop educational
resource package to
address needs of specific
groups: 1 new resource
per quarter
VJ / Get Sorted
Improve awareness of
existing provision
Increase the number of
incidents of signposting
to education providers
Get Sorted
Ongoing: peer mentor
scheme produced; peer
led alcohol session
delivered; young
volunteers trained in
Mountain Ash YMCA and
Penyrenglyn Valleys
Kids; six session
magazine/arts project
developed.
Ongoing
Identify gaps in existing
provision and highlight to
PET and providers
Support the production of
at least 1 new resource
per quarter
VJ
Improve access to
consistent, up to date and
relevant substance
misuse education to
children & young people
including with a range of
backgrounds and needs
including: Black and
Minority Ethnic groups;
Special Educational
Identify gaps in existing
provision and highlight to
PET and providers
Identify examples of good
practice and highlight to
PET and providers
Ongoing: peer mentor
scheme produced; peer
led alcohol session
delivered; young
volunteers trained in
Mountain Ash YMCA and
398
Needs; young parents;
young people at risk of
homelessness; young
people misusing
substances; young
people who are
experiencing a family
member misusing
substances.
Promote access to
substance misuse related
information and support
services for young people
through publicity events
and materials, marketing
strategies partnership
working and signposting
Identify examples of good
practice and highlight to
PET and providers
Increase levels of
awareness of services
and access amongst
young people and
workers
Increase number of
incidents of signposting
to support services
Get Sorted
Audit and monitor current
services and resources
and identify gaps and
progress to be fed back
to PET and relevant
organisations.
Identify existing levels of
service and uptake
Highlight provision, good
practice and gaps to PET
and to providers
Complete audit of
support for parents for
Nov meeting of working
group
VJ
Support the development
of relevant materials and
resources
Penyrenglyn Valleys
Kids; six session
magazine/arts project
developed. Links
established with access
and inclusion team to
review and develop
support for SEN in
mainstream schools.
Ongoing
Attendance at 9 school
based events this quarter
Attendance at multiagency case conference
with childrens services
Face to face contact with
representatives of 23
communities first areas to
date.
Completed and
contributed to mapping
activity with early years
and children’s services
coordinator for substance
misuse.
399
Appendix xxiv: Incident Data
i. School Substance Misuse Incident Data Analysis 2004-2005
Autumn Term 04
Spring Term 05
Substance Misuse
Litter
Possession
Supply
Under the
influence
Non pupils
22
0
26
48
4
1
4
4
0
8
9
0
2
17
1
14
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
31
12
37
80
Category
Summer Term
05
TOTAL
Autumn Term 04
Spring Term 05
Summer Term 05
TOTAL
Cynon
Rhondda
Taf
4
17
9
5
4
1
3
30
3
12
51
13
TOTAL
30
10
36
76
Autumn Term 04
Spring Term 05
Summer Term 05
Male
Female
6
2
3
7
5
5
14
14
TOTAL
8
10
10
28
Area
TOTAL
Gender
Referral on to
Autumn Term
04
Spring Term 05
Summer Term
05
TOTAL
Parents / Carers
Police
Ambulance
Health Professional
Social Services
Duty
Environmental
Health
Education
Department
Substance Mis.
Agency
Other
4
0
0
0
0
6
2
2
0
0
2
4
0
1
0
12
6
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
4
5
4
1
10
1
2
4
7
TOTAL
11
18
13
42
400
ii. School Substance Misuse Incident Data Analysis 2005-2006
Autumn Term 05
Spring Term 06
Substance Misuse
Litter
Possession
Supply
Under the
influence
Non pupils
1
15
18
34
6
0
4
8
0
7
2
0
4
16
0
15
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
11
30
24
65
Category
Summer Term
06
TOTAL
Autumn Term 05
Spring Term 06
Summer Term 06
TOTAL
Cynon
Rhondda
Taf
3
6
2
5
21
2
6
18
0
14
45
4
TOTAL
11
28
24
63
Autumn Term 05
Spring Term 06
Summer Term 06
Male
Female
9
1
5
3
4
2
18
6
TOTAL
10
8
6
24
Area
TOTAL
Gender
Referral on to
Autumn Term
05
Spring Term 06
Summer Term
06
TOTAL
Parents / Carers
Police
Ambulance
Health Professional
Social Services
Duty
Environmental
Health
Education
Department
Substance Mis.
Agency
Other
4
5
1
0
1
4
1
0
0
0
4
4
0
0
0
12
10
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
4
2
3
4
9
2
3
2
7
TOTAL
17
11
16
44
401
iii. School Substance Misuse Incident Data Analysis 2006-2007
Autumn Term 06
Spring Term 07
Category
Summer Term
07
TOTAL
Substance Misuse
Litter
Possession
Supply
Under the
influence
Non pupils
1
1
11
13
8
0
10
1
0
3
0
0
3
9
0
16
16
3
0
19
TOTAL
35
8
14
57
Autumn Term 06
Spring Term 07
Summer Term 07
TOTAL
Cynon
Rhondda
Taf
1
10
16
3
1
3
1
11
2
5
22
21
TOTAL
27
7
14
48
Autumn Term 06
Spring Term 07
Summer Term 07
Male
Female
9
1
4
0
1
2
14
3
TOTAL
10
4
3
17
Area
TOTAL
Gender
Referral on to
Autumn Term
06
Spring Term 07
Summer Term
07
TOTAL
Parents / Carers
Police
Ambulance
Health Professional
Social Services
Duty
Environmental
Health
Education
Department
Substance Mis.
Agency
Other
9
16
1
0
0
2
3
0
0
0
1
11
0
0
0
12
30
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
9
1
1
11
18
3
3
24
TOTAL
53
9
17
79
402
Appendix xxv: Key Message For Substance Misuse Education
RHONDDA CYNON TAF PREVENTION EDUCATION AND TRAINING SUB
GROUP
JANUARY 2004
Background
The Strategy for substance misuse in Wales ‘Tackling Substance Misuse in
Wales: A Partnership Approach’ was published in April 2000 (NafW, 2000a).
One of the four key themes of the strategy is ‘…. To help children, young people
and adults resist substance misuse …. and to promote sensible drinking in the
context of a healthy lifestyle’. One of the main aims of this Wales Strategy is to
help children and young people resist substance misuse in order to achieve
their full potential in society.
The Rhondda Cynon Taf Strategic Action Plan also follows the four key themes
of the National Strategy. One of the specific objectives for Children and Young
People is, ‘To develop a co-ordinated and consistent approach to substance
misuse education as part of a wider community development model of
prevention and education for children and young people up to the age of twentyfive.’
Central to this objective of a co-ordinated and consistent approach, is the need
to have clarity of and consensus on the key message underlying substance
misuse education in Rhondda Cynon Taf. Agreement and commitment to this
key message from all partners involved in the delivery of substance misuse
education will form the necessary foundation on which to develop our approach.
Welsh Assembly Government Guidance
Guidance on this issue is given in the Welsh Assembly Circular 17/02,
‘Substance Misuse: Children and Young People’, Part 3: Good Practice in
Substance Misuse Education. The main points raised are:
Substance misuse education aims to empower children and young people to
make responsible, well informed decisions about substances.
403
Substance misuse education should be non-judgemental, without stereotyping
and stigmatisation.
Youth Work Curriculum Statement for Wales states that one of the purposes of
Youth Work in Wales is ‘to encourage young people to develop knowledge,
understanding, attitudes and values which enable them to make purposeful use
of their skills, resources and time.’
Knowledge given should be accurate, credible, up to date and accompanied by
understanding.
Educational opportunities in relation to substance misuse should encourage
children and young people to develop and explore values, in order to determine
their attitudes and in turn their behaviour towards substance misuse.
Substance misuse education is not effective when it relies upon fear arousing,
or ‘just say no’ approaches. Such approaches lack credibility, may at worst
glamorise substance misuse and limit open, honest debate and discussion.
Research shows that young people value approaches that provide consistent,
accurate, balanced information that is presented simply and clearly.
The Way Forward
Therefore members of the Prevention Education and Training Sub Group of the
Substance Misuse Action Team have provided and agreed to commit to a key
message in order for us to move forward to meet our strategic aim of a coordinated consistent approach to substance misuse education.
Key Message
“Substance Misuse Education in Rhondda Cynon Taf focuses on providing
children and young people with relevant, accurate, balanced, up to date
information, delivered in an inclusive, non-judgemental, safe environment. Such
an approach would empower children and young people to develop the skills
and attitudes necessary to make informed, educated choices about their own
lives, in order to reduce substance misuse related harm.”
404
Appendix xxvi: Standards
The following documents have been grouped into five distinct areas for
identification as standards:
1. Rhondda Cynon Taf documents
2. Rhondda Cynon Taf substance misuse documents
3. National substance misuse documents (Wales)
4. National substance misuse documents (UK)
5. General children and young people documents
1. Rhondda Cynon Taf documents
“A Better Life” – Our Community Plan 2004 - 2014 (2004)
“A Better Life” is the Community Plan for Rhondda Cynon Taf. A range of
partners from public, private and voluntary sectors were involved in creating the
ten year plan, which is intended to be of benefit to everyone living in the area.
Following consultation with a range of groups and individuals, the plan identified
priorities for action.
The challenges identified in the plan include: the area’s growing diversity; the
changing local economy; the changing social characteristics; the health of our
communities; prospects for young people; reconciling rapid social and economic
change with protecting the most vulnerable; and understanding and promoting
Rhondda Cynon Taf’s place in the world. These challenges reflect a climate of
change and development across the community.
The clear message contained in the report is that in order to provide a basis for
development and a measure of success, there must be involvement from all
parts of the community. This includes: young people; older people; community
organisations; businesses; public sector organisations; area partnerships; and
communities first partnerships. Five action themes are identified in the
Community Plan:

Safer communities

Our living space

Our health and well-being
405

Boosting our local economy

Learning for growth
Children and young people form one of the groups that are singled out for
“special mention” throughout each of the action themes.
Education and Lifelong Learning Supplementary Education Strategy Plan 2006–
2007 (2007)
Section A.2 of the supplementary education strategy plan states that the
underpinning principle on which the work of the Local Education Authority (LEA)
is based is ‘developing people, developing communities’. In order to achieve
this the LEA must respond to the key outcomes and priorities of the community
plan. The same strategy plan lists the three priorities from the community plan
chosen by the LEA as:

Promoting the interests of vulnerable children.

Higher standards of achievement.

Promoting learning as a lifelong process.
The strategy plan also describes a culture and ethos of partnership working that
will enable these priorities to be addressed.
School Effectiveness Business Plan 2008-2011 (2008)
Key action 4 within this plan is ‘to focus workforce development on limiting
dependence on central, specialist services and raising skills to meet key
objectives’. Within this key action is the sub action of ‘Utilise Get Sorted
methodology to raise schools' capacity to meet wider challenges’. The impact of
the utilisation of the ‘Get Sorted’ project methodology in other subject areas is
due to be measured in 2011.
Rhondda Cynon Taf Children and Young People’s Plan 2008-2011 (2008)
The Single Plan has replaced the Single Education Plan and the Children’s
Services Plan in RCT and is based on the seven core aims as identified in
‘Rights to Action’. The expectation across Wales is that the joint formulation and
406
implementation of these local plans will improve how agencies work together
and in turn improve the outcomes for children and young people. The seven
core aims include:

Have the best start in life

Have a comprehensive range of learning opportunities

Health and freedom from abuse and exploitation

Have access to play, leisure, sporting and cultural activities

Listened to and treated with respect

Have a safe home and community

Are not disadvantaged by poverty
A cross cutting theme for the plan is ‘Workforce development’ to enable
agencies to work more effectively through an integrated approach.
Health, Social Care and Wellbeing Strategy 2008-2011 (2008)
The strategy sets out the intention to improve partnership working to tackle the
underlying causes of ill health, particularly in deprived areas. The proposal,
though the provision of activities and education opportunities, will impact on the
lifestyle choices of young people by encouraging them to participate in physical
activities. It also seeks to improve emotional wellbeing through, amongst other
things, the provision of broad and targeted PSE programmes that are directly
linked to the Healthy School agenda.
The Rhondda Cynon Taf and Merthyr Tydfil Community Safety Partnership
Joint Strategic Assessment (2008)
Following review by the Welsh Assembly Government, this document replaces
yearly strategies of previous planning cycles with six monthly assessments
designed to identify current, emerging and long term issues for the geographical
area. The needs assessment is based on trend data harvested from a range of
database sources and reflects the national priority of 'making communities
safer'. Included in this overarching aim is the need to increase the number of
children and young people on the road to success. As substance misuse falls
407
within the Community Safety Partnership’s remit, service provision for
substance misuse is monitored through this plan.
2. RCT substance misuse documents
NACRO Report 2002
In 2002 the Substance Misuse Action Team (SMAT) commissioned NACRO to
undertake a substance misuse needs analysis across Rhondda Cynon Taf. The
report made a number of criticisms and subsequent recommendations in
relation to substance misuse education and the LEA (Appendix xix).
In response to the NACRO report, the Co-ordinator for Substance Misuse
Education was appointed in April 2003 to address the issues identified in the
NACRO report, and action the strategic objectives relating to substance misuse
education with the RCT Substance Misuse Action Plan.
In 2004, the Co-ordinator for Substance Misuse Education developed and
implemented the ‘Get Sorted’ project to enable RCT to undertake actively the
recommendations of the NACRO report. The need to promote and support a coordinated, consistent and integrated multi-agency approach to the provision and
delivery of substance misuse education in a range of settings across RCT,
became the primary focus of ‘Get Sorted’ service provision.
RCT Substance Misuse Strategic Action Plan 2003-2008
The original RCT Substance Misuse Strategic Action Plan was a five year plan
the scope of which echoed the national strategy:
To help children, young people and adults resist substance misuse in order to
achieve their full potential in society, and to promote sensible drinking in the
context of a healthy lifestyle.
To protect communities from anti-social and criminal behaviour and health risks
related to substance misuse.
To enable people with substance misuse problems to overcome them and live
healthy and fulfilling lives and in the case of offenders, crime free lives.
408
To stifle the availability of illegal drugs on our streets, and the inappropriate
availability of other substances.
Changes within the Welsh Assembly planning process in 2004, led to the
requirement of a three-year plan that was integrated with the Community Safety
Partnership plans for all 22 Local Authority areas in Wales. For this reason a
2004-2005 plan was developed as a bridging plan between the original five-year
strategy and the newly formulated 2005-2008 RCT strategy. The aim of the
2004-2005 plan was to consolidate previous work and to provide a realistic and
achievable one year plan, that could be the basis for the production of an
integrated Community Safety Partnership three year plan (2005-2008), and the
associated future development of substance misuse services across the
Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough.
The 2005-2008 Strategic Action Plan sets out clear objectives and actions for
the delivery and commissioning of improved local substance misuse services
over the three years. The plan draws on data collated around issues of health,
socio-economic disadvantage, and crime. It brings together existing actions
from published local plans, such as the broader Community Safety Action
Plans, and is based on up-to-date evidence of effective interventions in tackling
substance misuse.
The purpose of the Strategic Action Plan is to ensure that there is a cohesive
and coherent local response to the challenges that substance misuse presents
to all the local agencies involved, as well as to groups and individuals in our
local communities. It attempts to balance the major elements of education,
prevention, treatment, and enforcement, and identifies several cross-cutting
themes which feature throughout the strategy. These include:

Service user involvement.

Media Issues

Public Information

Training
Get Sorted Cabinet Report 2004
409
A report was prepared for the approval of RCT Cabinet members in April 2004.
The purpose of the report was to inform Members of progress to date in the
activities of the Co-ordinator for Substance Misuse Education, in terms of a
comprehensive review of the current needs at the time, and the adequacy of
provision in this key area of service delivery. In addition, detailed proposals
were offered regarding the design, implementation and monitoring of ‘Get
Sorted’ as a comprehensive, new, Council-led substance misuse education
initiative, for which approval by Members was sought (Appendix xxviii).
The Cabinet approved the establishment of ‘Get Sorted’ and agreed the
allocation of funds to support its implementation in April 2004.
‘Get Sorted’ Operational Plan 2004-2005; 2005-2006; 2006-2007
‘Get Sorted’ Operational plans have been developed every year to ensure
effective monitoring and review of the services provided by ‘Get Sorted’. These
operational plans are directly linked to both the RCT Substance Misuse Action
Plan, and the ‘Get Sorted’ objectives, and identify how the actions relating to
substance misuse education are to be undertaken, and the timescales in which
they will be achieved. The ‘Get Sorted’ Operational Plan also informs the annual
development and review of the Individual Action Plans of ‘Get Sorted’ staff.
3. National substance misuse documents (Wales)
Tackling Substance Misuse in Wales: A partnership Approach 2000-2008
(2000)
The eight year substance misuse strategy for Wales includes the Welsh
strategy aims: helping children, young people and adults resist substance
misuse; protecting families and communities from anti-social behaviour and
criminal behaviour; enabling people with substance misuse problems to
overcome them; and stifling the availability of illegal drugs and inappropriate
availability of other substances.
The Welsh strategy directly informs the local Substance Misuse Strategic Action
Plans across all 22 Community Safety Partnerships in Wales. Targets and
actions set for local delivery by the Welsh Assembly Government, directly relate
410
to the national strategy, to allow for effective monitoring and review of national
strategy implementation and effectiveness.
Substance Misuse: Children and Young People NAW circular 17/02 (2002)
The circular provides background on good practice in substance misuse
education and the management of substance misuse related incidents in
schools and the youth service. The guidance includes information on what is
age phase appropriate in terms of substance misuse information. Guidance is
also provided on the development, monitoring and review of effective policy in
schools and youth centres.
As the key guiding document for substance misuse education provision and
delivery in schools and the youth service in Wales, the implementation and
impact of this document on practice was recently evaluated by ESTYN (2007).
The evaluation document ‘Education about Substance Misuse’ (ESTYN, 2007)
concluded that the implementation of Circular 17/02 had not been consistent
throughout Wales, and that whilst there had been some measurable impact at
primary school level, its impact at secondary school level was less obvious.
Within the main findings, ESTYN identify the general lack of joined up thinking
nationally and locally - in terms of planning, co-ordinating, resourcing, teaching,
monitoring and evaluating - as undermining the effectiveness of substance
misuse education.
The Service Framework for Children and Young People Who Use or Misuse
Substances In Wales Consultation Document (2006)
This consultation document identifies those groups of children and young
people that are vulnerable in terms of substance misuse, and proposes a
framework for action for key organisations and agencies, to tackle the issues
presented. In line with other Welsh documents, the consultation includes drugs
and alcohol within the scope of substance misuse.
411
Substance Misuse Treatment Framework for Wales (2006)
The Substance Misuse Treatment Framework (SMTF) for Wales provides
guidance and best practice to assist Substance Misuse Commissioners in the
provision of needs assessed services. The complete SMTF for Wales reflects
professional consensus on ‘what works best’ for substance misusers, and its
development has been informed by Models of Care for the treatment of drug
misusers developed by the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse in
England. The Framework assists Community Safety Partnerships in coordinating the delivery of the Welsh substance misuse strategy, and supports
responsible authorities and other partners in developing high quality needs
based services.
Whilst the SMTF does not directly relate to substance misuse education it
addresses the requirement for local Community Safety Partnerships to provide
needs led substance misuse services, that identify clear measurable targets
against which performance and progress can be measured for commissioning
purposes.
Drug and Alcohol National Occupational Standards (DANOS) (2005)
DANOS was introduced to the substance misuse field in Wales in 2003 with
supporting guidance issued by the Welsh Assembly Government in 2005.
Agreed by employers, trade unions and approved by the Qualifications
Curriculum Authority (QCA) and the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA),
DANOS specify the standards of performance those employed within the
substance misuse field should achieve, in order to ensure the high standards of
service delivery expected. Split into three service areas - service delivery;
management of services; and commissioning of services - DANOS is organised
into units of competence, the elements of which identify the performance criteria
and knowledge and understanding needed to perform to the required standard.
Guidance on Good Practice for the provision of services for Children and
Younger People who Use or Misuse Substances in Wales (2008)
Published by the Welsh Assembly Government this document follows on from
412
the Service Framework for Children and Young People Who Use or Misuse
Substances In Wales document from 2006. Responses to this former
consultation document led the production of this good practice document, which
is intended to assist planners and service providers in establishing effective
services for young people in relation to substance misuse. It highlights
emerging themes of good practice that can have a positive impact and presents
a framework for agencies.
Working Together to Reduce Harm 2008-2018 (2008)
This is Wales’ first ten-year strategy and with a strong emphasis of the
prevention and reduction of harm, the strategy draws particular attention to
alcohol use and misuse which was felt to have been lost in the previous
strategy ‘Tackling Substance Misuse in Wales: A Partnership Approach (NafW,
2000a). The strategy is divided into four main priority action areas:

Preventing harm

Support for substance misusers – to improve their health and aid and
maintain recovery

Supporting and protecting families

Tackling availability and protecting individuals and communities via
enforcement activity
Alongside the new strategy sits a three-year implementation plan, the actions
within having been colour coded with regards to whether the action relates to
drugs, alcohol, both drugs and alcohol or volatile substances. The ‘preventing
harm’ priority offers a wider approach to prevention of which education is only a
part. Stating the aim of the preventative approach as ‘to reach a position where
no-one in Wales is ignorant of the consequences of misusing drugs or alcohol
or where they can seek help and support’ (WAG, 2008b, p. 22), this priority
identifies the need for inclusion, targeting interventions, the identification and
support for older people as well as children and young people, diversionary
activities, and the need to co-ordinate school based provision in order to ‘make
a concerted effort to do more to educate and influence attitudes across the
whole population. It also stipulates the need to establish a ‘Substance Misuse
413
Education Steering Group for Wales’ to review and monitor the provision of
substance misuse education in Wales, to consider relevant research and make
recommendations on how such provision can be better supported locally
through the improving of links between providers.
4. National substance misuse documents (UK)
Hidden Harm: Responding to the needs of Children of Problem Drug Users. The
report of an enquiry by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (2003)
This document focuses on the issue of parental substance use. It estimates that
between 250,000 and 350,000 children in the UK are affected by parental
problem drug use. The document states that parental problem drug use can
cause serious harm, but that through addressing the needs of the parent, and
by working in partnership, services can both protect and improve the health and
wellbeing of affected children. It poses key questions for a range of service
providers, and identifies 48 recommendations to improve policy, strategy and
practice, in order to improve the lives of children and their families.
Pathways To Problems: Hazardous use of tobacco, alcohol and other drugs by
young people in the UK and its implications for policy (2006)
The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs document, indicates the need for
the role of schools in the provision of substance misuse education, to be
carefully reassessed, and calls for the ‘emphasis on the provision of providing
all pupils with accurate, credible and consistent information about the hazards
of tobacco, alcohol and other drugs, including volatile substances’ (ACMD, 2006
pg.6). The documents states that re-assessment of the role of schools in
prevention is necessary, as evidence asserts that classroom-based drug
education has very limited effectiveness in reducing the rates of drug use.
Instead, the roles of schools should be one of information giving, rather than
preventing use.
5. General children and young people documents
The Children’s Act (2004)
The Children’s Act sets out a duty for partners to work together to improve the
414
wellbeing of children and young people locally. The Act also makes it the
responsibility of Local Authorities to lead the development of a Single Children
and Young People’s Plan, which should refer to all services for children and
young people from 0 to 25 years, including maternity services.
The National Service Framework (NSF) for Children, Young People and
Maternity Services in Wales (2006)
The NSF covers pre-conception to the young person’s 18th birthday, and has a
core aim that ‘all children and young people achieve optimum health and well
being, and are supported in achieving their potential’. In order to meet this aim
the NSF is intended to improve quality and reduce inequity in services, and sets
national standards to aid this process. The national standards affect the NHS
and other Local Authority and voluntary sector organisations that provide
services that impact on the health of children and young people.
Extending Entitlement Supporting Young People 11 – 25 in Wales (2000)
Extending Entitlement sets out the Welsh Assembly Government’s policy for
youth support services in Wales. Several entitlements have implications for
substance misuse services, and are promoted through the ‘Get Sorted’ project’s
service delivery. ‘Being heard’ entitles young people to be engaged in decisions
that affect them, and therefore actions should lead to consultation with young
people, and the participation of young people in developing and delivering
communications. ‘Education and employment’ and ‘access to information and
advice’ raise the need to provide accurate, accessible and appropriate
substance misuse information for young people. ‘Easy access to services’
drives the need to communicate national local service provision to young people
in a positive way. ‘Health and wellbeing’ strongly encourages that the
information given to young people should promote healthy lifestyles, harm
reduction, treatment services, and should be non judgemental. ‘Safety and
security’ suggests a need to publicise progress on ‘Tackling Substance Misuse
in Wales: A Partnership Approach’, in a way that is easily accessible to young
people.
415
Children and Young People: Rights to Action (2004)
The Rights to Action document sets out the Welsh Assembly Government’s
ambition for all children and young people in Wales to reach their full potential
and offers the following statement:
“We are committed to ensuring that individuals and families who use
social services are able to rely on a workforce that is properly trained,
appropriately qualified and effectively regulated” (WAG, 2004 pg. 14)
This clearly identifies a need for workforce training and support, to build their
knowledge and confidence to deliver substance misuse education and deal with
substance misuse related issues, in order for them to pass on accurate,
appropriate, accessible and non-judgemental information regarding substance
misuse to young people. Children and Young People: Rights to Action, also
states that those children and young people deemed harder to reach and ‘most
in need’ should be prioritised and explicitly identified, in order to ensure that
actions are prioritised.
Young people: Youth work: Youth Service. National Youth Service Strategy for
Wales (2007)
The vision set out within the new strategy document is to ‘demonstrate the
intent to ensure that all children and young people have access to, and are
involved in, decisions about the services, support, opportunities, activities and
experiences which will enable them to gain the personal, social, emotional,
intellectual and practical skills they need to get the best from their lives, now
and in the future’ (pg.1). The Youth Work Curriculum Statement for Wales,
which determines that any opportunities for young people are educative,
participative, empowering and expressive, underpins this vision.
Learning Country: Learning Pathways 14-19 Action Plan (2003)
This document aims to ensure that young people have the opportunity to gain
the skills and knowledge they need to take their place in the global future
market, and to have happy successful lives. The principles of Learning Country:
Learning Pathways 14-19 encompass partnership learning and responsivity to
416
the needs of the learner. This calls for the implementation of actions that are
flexible enough for partners delivering the actions to adapt to the needs of the
local community and to individual learners.
The work of ‘Get Sorted’ contributes to adapting national and local policy to
local needs, in order to meet learners needs within a partnership approach.
417
Appendix xxvii: Key Partners of the ‘Get Sorted’ project
ESIS
TEDS
Health Promotion
Police
Youth Service
Healthy Schools
Scheme
Coleg Morgannwg
(FE college)
Environmental
Health
DARE
Partners
Community Safety
RAID
Sober and Safe
All Wales Core
Programme
Education Services
Trading Standards
Children's Services
Voluntary Sector
Schools
Communities First
Youth Offending
Team
418
Appendix xxviii: Recommendations from ‘Get Sorted’ Cabinet Report
2004
The report recommended the following:

That Members note that an assessment of the need and provision for
substance misuse education in Rhondda Cynon Taf had been
completed, and action had been taken to address some of the issues
highlighted;

That Members note that new opportunities were available to ensure a
swift, visible, and more effective, co-ordinated response to this high
profile issue, within the strategic framework of the Rhondda Cynon Taf
Substance Misuse Action Team (SMAT), through the implementation of
the proposed, new “Get Sorted” (Support on Relevant Training and
Education about Drugs) programme, from September 2004;

That Members agree the allocation of resources to support the quick
implementation of ‘Get Sorted’, in Year one, from the Council’s
Development Fund, in order to avoid delay in putting improved provision
in place, whilst alternative, external funding sources are identified to
continue the new programme in Years two and three.
419
Appendix xxix: Rhondda Cynon Taf Substance Misuse Action Plan 2003
Key actions:

Examine and disseminate most appropriate models of good practice
in order to inform the development of prevention and education
activities, in consultation with young people.

Identify the training and support needs of staff for the consistent and
co-ordinated delivery of school based substance misuse education.

Develop a prevention and education plan, which involves young
people and identifies appropriate activities at key stages within the
school curriculum.

Develop a framework that provides appropriate strategies for
engaging with hard to reach and vulnerable young people in
prevention education.
420