A quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the North of England Illicit Programme

Andrea Crossfield, CE Tobacco Futures

With thanks to Ann McNeill Kings College London & Andrew Russell University of Durham Acknowledgements

– Ann McNeill, Kings College London – Andrew Russell, University of Durham – Geoff Siggens, NEMS research – Serena Heckler, Susana Carro-Ripalda, Sue Lewis (Durham) – Belinda Iringe-Koko, Andy McEwen, (UCL) – Manpreet Bains, John Britton (Nottingham) – Linda Bauld, Doug Eadie (Stirling) – Rob Hornsby (Northumberland) Summary

• How UKCTCS went about the evaluation – Considerations • Results • Conclusions • Implications

Methods: Formative, process & outcome evaluation

• Quantitative research: Identifying and measuring relevant indicators • Qualitative research: Stakeholder & ethnographic research, desk research, observations etc

Considerations • Complex community initiative –A partnership –Aimed at reducing ILLEGAL behaviour –Operating differently across 3 different regions • Constantly evolving illicit tobacco market • Programme unlikely to impact on prevalence within the first 18 months Reduce prevalence by

Reducing supply Reducing demand of illicit tobacco for illicit tobacco

So instead UKCTCS had to assess indicators for reducing supply and demand Supply & demand indicators

• Supply indicators: • Demand indicators: level of illicit tobacco people’s attitudes and trading is going on in behaviour concerning an area e.g. illicit tobacco e.g. – Seizures – Comfort, willingness – Local operations eg to report raids – Calls to hotlines – Purchases of IT – Price paid for tobacco – Brands purchased These indicators not collected routinely– Usage at regional of illicit level, so no consistent control data; intertobacco-related

Partnership

• Unique and exemplary partnership in drawing together different partners: national and local enforcement, health, marketing partners Partnership actions

• 100% of areas in the North of England had a strategy for dealing with illicit tobacco vs 79% nationally • 89% of areas in the North of England were carrying out joint operations between the different enforcement agencies vs 62% nationally

Local Government Association survey 2011 Quantitative indicators

• Website hits • Awareness of illicit tobacco • Calls to hotlines • Partnership working • Overall impact on illicit tobacco market

All quantitative indicators indicated a successful programme

17,578 visits; 12,844 new visitors (Jan‘10– Oct ’11) 16,038 visits; 12,991 new visitors (June 10 – Oct ’11)

NEMS survey 2009 and 2011

• 2009 – 4389 interviews • 2011 – 4111 interviews • Mixture of telephone and in-street • Random stratified sampling with quota controls; data weighted to be representative of the population Increased awareness of illicit tobacco (NEMS, 2009 and 2011)

2009 2011 (n=1661) (n=1694) Have you ever heard of cheap illicit/illegal or loose 54% 69% tobacco?

Cheap illicit cigarettes of loose tobacco can be bought in the UK, and they can be either counterfeit (that is, fake) or genuine which have been smuggled into the UK without having duty paid (sometimes know as duty frees). All non-smokers NEMS studies All stakeholders reported increased awareness of the importance of illicit tobacco and tackling IT

Increased likelihood to report (NEMS, 2009 and 2011)

2009 2011 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

27% Total sample 29% 31% Non-smokers 34% 28% Non-smokers, aware of illicit tobacco 34% 14% Smokers, current 19% 7% Illicit buyers 5% 2% Comfortable 2% 16% Uncomfortable 20% 38% Very uncomfortable 37%

Issue of illicit tobacco important 41%

Issue of illicit tobacco unimportant 14% How likely would you be to report someone if you suspected them of selling cheap illicit cigarettes or tobacco? Calls to telephone hotlines to report intelligence

June Apr ‘09- Apr ‘10- ‘08- Mar Mar ‘10 Mar ’11 ’09 CS CH CS CH CS CH No of 109 NDA 133 553 347 699 calls TOTAL 109 686 1046 Other attitudes and behaviour (NEMS, 2009 and 2011) • Proportion ‘very uncomfortable’ with illicit tobacco rose from 55% to 59% • Fewer people buying, and of those buying they’re buying less – Smoking prevalence down from 24% to 22% – Smokers admitting to buying illegal tobacco down from 20% to 17% – Average proportion of consumption which is illicit down from 35% to 32%

Overall reduction in illicit tobacco (NEMS, 2009 and 2011) • The volume change is estimated to be a reduction of 23%

• This has happened when numbers ‘struggling financially’ increased from 20% to 25%) - expected to drive people towards illicit tobacco

UKCTCS Conclusions • Need to agree indicators for measuring illicit tobacco activity locally and nationally • North of England Programme: – IT market shrinking in the area – Raised awareness of illicit tobacco among consumers and stakeholders – Improved partnerships, both formal and informal which has impacted on IT strategies/actions locally • Blueprint for other similar campaigns Insights and ongoing challenges • Key audiences are moveable – but it takes time and sustained effort • Impacts on children and young people make powerful messages (certainly in the UK) • Messages about organised crime, tax loss and ‘extra harm’ not resonant in the UK plus untrue, while ‘counterfeit kills’ – all tobacco kills 1 in 2 long term smokers • Media and communications around illicit tobacco must be part of integrated approach to demand and supply reduction of illicit tobacco and ONE component of comprehensive programme • Ensuring intelligence sharing systems in place and enforcement capability and capacity to act is crucial and a public expectation • interest is in exaggerating the scale of illicit trade ‘epidemic’

Tobacco industry complicity

Evidence that industry is complicit in the illicit tobacco trade

EU agreements signed but investigations continue

Noted by the National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee

Further information

• Executive summary and full report available at: http://www.ukctcs.org/ukctcs/documents/tackling -illicit-tobacco • [email protected] • [email protected]

Any questions?

Programme can be commissioned to provide strategic and practical support to other areas around illicit tobacco

www.illicittobacconorth.org