www.drogovaporadna.cz

1
Security, Democracy CitiesDemocracy, Cities
Drugs

• November 1st, 2006 Saragossa - Spain
• Drug Policy Coordination
• specific experience from CEEC
• www.democitydrug.org
• Mgr. Jirí Richter
• President A.N.O. Association of NGOs
• Executive Director SANANIM
• e-mail richter_at_sananim.cz

2
CEEC Drug policy

• Evaluation of NFP in new EU members states
• Drug Policy Conference, Alexis Goosdeel, Prague,
  20 April 2004

3
Year 2002
4
Year 2002
5
SITUATION Operational level NFPs (Dec 04)
High CZ, EE, SI
Medium/high P
Low BG, LV
Very low LT, SK
Not operational H, R
Start activities w/Twinning CY, MT, TR
NFPs being or to be re-located
6
SITUATION Main factors
Budgetary and staff limitations EE, SI H, LV, SK
Resources for data collection EE, SI BG, H (?), LV, R
Structural and institutional framework BG, H, LV, LT, R, SK
Weaknesses in implementation H, LV, LT, SK
Limitation PHARE-EMCDDA to CEECs CY, MT, TR
7
European Drug Policy

• Evaluation of national Policies on drugs (based
  on EU Strategy and Action plan)
• Main characteristics and comparisons
• Danilo Ballotta, Prague 20 April 2004
• Key questions
• How do countries coordinate the multifaceted
  issue of drugs?
• Do all countries have coordination agencies, and
  coordinators, or simply coordination systems?

8
Key findings

• increased political attention
• Commitment to drug policy
• Ad-hoc coordination agencies
• National drugs coordinators
• growing management culture
• Business culture enters public policies
• Stated targets may encourage future fine-tuning
• Evaluation as a common element
• Costs are not easy to assess

9
Key findings

• Common content to a degree
• Hearings before the adoption of a strategy
• Health and social affairs hold coordination
• Main elements and objectives
• Differences in meanings
• Evaluation or at least monitoring is part of the
  new and more modern drug policies
• a written, objective driven, overall national
  drug strategy
• a central coordination mechanism, with ultimately
  a national coordinator
• a solid monitoring system

10
Only CEEC specificities?

• Serious limits (lack)
• in policy, funding, old provisions
• in communication and listening
• of understanding, knowledge, information
• Barriers in lack of professionals, standards,
  systematic
• 40 (or more) years of broken continuity of NGO,
  charity, civic live and
• very different stage of development related to
  information/knowledge among themselves
• very different position in information /
  knowledge among themselves

11
Only CEEC specificities?

• Structural
• Limits in access to policy, funding, partnership,
  equality
• Barriers in will or ability to listen and act
• Political
• Barriers in distribution / sharing power and
  responsibilities
• Political or Social need
• Partnership or Free Market
• Ability of NGOs

12
Good municipal practices

• Communication tools
• Drug Forums (platforms)
• Focus on specific topics and subjects
• Focus on specific aims and target population
• Advisory tools
• working groups
• Ad hoc teams
• Mediation (Agora experience)

13
Good municipal practices

• Information services
• New technologies used .. (Internet based)
• Information for local administrators
• Tools available e.g. - how to
• Info for all actors involved
• Networking
• Continual education of the national net of
• Continual platform for exchange, education

14
Good municipal practices

• Quality
• Minimum Services Standards
• Monitoring and evaluation
• Base for data quality assurance and control
• Base for services stability

15
Key factors Policy frames

• Local Policy document
• Local regional strategy Action Plan based on
  National Strategy Action Plan
• Legal framework (national local)
• for coordination, management, services
• Legal base for alternative/NGOs activities
• Standards, Evaluation
• for services, care, treatment, monitoring
• System of Financing

16
Key political factors

• Political attention / commitment
• Policing.. involvement of politicians and elected
  officials
• Attracting key actors Political awareness
• Management culture Participation
• Integrative approach Shared responsibility
  Involvement of all
• Proffesional culture expert capacity, training,
  research
• Communication, Information Networking
• Availability Cooperation Common aim Accepting
  variety of needs
• Financing
• Adequate funds Equal opportunities access
  Clear structure
• Media, Marketing, Promotion Public Education
• Necessary conditions for any effective action

17
Key factors - mechanisms

• Accepted policy and Management structure
• Communication Policy / Strategy management
• Actors / stakeholders participatory
  multi-sectorial involvement
• Responsibilities
• Cooperation Networking,
• Evaluation, Standards Quality
• Existence of tools for effectivity quality
  measurement
• Meeting the existing defined needs
• Services Independency
• Variety and accessibility of services
• services and policy development
• alternative.. to meet all

18
Key sources - structural factors

• Adequate human Resources
• all participants.. politicians, experts,
  stakeholders involved
• experts in various fields (from management to
  biology)
• Adequate financial Resources
• continuous covering adequately at least basic
  network
• ideally with space for development, science..
• Adequate service Resources
• range of all types of effective services
• basic network created on evidence based
• accessibility of key services

19
Key factors - approaches

• Balanced Multi-sectorial
• Participative
• Networking
• Timing
• Evidence based, accountability
• Adequate to actual needs
• Responsiveness
• Social responsibility