ASSESSMENT OF A CONCENTRATED, HIGH-PROFILE POLICE ...

BRIT. J. CRIMINOL.

(2001) 41, 738–745

ASSESSMENT OF A CONCENTRATED, HIGH-PROFILE POLICE OPERATION No Discernible Impact on Drug Availability, Price or Purity DA V I D BE S T , JO H N STRAN G , TRACY BESWICK and MI C H AEL GOSSOP * Two weeks after the start of a major police initiative targeting drug dealing in London (described by the Metropolitan Police as a ‘spectacular success’), 174 street drug users were interviewed about drug price, availability and purity. Only seven users reported price increases for any drug, with the majority stating that there had been no change in any market features. This basic pattern was not influenced by whether the users were aware of the operation, whether they lived in the areas directly affected or by the number of different dealers that they used to purchase their drugs. Paradoxically, any perceived changes were more likely to be ‘improvements’ in the market than deterioration (i.e. lower price, greater availability and higher levels of purity). There is limited evidence from the current study to support the assertion that targeted policing will impact on the accessibility, price or quality of heroin, cannabis or crack cocaine.

Supply reduction activities represent the most important (or at least, the most costly) type of anti-drug interventions. In the UK it has been estimated that more than 75 per cent of total drug expenditure is allocated to supply reduction compared to 13 per cent for treatment (Royal College of Psychiatrists 2000). The First Annual Report and National Plan of Tackling Drugs to Build A Better Britain (UKADCU 2000) sets as a key objective: ‘to stifle the availability of illegal drugs on our streets’ and has set as a performance target ‘to reduce access to the drugs which cause the greatest harm, particularly heroin and cocaine, by 50 per cent by 2008 and by 25 per cent by 2005’ (UKADCU, 2000: 19). The rationale behind this approach is to ensure that the opportunities for initiation of use for young people are reduced, that the cost is prohibitive to potential users as a result of diminished supply and to disrupt extant drug markets by removing ready and available sources of illicit drugs. In a recent study of drug testing of arrestees, Bennett (2000) found that over 80 per cent of arrestees reported that they were able to obtain either crack cocaine or heroin in their local neighbourhood. They also reported that the average number of dealers known to arrestees was 12 for crack and 15 for heroin and that the average purchase on

* National Addiction Centre/Institute of Psychiatry, 4 Windsor Walk, Denmark Hill, London, SE5 8AF. The authors would like to thank colleagues at the National Addiction Centre for their invaluable assistance in data collection. Thanks must also go to the clinicians at each of the services involved in the study—the Methadone Maintenance Clinic and the Community Drug Team based at Marina House, the Dual Team, the Beresford Project, the Community Drug Project (CDP), Kaleidoscope, the Acute Assessment Unit and Wickham Park House. However, the most important group to be thanked are the patients at each of these clinics who gave freely of their time and whose thoughts and comments significantly enhanced the project.

738 © the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies (ISTD) 2001

ASSESSMENT OF A HIGH-PROFILE POLICE OPERATION

crack was £52 per transaction and £79 on heroin. In one of the locations, there were significant increases in the availability of heroin and crack between the initial survey, carried out in 1997, and the follow-up in 1999. It has been argued that the ‘relative inelasticity of demand among dependent users means that the markets will be very lucrative, and will adapt and transform, rather than disappear, in the face of enforcement strategies’ (Hough and Edmunds, 1999: 129). Their findings that increased efforts at supply reduction often have the ‘perverse’ effect of stimulating the market led them to conclude that the most effective strategy was to focus on demand reduction that does not operate through attempted manipulations of drug price. They did, however, argue that the combination of strategies to inconvenience buyers, together with the harassment of drug markets and the promotion of treatment for criminally involved drug users would yield the most effective results. In this study, we report on a major police drug initiative. Operation Crackdown was a time-limited, concentrated Metropolitan Police operation targeting drug dealers across ten London boroughs. It began in London on 20 November 2000 and, within the first 14 days of the operation, more than 241 people had been arrested and drugs (including heroin, crack cocaine and cannabis) with an estimated street value of £1.5 million recovered, including 50 kilos of cannabis in Lambeth (Metropolitan Police 2000). Through interviews with drug users themselves, the current study assesses the immediate impact of Operation Crackdown, in terms of reductions in availability, changes in price and overall displacement of local drug markets both in areas geographically covered by the current operation and those just outside.

Method Interviews were conducted with 174 current drug users two weeks after the start of the series of coordinated drug raids by the Metropolitan Police across 10 London boroughs. The study sample was recruited as they accessed treatment services in South London to ensure that the sample consisted both of users living in areas directly affected by the operation as well as other subjects from areas just outside. All 174 subjects were current users of illicit drugs and were also currently in treatment or awaiting treatment (see next section). Subjects were approached and asked to participate in a five-minute confidential interview conducted by an independent researcher. The interview assessed the regularity of purchasing and use of heroin, crack and cannabis in the previous month. Participants were asked whether they were aware of any change in police activity during the last two weeks and whether they had noticed any change in availability, price and purity of heroin, crack and cannabis in the previous two weeks. Potential question order effects (Schuman and Presser 1979) were controlled for by alternating versions of the questionnaire: one version asked about police activity prior to assessing perceived changes in price, purity etc. and the other asked about police activity after the questions on perceived change. There were no significant differences between levels of personal use, availability of substances, or perceptions of change in prices and purity as a function of early or late order effects about police activity. 739

BEST, STRANG, BESWICK AND GOSSOP

Results (A) Descriptive Current drug use patterns Drug use patterns in the month before assessment are shown in Table 1 below. Where participants reported on both price and quantity for heroin, the range in price for ‘a quarter’ (0.25 g) of street heroin was between £15 and £18. However, it is more common for drug users to report their purchases in ‘points’ (which refer to decimal points of grams) with 1 point equal to 0.1 g, 2 points 0.2 g and so on. Several respondents reported that £20 would typically purchase between four and five points (0.4–0.5 g) of street heroin. Sample characteristics Ninety-five per cent (n = 166) of the sample were currently in treatment and the remainder (5.0 per cent, n = 8) were on treatment waiting lists. Sixtyfour per cent (n = 112) were attending community drug clinics, 27 per cent (n = 47) were attending a methadone maintenance clinic and 9.0 per cent (n = 15) in-patient treatment units. All the services were in South London. Seventy-two per cent (n = 128) were men and 28 per cent women, with a mean age of 35 years. Purchasing and use of heroin, crack and cannabis in the previous month One hundred and twenty five participants (75 per cent) reported that they had purchased heroin on an average of 19 occasions in the previous month. Thirty seven (29.0 per cent) used the same heroin dealer on each occasion, 67 (54.0 per cent) used between two and four dealers, 18 (14.0 per cent) used between five and six dealers, and three (2 per cent) used between seven and ten dealers. Ninety-nine (57 per cent) participants bought crack cocaine an average of 13 times in the previous month, of whom 49.0 per cent (n = 49) used the same dealer on each occasion, 30.0 per cent (n = 30) used two or three dealers, and 18.0 per cent (n = 18) used four or more dealers. Eighty-two (47 per cent) participants had bought cannabis an average of eight times in the month, of whom 64.0 per cent (n = 52) used one or two dealers and the remainder between three and ten dealers. (B) Selected analyses to test the impact of operation crackdown A number of strategies were used to assess the impact of the police operation. First, subjects were asked if they had been aware of any change in police activity around drug dealing. They were also asked to report on any changes in price, purity, availability or type of adulterants that they had noticed in heroin, crack cocaine or cannabis in the last two weeks. Those who had noticed increased activity were then compared with those who had not, in terms of both their own use and their perceptions of changes in any of the TA B L E 1

Drug use in the month before interview

Drug

Prevalence

Frequency of use*

Typical quantity per day

Heroin Crack Cannabis

74.0% (n = 128) 61.5% (n = 107) 60.9% (n = 106)

19.0 13.0 16.0

0.4g 0.5g 2.0g

* days in last month

740


‘market’ factors. The next analysis compared changes in use and perceptions as a function of location. Because one of the participating agencies was located in an area not directly affected by the operation, users at that agency were compared with the users from Operation Crackdown areas on measures of personal use and measures of recent changes in drug markets. The final analysis compared perceptions of market changes with levels of personal use of drugs. The aim was to assess perceived market forces with awareness of police activity, geographic location and personal use characteristics as potential markers of the impact of Operation Crackdown. Awareness of Operation Crackdown Of the 174 drug users in the sample, only 53 (31 per cent) were aware of an increase in police activity. Those who did report an awareness of increased police activity made comments such as: ‘The police are more out in force, there is more stop and search and much more hassle—I’ve been stopped up to eight times a day’, this comment coming from someone who had used and bought crack cocaine on every day in the last month. Another respondent, who had used and purchased all three target drugs in the previous month said, ‘I got caught with heroin two weeks ago. There is increased activity in general, they [the police] are all over the place.’ The sense that this is somehow an ‘occupational hazard’ was enhanced by the comment from a user who had purchased heroin every day in the last month in addition to occasional purchases of crack cocaine and cannabis. He noted that, ‘People are getting busted a few times—there seems to be a bit of an operation going on.’ The perception that the operation was different from previous police operations was confirmed by one user who commented ‘some are using decent cars like Mercs and BMWs, others are dressing like skag heads with cans of Tennants [strong lager]. Users are being asked to get gear for them and then being arrested’. Another user commented that ‘there is much more hassle from the police—my dealer was raided and arrested and there is much more publicity in the paper’. Similarly, another said that, ‘In Brixton, we have a lot of them [police] over the last few weeks and they are bringing in police from other forces.’ However, the impact on use is not clear as the person making the last comment also stated that they had used and purchased every day in the last month. Changes in price, purity, availability and adulterants over the study period For each of the three drugs (heroin, crack cocaine and cannabis), more than 80 per cent of respondents (all of whom had bought the drug in this period) reported no change in price. Across all three drugs there were only seven individuals who reported an increase in price for any of the target drugs. Similarly, more than 80 per cent said that there had been no change in either purity or availability for any of the drugs. Of the small proportion who did comment on a change in the price of these drugs, the most striking change reported was that there had been an increase in availability of crack cocaine. Similar results were found in the qualitative reports about price, purity and availability. One regular user stated that in the previous week the cost of one-eighth of an ounce of heroin had dropped from £120 to £100 from the same dealer. Similarly, another daily heroin user said that there had been big decreases in price recently as ‘there are a lot more people locally selling—you can get a bag for as little as £8’. While many respondents reported no real change in heroin price in the last few weeks, there were several comments of a general downwards trend—one user said that ‘it’s not changed in the last month, but it has become a lot cheaper over the last year’ while several users also commented that availability is generally up ‘because there’s a lot more people selling it’. 741


TAB L E 2

Changes in price, purity, availability and adulterants in two weeks before interview Change

Heroin (n = 139)

Crack cocaine (n = 110)

Cannabis (n = 106)

Price

Decrease: Increase: No change:

18 (13%) 2 (2%) 119 (86%)

8 (7%) 3 (3%) 99 (90%)

16 (15%) 2 (2%) 88 (83%)

Purity


20 (15%) 21 (15%) 97 (70%)

18 (16%) 10 (9%) 82 (75%)

9 (8%) 4 (4%) 93 (88%)

Availability


15 (11%) 20 (14%) 104 (85%)

5 (5%) 21 (19%) 84 (76%)

10 (9%) 7 (7%) 89 (84%)

Adulterants


7 (5%) 14 (10%) 118 (85%)

5 (5%) 12 (11%) 92 (84%)

0 6 (6%) 100 (94%)

There was no relationship between the number of dealers users had contact with and their perceptions of market change for any of the three target drugs nor did daily users differ from less frequent users in their perceptions of any of the three drugs. Changes in use, price, purity and availability of drugs and awareness of Operation Crackdown Only 53 (31 per cent) participants reported being aware of an increase in police activity during the two weeks prior to interview. There were no significant differences between participants aware of Operation Crackdown and those unaware of changes in police activity, in terms of the availability and frequency of use and purchasing of heroin, crack cocaine and cannabis. The results are displayed in Table 3. However, a significant association was found between awareness of police activity and a reported decrease in the price of heroin (c2 = 6.4, p < 0.05), increase in the purity of heroin (c2 = 6.5, p < 0.05), and increased availability of heroin (c2 = 7.8, p < 0.05). There were occasional comments linking perception of police activity with availability of drugs, particularly heroin, with one user reporting that heroin availability ‘was less, due to raids the dealers are becoming much more careful’.

TA B L E 3

Mean drug use and awareness of Operation Crackdown Were you aware of police activity

Heroin use (days) Amount heroin used (g) Frequency of heroin purchases Crack use (days) Amount crack used (g) Frequency of crack purchases Cannabis use (days) Amount cannabis used (g) Frequency of cannabis purchases

Yes

No

16.6 0.4 20.2 9.6 0.6 12.6 8.5 1.8 4.9

13.5 0.43 17.3 7.0 0.4 12.2 10.0 2.2 7.1

742

T

P value

1.4 0.4 1.2 1.5 1.5 0.2 0.9 1.2 1.4

0.15 0.69 0.24 0.13 0.15 0.88 0.40 0.23 0.16


Changes in price, purity and availability of drugs and geographical location In a further analysis, we compared those attending treatment services in areas directly affected by Operation Crackdown (services in Lambeth and Southwark) and those from the agency which was close to but not within the immediate zone of influence of the operation. Participants living outside Operation Crackdown’s influence purchased heroin less frequently (15 vs 20 days, t = 2.2, p < 0.05), used crack less frequently (5.0 vs 9.5 days, t = 3.0, p < 0.01), purchased crack less frequently (7.0 vs 16.0 days, t = 4.0, p < 0.001), but used cannabis more frequently (12.0 vs 8.3 days, t = 2.0, p < 0.05). A chi square test revealed no significant association between changes in price, purity, availability and perceived use of adulterants with heroin, crack, and cannabis, by whether participants were living in an area covered by Operation Crackdown. Changes in heroin, crack and cannabis markets and personal use (i) Heroin Participants who reported a decrease in the price of heroin reported using heroin more often and also used larger amounts on each occasion. Similarly, those who reported no change in availability had used heroin less often (mean = 15.7 days) than those who reported increased availability (mean of 22.5 days) and those reporting a decrease in availability (mean of 23.5 days). Finally, those who reported a decrease in adulterants had used heroin more often (27.7 days) and in larger quantities (mean = 0.9 g) than those reporting no change in adulterants (mean = 16.6 days and 0.4 g). (ii) Crack cocaine Participants who reported an increase in the purity of crack reported greater quantities of crack used on each occasion (mean = 1.0 g) than those reporting a decrease (mean = 0.4 g) or those reporting no change in purity (mean = 0.5 g). (iii) Cannabis Comparison of participants who reported changes in the price, purity, availability and use of adulterants with cannabis revealed no significant differences in changes in use.

Discussion In spite of the scale of the operation, more than two-thirds of the drug users living in target areas for Operation Crackdown had not noticed any significant change in the price or availability of heroin, crack cocaine or cannabis over the initial two weeks of Operation Crackdown. Only 2 per cent reported the anticipated increase in price, while 13 per cent of the drug users reported that there was an actual reduction in heroin price in the operation period. Furthermore, only 11 per cent noticed a reduction in heroin availability, while 14 per cent noticed an increase in heroin availability. However, as with each of the potential domains of market change the majority reported no perceived change—not only for heroin but for crack cocaine and cannabis as well. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in awareness of increased police activity between the areas directly affected by the operation and those from sites not included in the operation. Only a small proportion of subjects noticed any shifts at all in price, purity, availability or adulterants with those who did perceive changes more likely to see these as ‘positive market changes’ (i.e. more availability, lower price, etc.), with only seven people 743


reporting price increases across the three target drugs. Similarly, there was no consistent pattern in perceived change in either availability or purity, with crack cocaine most likely to be perceived to be more readily available. This was particularly evident from the qualitative data, which also suggested a general trend towards greater availability and lower price over a longer time period—most commonly reductions in price and increases in availability were reported over a six-month period. It is interesting that the awareness of increased police activity, reported by around onethird of street drug users, did not relate either to perceptions of market change or to levels of personal use of the target drugs. Although the cross-sectional design of the study prevents a prospective analysis of change either by awareness of police activity or by area of residence, there is little indication that either of these factors had any impact on overall frequency of use of heroin, crack or cannabis. Thus, neither being aware of a police operation nor living in one of the operational target areas was linked with reduced use or with perceptions of a problem with supply or quality. What is harder to interpret is the finding of less frequent purchase of heroin or crack in the areas beyond the police operation, which may be a result of differing drug markets in these geographic regions or may be the consequence of longer-term effects of supply reduction endeavours. Our findings offer no support for the suggestion that the markets for heroin, crack and cannabis are sensitive to increased police activity, at least not in the short term, even when such activity is associated with a number of significant drug seizures and with the removal of a large number of dealers from the street. It may be the case that even the lesser ambition of supply reduction strategies, the harassment and disruption of local markets, cannot be guaranteed by concerted police activity. Among the treatment population studied, there was no evidence to indicate that Operation Crackdown had any instant impact on the price, availability or purity of illicit drugs, nor on the use patterns of consumers, even those consumers who are aware of and have been personally affected by the police operation. It could be argued that this is an artefact of the treatment population used and that the real target group are non-dependent drug users early in their drug using careers for whom increased risk of arrest may be a more significant deterrent. On the other hand, it could also be argued that non-dependent drug users could more easily adapt to restricted availability of drugs by ‘selecting out’, but this is not the core ‘target’ population. While the current study cannot address this issue, it is important to note that our subjects were in substantial contact with the illicit market and were not a cocooned treatment population who would not observe market change. Furthermore, our results support Hough and Edmunds (1999) in their assertion that supply reduction endeavours are not strongly linked to illicit drug market forces. Although increased police activity may have a deterrent effect on irregular users (deterred by the fear of arrest), the failure to impact on market factors (quality or price of the drugs) suggests that such operations have no deterrent effects on the economic components of drugpurchasing decisions. A possible explanation for this lack of observed effect could be that, in this two-week period, there may not have been sufficient opportunities for existing supplies to become depleted, thus masking an actual beneficial effect of the operation in the short term. Drug markets in London may also be so diffuse that only long-term concerted initiatives will impact on the overall availability and quality of heroin as a product. Although it is possible that the lack of price changes are a consequence of dealers ‘dumping’ their 744


supplies for fear of arrest, the generally low impact of the operation on the consciousness of the using community (far less their use practices) suggests that this is an unlikely explanation. Similarly, the fact that most users report only gradual changes in price (if even that) over prolonged periods of time would further suggest that the dominant market environment is inelastic. On the other hand, the current data provide worrying evidence that an operation that the Metropolitan Police regarded as ‘the biggest ever drug operation in the Met’ (Lynch 2000) and as a ‘spectacular success’ (Lynch 2000) has little immediately observable impact on drug markets across a number of drug using populations in London. This may reflect the existence of considerable drug reserves which would mean that any impact of police activity may, at best, be delayed in time or require a more lengthy period of concerted police activity, or at worst, may be largely irrelevant to a much larger market system. REFEREN CES BE N N E TT , T. (2000), Drugs and Crime: The Results of the Second Developmental Stage of the NEW-ADAM Programme, Home Office Research Study 205. HO U GH , M. and ED M U N D S , M. (1999), ‘Tackling Drug Markets: An Eclectic Approach’, Studies on Crime and Crime Prevention, 8/1: 107–31. LY N C H , C. (2000), ‘Crackdown Scores its Biggest Success’, The Job, 1 December. ME TRO P O LITAN POL I C E (2000), ‘Operation Crack Down Swoops in on Drug Dealer’, ref: 114/00, November. RO Y AL CO LL E G E OF PS Y C HI A T R I S T S and ROY A L CO L L E GE O F PH YSI CI ANS (2000), Drugs: Dilemmas and Choices. London: Gaskell. SCH U M AN and PR E S S E R (1979), Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys. London: Academic Press. UKADCU (2000), First Annual Report and National Plan on Tackling Drugs To Build A Better Britain.

745