ITALIAN ACTION PLAN ON DRUGS 2008

THE METHOD Investigations involving key players Qualitative analysis undertaken through the realisation of site visits and in-depth interviews Quantitative analysis undertaken through the “remote” use of assessment questionnaires SELF-ASSESSMENT Questionnaire For every objective/action in the plan which envisages direct involvement of Regions and autonomous Provinces, the following were recorded: the implementation status of the proposed actions; the assessment of the influence of the action plan on the actions implemented; some specific elementary indicators (e.g. no. of meetings held, name of key document, etc.)

THE ADMINISTRATIONS INVOLVED Participation Regional Administration Questionnaire compilers and people interviewed Interviewer Autonomous Province of Bolzano Nadia Girelli, Antje Trenkwalder, Sylvia Rainer Enrico Tezza Autonomous Province of Trento Luciano Pontalti, Raffaele Lovaste, Aldo Sobotka Region of Abruzzo Franca Pierdomenico Francesca Marazzi Autonomous Region of Sardinia Ilario Carta Autonomous Region of Friuli Venezia Giulia Anna Peris Autonomous Region of Valle d’Aosta Gabriella Furfaro Region of Basilicata Enrica Marchese, Rocco Libutti Riccardo de Conciliis Region of Calabria Francesca Fratto Region of Campania Carlo Petrella Region of Emilia Romagna Mila Ferri Region of Lazio Simonetta Fratini, Sandro Libianchi, Silvia Francescangeli Enrico Tezza, Riccardo de Conciliis Region of Liguria Sergio Schiaffino, Ilaria Schizzi, Sonia Salvini Region of Lombardy Tosi Marco Region of Marche Marco Nocchi Region of Piedmont Gaetano Manna Region of Molise Salvatore Panaro Region of Puglia Martinelli Giuseppe, Vito Losito, Fernando D’Angelo Region of Tuscany Arcangelo Alfano Region of Sicily Loredana Ciriminna, Maurizio D’Arpa, Giuseppina Vizzini Enrico Tezza, Francesca Marazzi Region of Umbria Angela Bravi,Anna Belisari, Rosa Andino Region of Veneto Renato Rubin, Anna Corti Laura, riesci a completare questa tabella sulla partecipazione???

THE RESULTS Level of implementation of objectives Area: coordination No. Regions and Autonomous Provinces 3 5 11 8 13 4 1 2 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 6. Drafting of plan for 2009-2012 5. Involvement of civil society 3. “Vertical“ coordination 4. “Horizontal“ coordination implemented properly not fully implemented not implemented not assessable WHAT OBJECTIVES HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED? How many Regions and autonomous Provinces state they have implemented each objective?

THE RESULTS Level of implementation of objectives Area: reducing demand implemented properly Level of implementation of objectives not fully implemented not implemented not assessable N° Regioni e province Autonome 1 2 3 4 8 6 5 7 10 9 13 12 14 11 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 14. Awareness-raising for gym managers 27. MMG training 32. Accommodation for drug addicts with pardon 17. Establishment of Observatory on youth unrest 35. Improvement in probation service 34. Testing to improve drug-addiction treatment 29. Definition of guidelines on damage reduction 26. Definition of updating of LEA 28. Definition of damage reduction projects 13. Awareness-raising of leisure venue managers 9. Definition of new prevention models for schools 22. Launch CCM programs 15. Workplace prevention 30. Promotion of social and work intergration processes 36. National project COCAINE 11. Awareness-raising for adults 19. Counselling in schools (school help points, etc.) 7. Definition of regions and autonomous provinces’ plans 23. Mapping of services and remodulation 31. Improve access for foreigners 20. Coordination among prevention operators 24. Integrated service design (public and private social sector) 18. Inform students 16. Prevention in leisure venues 25. Health protection in prison (Leg. Dec.230/99) – tfr to NHS 37. National alcohol plan 8. Study and analysis of resources WHAT OBJECTIVES HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED? How many Regions and autonomous Provinces state they have implemented each objective?

THE RESULTS Level of implementation of objectives Area: information, training, research and assessment THE RESULTS implemented properly implemented not completely confomrly Level of implementation of objectives not implemented Not assessable 1 3 5 7 2 4 6 8 11 13 9 14 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 63.Assessment of national plan 2008 61 Drafting of a national research plan 58. Survey of university teachings and new proposals 64. Test new information exchange model on new substances 65. Analysis of results of interventions by NOT 59. Improve knowledge of courses aimed at public/private operators 56. Improve investigations into population 53. Improve the quality of data and information flows 54. Launch the new SIND N° Regioni e province Autonome N° Regioni e Province Autonome WHAT OBJECTIVES HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED? How many Regions and autonomous Provinces state they have implemented each objective?

Info, research and assessment THE RESULTS The state of implementation declared by Regions and Autonomous Provinces National average of level of implementation of plan objectives Action plan 2008 Area Coordination Reduction in demand Info, research and assessment implemented properly 18.5% 26.2% 19.9% 11.4% not fully implemented 30.7% 32.1% 34.9% 18.6% not implemented 33.6% 31.0% 31.6% 40.0% not assessed 17.3% 10.7% 13.6% 30.0% 100.0% No. of objectives subjected to self-assessment by administrations 41 4 27 10 HOW MANY PLAN OBJECTIVES HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED? No. objectives = 41 How many objectives have each Region and Province state they have implemented?

THE RESULTS 41 objectives underwent assessment by Administrations The state of implementation self-declared by Regions and Autonomous Provinces 41 objectives underwent assessment by Administrations no. objectives by state of implementation 7 20 14 15 12 9 6 28 5 4 19 13 3 24 17 21 18 23 2 26 22 10 11 1 16 25 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Valle d'Aosta Piedmont Lombardy Liguria Bolzano Trento FVG Veneto Emilia Romagna Tuscany Marche Umbria Abruzzo Molise Lazio Campania Puglia Basilicata Calabria Sardinia Sicily national average implemented properly not fully implemented not implem. not assessed HOW MANY PLAN OBJECTIVES HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED? No. objectives = 41 How many objectives has each Region and Province stated it has implemented?

THE RESULTS Area: coordination The state of implementation self-declared by Regions and Autonomous Provinces 4 objectives underwent assessment by Administrations no. objectives by state of implementation 1 2 3 4 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Valle d'Aosta Piedmont Lombardy Liguria Bolzano Trento FVG Veneto Emilia Romagna Tuscany Marche Umbria Abruzzo Molise Lazio Campania Puglia Basilicata Calabria Sardinia Sicily national average implemented properly not fully implemented not implem. not assesseed HOW MANY PLAN OBJECTIVES HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED? No. objectives = 41 How many objectives has each Region and Province stated it has implemented?

THE RESULTS Area: reducing demand The state of implementation self-declared by Regions and Autonomous Provinces 27 objectives underwent assessment by Administrations No. objectives by state of implementation 5 14 9 1 4 12 11 6 3 21 8 10 16 13 15 7 18 17 2 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Valle d'Aosta Piedmont Lombardy Liguria Bolzano Trento FVG Veneto Emilia Romagna Tuscany Marche Umbria Abruzzo Molise Lazio Campania Puglia Basilicata Calabria Sardinia Sicily national average implemented properly not fully implemented not implem. not assessed HOW MANY PLAN OBJECTIVES HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED? No. objectives = 41 How many objectives has each Region and Province stated it has implemented?

THE RESULTS Area: information, training, research and assessment The state of implementation self-declared by Regions and Autonomous Provinces 10 objectives underwent assessment by Administrations No. objectives by state of implementation 1 4 2 3 6 5 7 9 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Valle d'Aosta Piedmont Lombardy Liguria Bolzano Trento FVG Veneto Emilia Romagna Tuscany Marche Umbria Abruzzo Molise Lazio Campania Puglia Basilicata Calabria Sardinia Sicily national average implemented properly not fully implemented not implem. not assessed HOW MANY PLAN OBJECTIVES HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED? No. objectives = 41 How many objectives has each Region and Province stated it has implemented?

THE RESULTS Analysis: specific indicators Area: coordination 4. COORDINATION AMONG REGIONS Implementation No. meetings Valle d'Aosta Yes no reply Piedmont 5 Lombardy 12 Liguria Bolzano 3 P.A. Trento 10 Fvg No   Veneto Emilia Romagna 4 Tuscany Marche Umbria 7 Abruzzo 2 Molise Lazio Campania Puglia Baslicata Calabria Sardinia Sicily Analysis: specific indicators implemented properly not fully implemented not assessed not implemented N° OBIETTIVI E AZIONI DEL PIANO WHERE HAVE THE OBJECTIVES BEEN IMPLEMENTED? IN WHICH AREAS? How many objectives has each Region and Province state they have implemented?

THE RESULTS Analysis: specific indicators Area: reducing demand implemented properly not fully implemented not assessed not implemented No. of plan objectives and actions 8. MAPPING THE QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF RESOURCES. (n=19 only FVG and Molise state that they have not implemented the initaitve) Does your administration have info on: Number of Sert Yes (19 admin.) NO (0) Number of operators by type of professional figure No. of community therapies with breakdown of beds available Yes (17 admin.) NO (1 admin.) no reply (1 admin.)) Total cost of Sert Yes (12 admin.) NO (6 admin.) no reply (1 admin.) Cost of projects for admin. drug-addiction area Yes (17 admin.) NO (2 admin.) WHERE HAVE THE OBJECTIVES BEEN IMPLEMENTED? IN WHICH AREAS? How many objectives has each Region and Province state they have implemented?

THE RESULTS Analysis: specific indicators Area: reducing demand 37. NATIONAL ALCOHOL PLAN   implementation no. projects Valle d'Aosta no Piedmont Yes 3 Lombardy no reply Liguria Bolzano 2 P.A. Trento 10 FVG Veneto Emilia Romagna Tuscany Marche 1 Umbria 4 Abruzzo Molise Lazio Campania Puglia 5 Basilicata Calabria 8 Sardinia Sicily Analysis: specific indicators implemented properly not fully implemented not assessed not implemented N° OBIETTIVI E AZIONI DEL PIANO WHERE HAVE THE OBJECTIVES BEEN IMPLEMENTED? IN WHICH AREAS? How many objectives has each Region and Province state they have implemented?

THE RESULTS Analysis: specific indicators Area: reducing demand implemented properly not fully implemented not assessed not implemented No. PLAN OBJECTIVES AND ACTIONS 28. SUPPORT INITIATIVES FOR DAMAGE REDUCTION List of health auth. (ASL) where damage reduction iinitiatives have become (from projects) routine: All (Tuscany) ASL 1, 2, 3 (Umbria) ASL TO 2; ASL TO 3, ASL TO 4, ASL BI; ASL AL (Piedmont) ASL Palermo (Sicily) All regional ASL (Emilia Romagna) Azienda Servizi Sociali di Bolzano; Comunità Comprensoriale Burgraviato (Bolzano) 6 administrations out of 8 REPLIED WHERE HAVE THE OBJECTIVES BEEN IMPLEMENTED? IN WHICH AREAS? How many objectives has each Region and Province state they have implemented?

THE RESULTS Analysis: specific indicators Area: information, training, research and assessment THE RESULTS 54. LAUNCH NEW SIND implementation no. reports produced in 2008 Valle d'Aosta Yes 1 Piedmont 3 Lombardy no   Liguria Bolzano P.A. Trento FVG no reply Veneto Emilia Romagna 2 Tuscany Marche Umbria Abruzzo Lazio Campania Molise Puglia Calabria Basilicata Sardinia Sicily Analysis: specific indicators implemented properly not fully implemented not assessed not implemented N° OBIETTIVI E AZIONI DEL PIANO WHERE HAVE THE OBJECTIVES BEEN IMPLEMENTED? IN WHICH AREAS? How many objectives has each Region and Province state they have implemented?

THE RESULTS Implementation and role of plan Level of implementation Objectives broadly implemented in regard to which the action plan was significant. Objectives implemented in many areas and which would have been implemented in any case even without the presence of the action plan Level of implementation Objectives barely implemented despite presence of the action plan Objectives which are currently implemented only in some areas but in regard to which the action plan was significant. Level of influence of plan Some indications for the next plan

THE RESULTS Implementation and role of the plan 65. Analysis of results of NOT 64. Experim. exchange of info. on new substances 61.Preparing a national research plan 59. Knowledge of courses for operators 58. Redefining university teaching 56. Improving surveys on population 54. Launch new SIND 53.Quality of data and info. flow 37. National alcohol plan 36. National project COCAINE 35. Improving probation 34. Exper. treatment in prison 32. Accommodation of drug addicts under amnesty 31. Improve access for foreigners 30. Integration programs 29. Guidelines for damage reduction 28.Damage reduction projects 27. MMG training 26. Definition and updating of LEA 25. Health protection in prison 24. Integrated design of services 23. Mapping of services 22. Launch CCM programs 20. Coordinating prevention operators 19. Counselling in schools 18. Informing students 17. Observatory on youuth unrest 16. Prevention in clubs 15. Workplace prevention 14. Raising awareness of gym owners 13. Raise wareness of locali del "gioco" 11. Raising awareness of adults 9. Innovation in prevention in schools 8. Study and analysis of resources 7. Definition of long-term plans 6. Drafting of plan 2009-2012 5. Involvement of civil society 4. “Horizontal“ coordination 3. “Vertical“ coordination LEVEL OF INFLUENCE OF PLAN ( no. regions which state that the plan had a significant role / no. regions which stated that they have implemented the objective) LEVEL OF IMPLEMENTATION (no. of Regions which state they have implemented the objective) 50% delle regioni in cui l’obbiettivo è stato attuato 11 regioni