DRUGS AND POVERTY - WHAT ARE THE CONNECTIONS

Scottish Drugs Forum Conference 2006Morag Gillespie

Drugs and Poverty

• Literature review - financial support from ADATT

• medical/ criminal justice focus• explore links between drugs and poverty • think of consequences for policy and

practice, reopen debate• Personal expertise in poverty related

issues, especially the welfare state and welfare rights.

Links - drug use and poverty

• changes in 70s and 80s – de-industrialisation, mass long-term unemployment

• no prospect of a ‘job for life’ and few opportunities to gain employment.

• ‘New Right chose to blame the victim.’ • New enemy in the drug addict - young heroin

users - social outcasts threatening the community cohesion

• 2 groups of youth: one, social deviants , the other ‘respectable’ youth at ‘risk’.

New Labour“We want now and in the future to see deprivation

given its full and proper place in all considerations of drug prevention policy, at both the local and strategic levels, and not let slip from sight.”

Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (1998)

Scottish Parliament Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee inquiry (2000) – recognised most deprived communities were most

seriously affected by drug misuse and

– problem drug use inextricably linked with other extreme forms of social exclusion - homelessness, persistent

offending and street prostitution.’

What is the follow through?

Policy shifts taking place in drugs policy • move from voluntary towards compulsory

services • Shift in priorities from helping the ‘health

needy’ towards the ‘criminal needy’• cultural shift from co-operation towards

coercion/ conflict (Kubler and Walti, 2001)

Social-Public Order Regime

New term:• changing working cultures between

health/social sectors and police, • shift from antipathy and suspicion towards co-

operation and consensus, • more co-operation/ wider involvement in

addressing health/ social problems of drug users,

• but extending social control over them (Kubler and Walti, 2001)

Poverty and Social Security

• New Labour committed to eradicate child poverty in 20 years and work seen as the main route out of poverty.

• Reforms: tax/ benefits; New Deal; changes to delivery; Progress 2 Work, Scottish New Futures Fund Initiatives

• Labour market - uncertain route out of poverty. • Work - 48% of exits from poverty but for 30%

households produced no benefit. • children in families moving in and out of work

amongst those in persistent/ severe poverty.

Unemployment• 51,000 opiate/benzodiazepine drug problems • SDMD - 14,300 new contacts in 2004/5 and, over

5 years, average 85% unemployment • Employer attitudes - conditional re

ex-offenders/imprisonment• Half prisoners have literacy problems, 43% no

qualifications, 45% on probation misuse alcohol and drugs.

• Barriers to work: drug use and recovery important - ex prisoners, mental ill health

• Low benefits, claims stopping, appeals affect health and diversion from work.

Area Deprivation

Percentage of drug related deaths by Dep Cat

0

10

20

30

Dep Cat

% DRDs

% DRDs

0.5 6 12 24 15 18 24

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Explaining the link?

• Pattern of who becomes addicted and who encounters problems is not ramdom - close link with social exclusion

• (Forsyth and Barnard) - children trying drugs - socio-economic differences not reflected in levels of reported drug usage.

• Concentration of problem drug use in areas of deprivation amongst adult

Complex interactions • Urgent housing need - ‘hard to let’ areas. • availability of heroin locally including through

friendship networks on an experimental basis. • heroin use can establish local status• Drug becomes another commodity in hidden

and irregular local economy• Fewer sustaining life commitments affect

patters of use.• Life style can ‘solve’ burden of unemployment

and more difficult to give up in high unemployment areas. (Pearson)

Drug selling in Communities2 preconditions to an established drug market• community - fragmented and atomistic with little

social capital • very deprived but socially cohesive communities with

strong family and social networks • retail drug markets can benefit deprived communities

e.g. illicit goods/ profit from selling drugs. • complex nature of local drug selling in communities

needs to be better understood• include community capacity building, prevention and

’exit’ strategies for those involved. (May et al)

.(Seddon) Association of certain drugs and criminality seen as ‘natural‘ rather than historical.

• Focus on socially disadvantaged groups - criminalisation of the poor and focus of penal responses.

• Need location in social context = more incisive analysis for effective, progressive, informed response

(Spooner) Chain of events, not a single factor in problematic drug use

• social environment - powerful influence on health & outcomes;

• social institutions/structures can influence environment.

• more attention to ‘social’ determinants of drug use

DiversityNeale - particular groups more susceptible to the

various risk factors, e.g. • homeless people, care leavers and/or excluded

from school, contact with criminal justice system or mental health services

• higher prevalence of drug use among these particular groups.

Pudney - Social/family disadvantage is dominant influence on drug use and offending amongst young people.

Hidden Harm Next Steps“as a first step we need to explore putting an oral

contraceptive in methadone. In that way, we could reduce the problem and prevent some children from coming to harm” Duncan McNeil MSP

(Greenock and Inverclyde)

Others question “ill-considered and simplistic proposals” - make the case for women to get proper contraceptive advice and treatment

• Report - contract for parents, requiring them to bring their drug use under control.

• Risk of masking drug use amongst mothers

Kinship carers

• SE - Potential guarantee of rates and additional fostering allowances - new national allowance

• benefit grandparents/ other family members who look after children affected by parental drug use.

• Glasgow City Council - streamlined system of foster care rates that includes increased weekly payments.

CONCLUSIONS • some large and quite basic gaps in knowledge

• huge potential for research, evaluation, evidence to inform policy and reflect complexities

Do we want drug free communities by using drug-testing or restricting addicts from retail areas? (Prof. McKeganey, Sunday times 11.6.06) or acknowledge poverty and grapple with the complex issues.

Government policy “an unhealthy cocktail of acute public anxiety, simple nostrums, tabloid bile, vested interests and political opportunism” (Young,Guardian 29.3.2002)

Some questions to consider 1)   Has specialisation reduced our

understanding/willingness to discuss the big picture beyond our specialist remit -have partnerships affected vol. sector independence.

2) Do we need to increase “travel” among the drug field and anti-poverty field for those with an interest in

seeing “the other side”, e.g. secondments and placements for researchers, policy makers and practitioners? 

3)      Should we embrace collaborative work with different researchers, policy makers and practitioners?

4)  “Drug knowledge” gained by traditional research avenues - Do we embrace and value other types of knowledge?

5) How do we ensure the interests of local communities and communities of interest are included in gathering new knowledge about drugs and poverty

6)How can UK social security policy (benefits) contribute to reducing the spiral from recreational to problem drug use, criminalisation to exclusion?

7) The link between conviction and deprivation – how should this be tackled?

8) What are the most urgent priorities for everyone? research priorities?