Background to the Research

• The CCGAAD was set up by then Minister of State Sir John Wheeler and supported by HPANI. The provision of up-to-date information on action being taken to combat drug misuse and to support the work of the CCGAAD has become a key element of the NI Drugs campaign.
• The Department of Education for Northern Ireland has previously issued guidance to both schools and youth organisations on drug education programmes, while HPANI has surveyed 10-17 year olds in Northern Ireland to assess their knowledge and awareness of drugs. Additionally, the 1998 Minister for Health and Social Services targeted the youth service in his 1998 strategy plan.
• This report presents findings from a survey carried out by the Education and Training Inspectorate. The findings presented relate to drug education policy and management, current practice, inter-agency approaches, and monitoring and evaluation.
  

Research Approach

• The Inspectorate carried out a survey between 1996 and 1998 to ascertain the extent and effectiveness of drug education and associated pastoral support in post-primary schools and colleges of further education. Visits were also made to 39 youth centres, 9 VHQOs and two youth projects, and discussions took place with the five ELB youth advisers. Interviews also took place with groups of young people and their leaders.
  

Main Findings

• The youth service provides a good quality of pastoral care for the young people. Most youth group leaders know their members well, can relate to their circumstances and are at hand to offer advice, guidance and support: the members know they can talk with confidence, to a leader about a drug-related issue.
• Only a minority of the youth groups make additional provision for members who have problems with drug misuse.
• Over 50% of the youth groups have written policies and guidance on drug education; in about half of the remainder there are programmes or procedures in place to deal with drug-related incidents, but no written policies. About a quarter of the groups have no policy in place.
• Over half of the youth groups which are affiliated to individual schools and led by a youth tutor use the school's drug policy and guidelines. The youth tutors have little knowledge of what the young people have experienced within the school's personal and social education programme which might inform the youth centre provision: drug education was absent from the programme offered in a majority of the groups led by youth tutors.
• VHQO guidelines are variable in quality and scope. All VHQOs visited recognise the need for a written policy and clear procedures: in a significant minority of cases this commitment has yet to be translated into practice.
• All ELBs provide guidance to youth centres in their areas on health education or drug education; a majority of this guidance is not sufficiently specific to youth groups.
• In general, training is still at the level of raising awareness about drug education. A more systematic and planned approach to training is required by ELBs and VHQOs to facilitate the delivery of effective drug education programmes. The good work of a small number of youth workers is informed by pursuing personal study in this area.
• There is significant diversity in terms of quality and availability of current drug education programmes in the Youth Service. About half of the youth groups provide supportive and effective programmes.
• Inadequate levels of staffing and leaders with insufficient training were two features common to poor programmes.
• Resources to facilitate an effective drug education programme are poor in a majority of youth groups.
• There are examples of good inter-agency work on drug education in a variety of settings, and of innovative harm-reduction programmes with young people who have drug-related problems. The leaders report that the young people respect the rule that drugs are not allowed inside youth centres.
• The monitoring and evaluation of drug education programmes are poorly developed: there is evidence of most groups monitoring programmes, but in a majority of instances the information gathered is not used to influence future practice or to disseminate successful practice.
• The most successful practice was observed when the programme had well developed policies and procedures, and adequately trained staff that had confidence in their own ability to monitor and evaluate the outcomes of all the programmes offered in their centres.

Conclusions

• The good quality of pastoral care and support which is available to the young people in the majority of youth centres visited during this survey creates a climate which is conducive to the development and delivery of a comprehensive drug education programme. However, the quality of drug education provision is inconsistent. There is a need for greater co-ordination of training, methodology and planning to maximise the potential learning for all young people, and to ensure that the youth service can support those young people who are at risk.