FRANK: Desk research on vulnerable young people

• There is no agreed definition of which groups comprise vulnerable young people (VYPs). However, there is increasing consensus that the term ‘VYPs’ suggests six core groups:

1. Young offenders 
2. School excludes/truants
3. Young homeless 
4. Looked-after children
5. Young people exploited through sex work
6. Children of problem drug users

• Definitions, “attributes” and patterns of drug use for each of these core groups are considered in detail in the report.
• Theoretically, young people are classified as vulnerable if they present high risks of using drugs or of developing problematic patterns of use. Again, there is no agreed definition of ‘risk factors’; however among the most significant risk factors identified in the majority of studies are: a lack of close parenting, poor school attendance, and living in a deprived area. Risk factors seldom apply individually to raise a young person’s likelihood of drug use; instead they are usually experienced in combination.
• Depending on the definitions used, roughly a fifth of young people under 18 fall into a VYP group. However, around a quarter of those who feature in one VYP group simultaneously feature in another. Research also shows numerous pathways that vulnerable young people follow which lead them from one VYP group to another.
• Levels of drug use among VYP groups are consistently reported as higher than those among other young people. All VYP groups report high levels of familiarity with drugs, and high claimed levels of drug knowledge. Cannabis is so ubiquitous as scarcely to be regarded as a drug at all.
• The provision of drug treatment has been described as “complex and highly variable”. The report outlines different levels of specialist and non-specialist drug treatment.
• The evidence suggests that few young people require the most specialist forms of drug treatment (although many of those who do will also appear in VYP groups). It is also best practice that young people should be treated in the lowest tier appropriate to their needs - ie. that they should be kept out of specialist treatment if possible.
• Whilst there is some discussion of the effectiveness of drug treatment and prevention programmes, there is very little research evidence available to show what provision is effective – most evaluations have been process rather than outcome/impact evaluations.
• Awareness of FRANK is reported to be “almost universal” among most groups of VYPs. By contrast, it appears that young people’s awareness of local drug support services is very limited.
• While it is hard to identify users of FRANK according to their VYP profile, research suggests that very few VYPs ever contact FRANK. The mismatch between blanket awareness of FRANK and non-use of FRANK can be explained by VYPs’ not seeing FRANK’s information-based services as relevant to their needs. What VYPs need, according to research, is holistic support with their multiple problems, delivered face to face by local, trusted service providers.
• There are clear limits to the extent to which FRANK can currently deliver messages to VYPs in its mass-market communications.

Recommendations:

• There is an opportunity for FRANK to increase its relevance to VYPs by extending the current referral facility on the FRANK helpline, in order to provide vulnerable young people with greater access to local support services. At the same time FRANK should define more precisely its target audience of vulnerable young people, both at the level of VYP groups and subgroups.
• Issues around developing more appropriate, robust, referral systems with better information about local support systems together with developing targeted approaches to specific sub-groups of VYP are discussed in detail.