Drugs advice isn't all covered by big government's Frank

Whatever your take on the prime minister's less than impressive efforts to convince the citizenry that the "big society" is more than political hot air, the cold reality is that voluntary organisations across the country are experiencing unprecedented challenges, with many services and even entire charitable organisations staring the possibility of closure in the face. One such organisation is the drugs and human rights charity Release . It will have passed most people by, but in February's cover story of the specialist magazine Drink and Drugs News (DDN) Release's chief executive, Sebastian Saville, warns that the charity's long-running national drugs helpline faces extinction if a cash injection isn't found. The helpline receives thousands of calls every year, is described by those who benefit from it as invaluable, and is a source of information and guidance – much of it specialist legal advice – that callers would be unable to afford otherwise. Indeed, the government's own national drugs advice helpline, Frank , routinely refers callers to the Release helpline when its own staff feel ill-equipped to deal with an enquiry, say, on a complex legal matter. (Legal advice is beyond Frank's remit – it focuses on providing young people with basic information and drugs advice via its website and phone line.) In an age when the communities secretary, Eric Pickles , is issuing diktats about how many pens a department should have in order to save a few thousand quid, the huge costs incurred by the government-funded Frank deserve a wider audience. According to the Home Office (which shares the running of Frank with the Department of Health and the Department for Education) the total amount of money spent on advertising and marketing Frank services (such as its text service and the helpline) for the financial year 2009/2010 was £5.07m. The vast majority of this is used for promotion on television and elsewhere. The £5.07m, it should be noted, includes the (unspecified) cost of producing adverts plus "confidential" advertising agency fees. The cost of running the Frank helpline is separate. It's by no means a small amount (estimated at around £870,000 for the financial year 2009/2010, with a further £59,000 allocated for online Frank services). However, when a service costs five times as much to advertise as it does to operate, a few alarm bells should ring. The Home Office says there is sufficient evidence that Frank works and that it has strong awareness among its target audience – primarily 11- to 24-year-olds. In the financial year 2009/10, the helpline answered around 300,000 calls and received around 60,000 emails and texts. Over the same period, the helpline referred nearly 20,000 callers to other local and national organisations some of which – like Release – receive no financial support from central government and yet are expected to fill the gaps Frank can't. Saville argues that the Release helpline "epitomises the big society – a service that people want; meets real need; experts support; and has been delivered by committed people cleverly finding funds to pay for it", while Frank is the polar opposite. "Frank is about as close to big government as one can get. Funded exclusively by taxpayers' money … the vast majority being spent on administration and advertising." Saville is not saying Frank doesn't provide a worthwhile service. He knows as well as anyone that the provision of a range of local and national drugs services is a crucial part of engaging with this vulnerable group. What he wants to know is why some of the vast amount of cash lavished on promoting Frank can't be redirected to help keep running a helpline that Frank itself relies on. "It seems a bit unbalanced for the government to spend £5m a year advertising Frank but will not contribute anything towards running Release. It's a bit like spending millions advertising NHS Direct but nothing to pay for any doctors." Yes, there are stacks of organisations out there desperate for government support and yes, Release is just one of them. But Saville makes a valid point. The Release helpline costs around 6% of Frank's annual promotion budget to run. Shouldn't the government at least conduct a thorough evaluation of the promotional spend of Frank and see if some cash can be freed up and better deployed elsewhere? Isn't that just good governance? For a start, could it get a better deal on those "confidential" advertising agency fees? Annual Home Office subsidies for the Release helpline were withdrawn in 2005 (they averaged around £40,000) and since then the charity has kept it running with a mixture of "innovative financial management" and donations. When Saville wrote to ministers about the charity's plight in November last year, the Home Office minister James Brokenshire replied saying "current funding constraints" made it impossible to provide any financial support. The Home Office says the communications strategy for Frank for the upcoming financial year has yet to be finalised and that when it comes to the helpline it will "be looking at what efficiencies can be made". All well and good if it manages to make some legitimate savings. But who will clean up the mess when the Release helpline – and maybe even the charity itself – bites the dust? Oh, sorry, I forgot, the big society of course.