Tuesday, November 23rd 2021

According to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), in 2020 more people died of drug poisoning than in any year since records began in 1993. Last year, 4,561 people died due to drug poisoning, a 3.8% increase on 2019. NHS Digital statistics report that deaths caused by drug misuse are nearly 50% higher than they were ten years ago and hospital admission due to drug use are 16% higher than five years ago. They also find that hospital admissions from drug dependency, drug-related mental and behaviour disorders and misuse poisonings are 5-6 times higher in the most deprived areas.

The ONS posits a number of explanations for this increase including: an ageing cohort of drug users, new trends in specific drug combinations with a higher risk of overdose, and disengagement or non-compliance with opiate substitute therapy (OST). This increase in drug-related deaths over the last two decades has coincided with a general fall in drug taking amongst the general population. 16 to 24 year olds are a 33% less likely to have taken drugs in the last year than the same age group 15 years ago.

Current government strategy on tackling drug misuse is summarised in the 2017 UK Government Drug Strategy. This sets out four goals: 1) preventing people – particularly young people – from becoming drug users in the first place; 2) targeting those criminals seeking to profit from others’ misery and restricting the availability of drugs; 3) offering people with a drug dependence problem recovery programmes; 4) leading and driving action on a global scale. Building on the 2010 strategy, it looks to improve partnerships and tackle the supply of drugs. In January 2021, the government announced a £148 million new investment to cut crime and protect people from the “scourge” of illegal drugs. This included £80 million for drug treatment services right across England – representing the largest increase in drug treatment funding for 15 years, while £40 million was dedicated to tackling supply and county lines and target gangs. The current Health and Care Bill seeks to build on the NHS’s Long-Term Plan, aiming reduce health inequalities and work with local authority drug and alcohol services in the worst 25% affected areas to prevent dependence-related admissions.

Critics argue that recent government policy is a continuation of previous policy on drug misuse, which has seen drug-related deaths expand year-on-year. In 2019, the Commons Health and Social Care Committee made a number of recommendations including moving from the current criminal justice approach to a health approach, with responsibility for drugs policy moving from the Home Office to the Department of Health and Social Care. The committee also called for a consultation on decriminalisation – a suggestion furthered by the former leader of the Conservative party, William Hague, in recent Times article. Those who support some decriminalisation in this area point to international approaches to drug policy, such as in Portugal where the response to the offence of drugs possession has changed, and Dissuasion Commissions support low level offenders to access treatment and rehabilitation.

Devolved administrations have tended to push for a greater public health role in tackling drug misuse and dependency. The Scottish Government for instance, have expressed concerns about the restrictions that apply on the Scottish response to drugs misuse through the MDA. It supports a public health approach to drug harms but argues that the system is “constrained by the current UK law.” For local government though, funding for drug treatment services has decreased by 27% over the last three years.

This timely symposium will therefore provide local authorities, clinical commissioners, mental health teams, employment, housing and welfare services, and criminal justice agencies, with an opportunity to engage with the drug strategy and develop interventions for effective prevention, treatment and recovery. It will also enable all stakeholders to share best practice on delivering an integrated multi-agency response.

Programme

• Identify key changes in drug-related deaths since the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic and develop successful strategies to address them
• Evaluate priorities for drug-related measures in the upcoming Health and Social Care Bill
• Plan and implement successful preventative measures
• Discuss the successes of drug and alcohol prevention programs as a means to decrease crime, improve health, and reduce hospital admissions locally
• Consider the wider determinants of drug dependence and draw constructive conclusions for further action
• Examine current recovery-oriented ambitions and ways to facilitate the progress of service users towards recovery goals
• Identify how to meet the needs of vulnerable young people and communities, building resilience and minimising harm through effective safeguarding protocols
• Evaluate police methods of disrupting drug markets in the UK, and consider the merits of decriminalisation
• Share best practice on successfully raising awareness of drug related harm amongst at-risk groups
• Explore methods of improving access to housing, employment and welfare services to support sustained recoveries

To register for this briefing, please click here.

 

Thursday, November 25th 2021

According to the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW), there were an estimated 3.8 million incidents of fraud in 2019, with criminals successfully stealing over £1.2 billion from individuals through banking fraud and scams. Businesses and the public sector are estimated to lose around £5.9 billion per year as well from this crime. Perhaps surprisingly, data shows that there is little variation in demographics amongst victims, although the likelihood of being a victim is generally lower in older age groups and greater in higher income households. The incidence of online scams has been increasing for a number of years, however the pandemic has furthered this trend. In the 12 months to March 2021, phone call and text message fraud was up 83% from the previous year, according to consumer group Which?.

Most fraud targeted at individuals is conducted via unauthorised payments from payment cards, remote banking and cheques. However, a significant amount of fraud is also via authorised payments. This is when the victim is tricked into transferring the money to the criminal. In these cases, victims were much less likely to recover their losses.

The government, police and other key stakeholders have initiated a number of programmes to combat scams and frauds. Awareness campaigns have been a large share of this effort, with the aim of increasing awareness and providing people with practical advice on how to avoid being scammed. The National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) recently launched the “Suspicious email reporting service”(SERS), to make it easier for the public to report scams and harmful websites. The NCSC website states that as of 31 March 2021, more than 5,500,000 reports were received, with the removal of more than 41,000 scams and 81,000 URLs. The Payment Systems Regulator (PSR), a subsidiary of the Financial Conduct Authority, has developed a voluntary code to assist and reimburse victims of authorised push payments (APP) fraud, which many high street UK banks have signed up to.

The Government has also been leading work to develop bilateral fraud charters with the banking, telecommunications and accountancy sectors. The aim of the charters is “to bring greater clarity, transparency and accountability to the actions that each sector will take to target harden their systems and protect their customers from fraud”. For example, the Dedicated Card and Payment Crime Unit (DCPCU) is a police unit that targets and disrupts credit card fraud. It was formed as a partnership between UK Finance, the City of London Police, the Metropolitan Police, and the Home Office.

Critics though argue that recent responses to the increase in online fraud has been piecemeal. The Online Safety Bill, while ending the era of self-regulation and aiming to protect users of online platforms from harmful material, has excluded online fraud from the scope of the bill. Stakeholders like UK Finance and Llyods Bank have stated their disappointment, and urged the government to do more. The policing response has also been heavily criticised for failing to develop a national strategy for fraud. Some policing stakeholders have argued that local forces should not be responsible for investigating fraud. These stakeholders argue that regional or national investigative teams would be better suited to investigate fraud because fraud offending often crosses police force boundaries. The performance of Action Fraud and the NFIB has been the subject of much criticism. They have been accused of providing poor communications to victims of fraud and police forces and for taking too long to handle requests. Furthermore, The 2019 inspection of the police response to fraud found “significant problems with the way fraud is currently investigated, including numerous examples of inefficient and ineffective processes”.

This timely symposium will therefore bring together police, local authorities, charities and other key stakeholders to discuss current responses to tackling online fraud, and methods to better support victims and raise awareness of the problem.

Programme

• Examine the current work of Action Fraud and the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau (NFIB), the Joint Fraud Taskforce in reporting, recording, allocating and investing incidents of fraud, and how this can be improved
• Discuss the National Fraud Policing Strategy 2019-2022 and its implications for police forces across the country in dealing with fraud
• Explore methods of raising awareness of online fraud and protecting people from this crime
• Analyse the Online Safety Bill, what it means for tackling fraud, and where further government legislation and initiatives might be required
• Consider the role of the banking industry in tackling online fraud, and what more they can do to detect fraudulent activity
• Address the Voluntary Code on APP fraud and whether this will help support victims of authorised payment fraud
• Discuss innovative methods to help reduce fraud, such as the Confirmation of Payee (CoP) service
• Understand methods to help victims get their money back and the role of the Financial Ombudsman Service
• Develop methods to help identify and prosecute criminals
• Share examples of effective partnership working between local authorities, police and community groups in developing innovative safeguarding solutions, and how Fraud Charters can support this
• Analyse the role of emerging technologies and innovations in preventing online fraud

To register for the briefing, please click here.

 

A year after the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic, we take stock of an increasingly diverse set of new studies linking violence against women and children (VAW/C) to COVID-19 and associated pandemic response measures. In this fourth round up, we focus exclusively on research in low- and middle-income countries (LICs and MICs) published since December 2020 to highlight dynamics in settings that previously had fewer studies. As in previous round ups (see the first, second and third covering a total of 74 studies), we only include studies that have sufficient information on indicator definition and analysis methods (though we maintain a full set of studies including more policy-oriented briefs and reports—in our evidence tracker). In total, we summarize 26 new studies from LICs and MICs, with the majority focused on identifying trends (15 studies), while others present analysis of risk factors or dynamics (an additional ten studies), and one represents an impact analysis of prevention programming.

What have we learned? Key takeaways for this roundup

• More papers point to increases in violence. Of the 15 studies presenting findings on trends in VAW/C from pre-pandemic through various stages of the pandemic, 12 of these papers (or 80%) find exclusive evidence of increased violence—a higher proportion than previous round ups. Of the remaining studies in this round up, one paper finds mixed results, and two find no significant change in violence.

  RELATED EXPERTS

  Amber Peterman

  Non-Resident Fellow

   

  Megan O'Donnell

  Assistant Director, Gender Program and Policy Fellow

   

  Shelby Bourgault

  Research Assistant

• Lost income and employment, among other factors, increase the risk of violence occurring. Of the additional ten studies assessing risk factors, findings indicate that being married, unemployed (for either the respondent or spouse), reporting lost household income, food insecurity, and spousal substance abuse tendencies increase risk of VAW/C. Protective factors identified include higher education level for either the wife or husband and women’s employment.

• As an ongoing issue, too few papers evaluate ‘what works’ to reduce the risk of violence or support survivors. Only one study in this round up provided evidence on intervention effects during COVID-19: a study from Bolivia showed a youth empowerment program decreased multiple types of violence experienced by adolescent girls. This study adds to only a handful of global studies able to inform VAW/C prevention policy and programming. More evidence is critically needed.

• Studies reflect findings across diverse settings and populations. In this round up, nine studies were from Asia (five from South Asia), eight from the Middle East, six from sub-Saharan Africa, one from Latin America, and two were cross-regional studies. Two studies focused on violence against healthcare workers and two studies focused on pregnant women specifically, all documenting high rates of violence during the pandemic.

An overview of new studies: Research questions, geographies, and methods

Similar to previous round ups, studies continue to focus on the research question of whether or not VAW/C is increasing or decreasing during COVID-19. Of the 15 studies included here, 12 find evidence of increased violence. This represents a higher proportion of studies supporting exclusive increases in violence than in previous round ups (80%, compared to 25% in the first round up, 56% in the second, and 50% in the third round up). Some of these increases are large, for example, studies in Jordan (showing a quadrupling of self-reported violence against women) and China (showing a 278% increase in police calls for domestic violence). Of the remaining three studies, one finds mixed results (in India), and two find no significant change in violence (Kenya and South Africa).

RELATED CONTENT

COVID-19 and Violence against Women and Children: A Second Research Round Up

COVID-19 and Violence against Women and Children: A Third Research Round Up for the 16 Days of Activism

One factor that could explain this difference is the type of data being used. Studies in the three previous round ups mostly relied on administrative data such as calls to emergency services or clinical data from hospital admissions. This focus on ‘reported’ data was likely partially due to data availability in the early stages of the pandemic, concentrated in high income countries, particularly the United States and across Europe.

MORE FROM THIS SERIES

The Future of Education in Afghanistan: Zuhra Faizi and Rob Jenkins on the CGD Podcast

Women's Economic Empowerment in India: Soumya Kapoor on the CGD Podcast

In this round up, more studies use survey data, collected either online or via mobile phone (11 of the 15 included papers). However, most of these studies rely on small samples that cannot be generalized to larger populations, and many collect data at a single point in time asking respondents to recall experiences from before the pandemic (or use innovative indirect measures, including vignettes , as done in Indonesia). Survey data may capture a greater range of experiences, not only those which are most severe or where help-seeking occurs. While administrative data can be collected and reported on very quickly, many of the studies in this round up use survey data to provide a more comprehensive picture of violence occurring, extending beyond incidents captured in police reports or hotline calls.

Similar to our last round up, several efforts use ‘big data’—including cross country analysis of internet search data, or social media posts. For example, an analysis of 11 countries using Google search data suggests domestic violence increased more in places with stricter lockdowns, as measured by Google mobility data. In addition, an 8-country analysis of social media data in Asia unpacks dynamics in the public sphere, and shows online help-seeking increased (from 10 to 70%) across all but two countries.

Group A. Papers that measure impacts of COVID-19 or associated response measures on VAW/C

Wednesday 24 and Thursday 25 November 2021

Live in Brussels and online

"How can we improve the way we frame and tackle security problems to make a real difference?
How can a human-centred approach improve the success of solutions?
How can European security policy be made meaningful to security practitioners and citizens?
Across the EU, how do we conceptualise and deliver security?

Join us on Wednesday 24 and Thursday 25 November 2021 at Le Bouche à Oreille, in the heart of Brussels, for Designing Security Futures — the final conference of the EU-funded Cutting Crime Impact (CCI) project.

CCI enabled six law enforcement agencies (LEAs) to adopt a human-centred innovation process for researching, defining, developing and demonstrating practical solutions to real problems facing police, their partners and citizens.

Designing Security Futures attendees will learn about adopting a human-centred innovation approach in the security context. Speakers will explore how the approach:

• Enables problem framing – so the right problem is being tackled
• Ensures feasibility – so solutions perform as intended
• Improves implementation – so solutions suit the identified user group and context — be they police officers, policymakers or citizens.

Designing Security Futures explores and discusses the results of CCI with presentations of the eight Tools developed by LEA project partners.

Designing Security Futures addresses security policy at the EU, state and local levels, introducing a new and extended European Security Model. Policy papers will be launched in four areas: (i) Predictive Policing; (ii) Community Policing; (iii) Crime Prevention through Urban Design & Planning (CP-UDP); and (iv) Citizens' feelings of insecurity.

This event will include presentations, discussions and workshops exploring human-centred approaches to innovating security solutions and ways of integrating different strategies across EU contexts".

2. Registration

Registration for this conference, including lunch and refreshments, is free.

Numbers are limited, so please reserve your place by completing the registration form*, below:

This form is for people wanting to attend the event in Brussels. If you only want to attend online, you need to register do the CCI newsletter HERE.

Date    Friday 5 November 2021

Time    9:30am New York/2:30pm Geneva

The webinar will include a film projection (13min) followed by a panel discussion. The objective is to share different advocacy efforts and agree on global initiatives needed to support advocacy around the prevention of adverse childhood experience. Simultaneous translation will be available in French and Spanish.

Register here. The webinar is a session of the ISPCAN World Summit 2021, hence the registration link.

We are pleased to announce that the 11th event in the series of City Health International conferences will take place on 29th & 30th November 2021 in Warsaw, Poland. The conference is organized in cooperartion with Robert Zajonc Institute for Social Studies at the University of Warsaw.

This year's theme will be “Crisis, Risks and Opportunities” which will see us look at the lessons to be learnt from the recent years and the threats and opportunities which those concerned about the health outcomes of marginalised communities now face. Read the conference programme here.

You can join us in person or watch the conference live stream for free - register here1We are pleased to announce that the 11th event in the series of City Health International conferences will take place on 29th & 30th November 2021 in Warsaw, Poland. The conference is organized in cooperartion with Robert Zajonc Institute for Social Studies at the University of Warsaw.

This year's theme will be “Crisis, Risks and Opportunities” which will see us look at the lessons to be learnt from the recent years and the threats and opportunities which those concerned about the health outcomes of marginalised communities now face. Read the conference programme here.

You can join us in person or watch the conference live stream for free - register here

Tuesday 9 November at 16.00 CET

The topic of this webinar is Crime Prevention through Urban Design & Planning (CP-UDP) — one of the four Focus Areas of the EU-funded CCI project.

Attendees will hear from:

• Dr Umberto Nicolini, Director, Laboratorio Qualita Urbana E Sicurezza, LabQUS, Italy

• David Maher, Greater Manchester Police – Design for Security

David Maher is a CCI project partner and will discuss ProMIS — a new Tool created by GMP as part of the CCI project. The ProMIS tool has been developed to support the DfS team, through enhanced project management and understanding the impact of CPTED within GMP. ProMIS will enable DfS to gain a much needed visual analysis of urban development across Greater Manchester; especially with regard to the growth and development of new communities, and their impact on infrastructure needs. With the use of Geographic information system mapping the tool will support long term tracking of historic DfS projects in a geographic context (i.e. mapping DfS projects across Greater Manchester), and their potential impact on future policing resourcing strategies.

Dr Umberto Nicolini, a CCI Advisory Board Member who has a wealth of experience in the field of CP-UDP across Europe, will discuss the importance of early-stage design interaction and CPTED alongside a case study. He will also provide a potted history of Design for Security during its inception. 

More information

International Conference 2021 on 8th, 9th & 10th December.

This three-day event will focus on deepening the understanding of what is meant by “evidence-based” and will consider how the research on what constitutes an evidence-based approach can be transferred to the domain of practical application.

Effective prevention, treatment and recovery support interventions informed by strong research evidence consistently result in positive gains for individuals. Interventions should be supported by high quality research evidence and undertaken within a national and/or international framework of ethical and effective principles to guide all aspects of the work. 

This principle is key to promoting effective action and practice of drug demand reduction. However, the transfer of theory into practice and applying research into practical action is an ongoing challenge.

Conference presentations will take a case study approach, sharing practical examples of how research has been translated and applied to situations within a particular ISSUP National Chapter country.

There will be an introductory session on the first day to address what the term "evidence-based” means and its importance for the field of drug demand reduction.

The conference will be held virtually as a live event due to ongoing pandemic restrictions, and participants will be able to join and take part in Q&A sessions online.

Conference Programme & Registration

Please click here to register for the conference. Registering once will give you access to all sessions. We ask that all attendees register electronically. Certificates of participation and session recordings will be available. 

Session 1: 8 Dec 2pm-3.30pm (London)

Setting the scene: A rationale for the conference

Session Chair: Dr Shamil Wanigaratne, ISSUP UAE

• Conference introduction and formal welcome. Joanna Travis Roberts - ISSUP Chief Executive, and Brian Morales - Branch Chief Counternarcotics, Office of Global Programs and Policies (GPP), INL
• Background to the conference theme. Jeff Lee - Manager, ISSUP Scientific Support Team
• Quality Standards, Evidence‐base, and Ethics: Fundamentals for Drug Demand Reduction. Professor Harry Sumnall - Public Health Institute, Liverpool John Moores University, United Kingdom

Session 2: 9 Dec 1pm-2.30pm (London)

Treatment: Evidence-based principles  - theory and provision

Session Chair: Dr Martin Agwogie, ISSUP Nigeria (tbc)

• What is effective in drug disorder treatment: what we can learn from the evidence‐base about what
  “works” and what “doesn’t work”. Annette Dale-Perera – Director, ADPCONSULTANCYUK
• From Principles to Practice: A case study of treatment provision in Mexico. (tbc)
• From Principles to Practice: A case study of treatment provision in India. Bilal Ahmed -  SPYM
• Addressing the Challenges: Joint Q&A with presenters

Session 3: 9 Dec 3.30pm-5pm (London)

Prevention: Evidence-based principles - theory and practice

• Evidence‐based principles for working in Prevention: a consideration of the theory and science behind the principles. Giovanna Campello – Chief, Prevention, Treatment & Rehabilitation Section, UNODC
• Applying the Principles to Practice in Peru: The UPC case study. Fernando Salazar - ISSUP Peru
• A prevention case study from Lebanon: Practice Challenges. Anthony AbiZeid - ISSUP Lebanon
• Round-table Question & Answer Session: Issues and challenges in translating the theory into practice and examination of practice-based evidence

Session 4: 10 Dec 2pm-3.30pm (London)

Session Chair: Kristiana Siste, ISSUP Indonesia  

Recovery: Evidence-based principles - theory and application

• Evidence-based principles for working in Recovery support: a consideration of the theory and science. Hendrée E. Jones, Ph.D. - Executive & Division Director, UNC Horizons, Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
• A Case Study for Recovery Support in 3 countries. Olha Myshakivska, ISSUP National Coordinator, Asia Region
• Case Studies for Recovery Support. Dr Beatrice Kathungu and Dr Pamella Kaithuru, ISSUP Kenya
• Summary and Review: Challenges and Recommendations. Issues and challenges in translating the theory into practice and examination of practice-based evidence

Thursday, December 16th 2021

According to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), the use of tasers by police risks losing its legitimacy in the eyes of the public if community concerns are not addressed through improvements to national guidance, training and scrutiny of when they are deployed. The warning, issued in August, followed 101 investigations undertaken into the use of tasers between 2015 and 2020. The report but the IOPC showed that tasers were used disproportionately against people from Black, Asian and Minority ethnic backgrounds, and significantly against people under 18. Perhaps most concerning from the IOPC’s investigation, were 26 investigations that found that an officer may have behaved in a manner that would justify bringing disciplinary proceedings or a referral to the Crown Prosecution Service; while four inquests found the use of Taser in combination with other factors contributed to, or were relevant in, a person’s death. A recent Home Office report showed that in the year to March 2020, tasers were discharged in 32,000 incidents – 37% higher than the previous year, reflecting a general pattern of the increasing use of tasers by police.

Tasers have been used by the police since 2003, at first just by firearms officers, but then for all trained officers since 2008. To be issued with a taser, an officer must have completed 18 hours of training over a period of three days, plus six hours of training each year thereafter. The College of Policing also sets out the conditions under which the deployment of tasers is deemed reasonable. Following the change of government in 2019, the new Home Secretary committed to a £10 million funding pot to enable Chief Constables to equip every single officer with a Taser, should they wish to do so. The Home Secretary also approved the Taser 7 – a more accurate, faster and compact device than previous models – under the auspices of protecting the police and the public.

As part of the IOPC’s investigations and consultations with relevant stakeholders and community groups, the IOPC made 17 recommendations – to the College of Policing, the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, and the Home Office –  seeking improvements to national guidance and training; scrutiny and monitoring of Taser use; and data and research. The IOPC also stressed the need for community engagement to ensure that the use of tasers continues to have the support of the community, building upon the notion of ‘policing by consent’. Beyond the IOPC review, the use of tasers by police remains controversial. In 2016, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child renewed its previous call in 2008 for a prohibition on the use of the Taser against children. A review of taser use by the Independent Police Complaints Commission in 2014 warned against use of the weapon on the basis of its availability rather than of its necessity. The IPCC was particularly troubled by Taser use in the controlled setting of custody suites.

This symposium will give police forces, local authorities, policy makers, charities and other interest groups the opportunity to analyse the mounting challenges associated with the use of tasers and discuss best practice in improving accountability, building trust with communities and keeping both police and the public safe.

Programme

• Develop strategies to improve the use of tasers by police to ensure that they are used reasonably and effectively
• Consider the recommendations made by the IOPC and discuss the potential for future reforms of the use of tasers
• Discuss the introduction of the Taser 7 model and the Home Office’s funding of greater access to taser
• Examine the disproportionate use of tasers on people from Black, Asian and Minority ethnic backgrounds
• Explore methods to improve community engagement and ensure that the use of tasers continues to have the consent and confidence of the public
• Analyse the increase int he use of tasers and understand the reasons behind it
• Understand the existing police complaints system and look at how this can be improved to ensure greater accountability and transparency
• Look at alternatives to the use of tasers in policing
• Learn about the long term effects of the use of tasers on those subjected to them, including medical implications

To register for the briefing, please click here.

 

1 December 2021 at 08:00-09:30 EST,  14:00-15:30 CET and 21:00-22:30 PHST for the launch of the INSPIRE Guide to Adaptation and Scale Up.

Register Here

Simultaneous translation will be available for French, Portuguese, Spanish, Arabic and Khmer.

This webinar is the fourth  in a series on adaptation and scale up. Recordings of the first three can be found here.

1. Webinar 1 on A Framework for Thinking about Scaling (password: scalingwithmsi)
2. Webinar 2 on Assessing Scalability (password: scalingwithmsi2)
3. Webinar 3 on Real-time Scaling Labs (password: scalingwithmsi3)

• http://www.facebook.com/whoviolenceprevention  

• http://twitter.com/WHOviolencenews  

  https://www.who.int/health-topics/violence-against-children

   

  Violence Prevention Unit World Health Organization

Register Now

.....is an evidence-based technical package to support countries in their efforts to prevent and respond to violence against children aged 0-17 years. The package includes the core document describing what the INSPIRE strategies and interventions are; an implementation handbook that provides details on how to implement the interventions, and a set of indicators to measure the uptake of INSPIRE and its impact on levels of violence against children. The strategies will advance efforts to achieve Sustainable Development Goal target 16.2 to end all forms of violence against children. They are based on the best available evidence of what works, and include:

1. Implementation and enforcement of laws: such as those limiting access by young people to firearms and other weapons and those criminalizing the violent punishment of children by parents;
2. Norms and values: by changing beliefs and behaviours around gender roles;
3. Safe environments: by targeting violent “hotspots” and enhancing the built environment, for example, by improving housing;
4. Parent and caregiver support: such as the provision of training in parenting;
5. Income and economic strengthening: including microfinance combined with training around gender norms;
6. Response and support services: such as treatment programmes for juvenile offenders;
7. Education and life skills: for example, establishing a safe school environment and improving children’s life and social skills.

Tuesday, November 23rd 2021

According to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), in 2020 more people died of drug poisoning than in any year since records began in 1993. Last year, 4,561 people died due to drug poisoning, a 3.8% increase on 2019. NHS Digital statistics report that deaths caused by drug misuse are nearly 50% higher than they were ten years ago and hospital admission due to drug use are 16% higher than five years ago. They also find that hospital admissions from drug dependency, drug-related mental and behaviour disorders and misuse poisonings are 5-6 times higher in the most deprived areas.

The ONS posits a number of explanations for this increase including: an ageing cohort of drug users, new trends in specific drug combinations with a higher risk of overdose, and disengagement or non-compliance with opiate substitute therapy (OST). This increase in drug-related deaths over the last two decades has coincided with a general fall in drug taking amongst the general population. 16 to 24 year olds are a 33% less likely to have taken drugs in the last year than the same age group 15 years ago.

Current government strategy on tackling drug misuse is summarised in the 2017 UK Government Drug Strategy. This sets out four goals: 1) preventing people – particularly young people – from becoming drug users in the first place; 2) targeting those criminals seeking to profit from others’ misery and restricting the availability of drugs; 3) offering people with a drug dependence problem recovery programmes; 4) leading and driving action on a global scale. Building on the 2010 strategy, it looks to improve partnerships and tackle the supply of drugs. In January 2021, the government announced a £148 million new investment to cut crime and protect people from the “scourge” of illegal drugs. This included £80 million for drug treatment services right across England – representing the largest increase in drug treatment funding for 15 years, while £40 million was dedicated to tackling supply and county lines and target gangs. The current Health and Care Bill seeks to build on the NHS’s Long-Term Plan, aiming reduce health inequalities and work with local authority drug and alcohol services in the worst 25% affected areas to prevent dependence-related admissions.

Critics argue that recent government policy is a continuation of previous policy on drug misuse, which has seen drug-related deaths expand year-on-year. In 2019, the Commons Health and Social Care Committee made a number of recommendations including moving from the current criminal justice approach to a health approach, with responsibility for drugs policy moving from the Home Office to the Department of Health and Social Care. The committee also called for a consultation on decriminalisation – a suggestion furthered by the former leader of the Conservative party, William Hague, in recent Times article. Those who support some decriminalisation in this area point to international approaches to drug policy, such as in Portugal where the response to the offence of drugs possession has changed, and Dissuasion Commissions support low level offenders to access treatment and rehabilitation.

Devolved administrations have tended to push for a greater public health role in tackling drug misuse and dependency. The Scottish Government for instance, have expressed concerns about the restrictions that apply on the Scottish response to drugs misuse through the MDA. It supports a public health approach to drug harms but argues that the system is “constrained by the current UK law.” For local government though, funding for drug treatment services has decreased by 27% over the last three years.

This timely symposium will therefore provide local authorities, clinical commissioners, mental health teams, employment, housing and welfare services, and criminal justice agencies, with an opportunity to engage with the drug strategy and develop interventions for effective prevention, treatment and recovery. It will also enable all stakeholders to share best practice on delivering an integrated multi-agency response.

Programme

• Identify key changes in drug-related deaths since the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic and develop successful strategies to address them
• Evaluate priorities for drug-related measures in the upcoming Health and Social Care Bill
• Plan and implement successful preventative measures
• Discuss the successes of drug and alcohol prevention programs as a means to decrease crime, improve health, and reduce hospital admissions locally
• Consider the wider determinants of drug dependence and draw constructive conclusions for further action
• Examine current recovery-oriented ambitions and ways to facilitate the progress of service users towards recovery goals
• Identify how to meet the needs of vulnerable young people and communities, building resilience and minimising harm through effective safeguarding protocols
• Evaluate police methods of disrupting drug markets in the UK, and consider the merits of decriminalisation
• Share best practice on successfully raising awareness of drug related harm amongst at-risk groups
• Explore methods of improving access to housing, employment and welfare services to support sustained recoveries

To register for this briefing, please click here.

 

Next EMCDDA webinar on Drug-related deaths in Europe, current challenges and implications for responses, a conversation with:

• Andrew McAuley, Glasgow Caledonian University, Scotland, UK
• Martin Busch, Austrian Public Health Institute (Gesundheit Österreich GmbH, Austria
• Thomas Clausen, SERAF, Norwegian Centre for Addiction Research and Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Norway
• Mark Johnson, User Voice, UK

Chair: Isabelle Giraudon

Opening and closing remark: Alexis Goosdeel, EMCDDA Director.

To register and to share with your network, use the link below

https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_WI3wFtagSgSPKoI7zFZJbQ