1. Evaluation of Action Plan Turkish Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction TUBIM

2. Outline of the Presentation  An overview of the Action Plan  Collecting and interpreting data on implementation  Findings and what we learnt

3. ACTION PLAN FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF NATIONAL POLICY AND STRATEGY DOCUMENT ON COUNTERACTING ADDICTIVE SUBSTANCE AND SUBSTANCE ADDICTION (2007-2009) Turkish Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (TUBIM) The Title of the Policy Document

4. The Foundation of Turkish Drug Policy  Creation of KIHBI (Coordination for Anti- Smuggling (1981)  Family Research Institute (First Policy Document on Drug Demand Reduction (1997)  Creation of Turkish Focal Point (2002)  The Outcome of Twinning Project (2004-2006)  First Policy Document (2006-2012) in line with EU Drug Policy (Balanced Approach) and I. Action Plan (2007-2009)

5. Data Collection Procedures Structure of the Evaluation Evaluation Process Purpose of Evaluation Methodology & Procedures Responsible Institution(s) Accountability The Evaluation Committee Partnership Learning Assessment of progress Triangulation Interpretation The Role of TUBIM

6. Purpose of Evaluation o To promote accountability of institutions o To generate learning from evaluation o To increase partnership with stakeholders o To contribute to the necessary decisions for government based on the assessment of progress

7. The Background of the Document  The document was the main output of the Twinning Project (Spain and Greece)  The document was prepared by TUBIM based on the support and mutual agreement of relevant (listed) agencies  The Ministry of Interior is responsible to monitor the implementation of the document  All agencies and organizations are responsible for the implementation of the actions set by this document  Each and every agency and organisation will support the Ministry of Interior (TUBIM) regarding the implementation of actions

8. Objectives of the Action Plan o To prevent drug use o To prevent drug related crimes o To reduce the harmful effects of drugs o To improve treatment facilities o To adopt a balanced approach on drugs

9. The objectives of the Action Plan 1. To establish a “National Coordination Council” 2. To create a multi-disciplinary structure 3. To improve public health 4. To take more effective measures on drug trafficking 5. To encourage the relevant agencies on drug issues 6. To ensure effective data collection system and analyze and publish country reports 7. To enhance the capacity and accessibility of treatment centers. 8. To conduct research on drugs 9. To strengthen data infrastructure and information network 10.To raise public awareness on drugs 11.To increase efficiency and effectiveness of all activities (Supply and Demand) 12.To develop multi-dimensional activities at national and international level. 13. To support the cooperation in a dynamic and functional level 14. To increase the function of TUBIM 15. To ensure the culture of team working 16. To strengthen the community support 17. To evaluate the outcome of all the activities

10. The Criteria of the measures 1. The outcomes should be realistic and measurable 2. Measures should contribute the targets or priorities of the strategy 3. The number of measures should be realistic 4. Measures should be applicable and the results should be concrete

11. Chapters of the Document  Supply Reduction  Demand Reduction Each have four chapters 1. General Policies 2. Coordination 3. International Cooperation 4. Data Collection – Research - Evaluation

12. Number of Actions  The total number of targets (purposes) in the action plan is 73 (24 Supply+ 49 Demand)  133 actions to achive the purposes (47 Supply+ 86 Demand)  The total number of institutions is 34 as well as some Universities, Local governments, and NGOs.

13. The Process of Evaluation  Prepareation of the questionnaire (Draft Version, Revised, and Last)  Sending to the institutions (First Response 76%)  Official Meeting and Second Round  Data Collection Process  Evaluation of collected data

14. Institutions on Supply Reduction  TURKISH NATIONAL POLICE  COAST GUARDS  GENDARMERIE  CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT AGENCY  MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND RURAL AFFAIRS  TURKISH GRAIN BOARD  CRIME LABORATORIES  INSTITUTION FOR FORENSIC MEDICINE

15. Institutions on Demand Reduction  MINISTRY OF JUSTICE General Directorate of Prisons and Detention Houses Department of Probation Services  MINISTRY OF LABOR AND SOCIAL SECURITY  THE PRESIDENCY OF RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS  GENERAL DIRECTORATE FOR YOUTH AND SPORTS  MINISTRY OF EDUCATION Department of Special Training and Consulting Services  RADIO AND TELEVISION SUPREME COUNCIL

16. Institutions on Demand Reduction(2)  MINISTRY OF HEALTH General Directorate for Pharmacy General Directorate for Treatment Services General Directorate for Primary Health Services  MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY AND TRADE  GENERAL DIRECTORATE of SOCIAL WORKS and PROTECTION OF CHILDREN  TURKISH STATISTICAL INSTITUTE  TURKISH HIGHER EDUCATION COUNCIL  SOME MUNICIPALITIES

17. The Methodology  Quantitative Data - Questionnaire - Survey questions & percentages  Qualitative Data - Open-ended questions in Questionnaire - Semi-structured interviews in expert level in formal meetings - Previous years’ report and publications  Other type of data - Observations, archives and institutional experience

18. Evaluation Form (Questionnaire) A. GENERAL Qs: This part relates to the activities of the Organisation as a whole.  “Make a comprehensive explanation on the activities of your Organisation within the framework of the counter-drugs policy.”  “List the factors that have had a positive or negative impact on the realisation of the action plan. List 3 factors for each category (positive and negative factors) that have had the most positive and most negative impact.”  “Indicate the fields where the scope of both the activities listed in the action plan and your Ministry’s own activities have turned out to be insufficient.” B. SPECIFIC Qs: Each activity is to be evaluated separately.

19. Specific Questions SUPPLY and DEMAND REDUCTION  Has the action been realised? (Y-N-Y partially, specify between 1 – 99 % ):  Has it been realised on time? (Y-N)  If realised, have you experienced any problems? Specify:  If not or partially realised, specify problems and reasons:  If something such as results, minutes, reports, materials or publications etc have been produced, please specify:  If possible, please make a estimation with regard to the cost generated by the action:  Will you continue the action in the future? (Y-N)  The activities carried out within the scope of Action Plan  Comments, if any:

20. Scale & Method  If the responsible institution(s) check “YES” SUCCESSFUL  If the responsible institution(s) check “PARTIALLY YES“ PARTIALLY SUCCESSFUL  If the responsible institution(s) check NO UNSUCCESSFULL  If the responsible institution(s) check YES but one of them says NO then the activity becomes PARTIALLY SUCCESSFUL  If they plan to implement in the future (Y/N)

21. The Response Rate 30 Institutions responded, Only 4 institutions did not responded to the questionnaire

22. The Level of Implementation (Demand Reduction Part)

23. The Level of Implementation (Supply Reduction Part)

24. Positive and Negative Factors 1. Increases the public and institutional awareness on drug and its consequences 2. Ensures the national and international cooperation 3. Strengthen the data collection system The factors that have had a positive or negative impact on the realisation of the action plan. Positive Factors

25. 1. Increases Awareness  Willingness to particapate the drug policy and its evaluation  Creation of multidisciplinary working environment  Preparation of a nationwide policy document  Increasing the alternative measures on counteracting drug phenomenon  Inreases the awareness of decision makers and high level bureaucrats

26. 2. Ensures cooperation  Creation of formal and informal channels  Setting up Drug Coordination Council Scientific Commitee  Increases the level of cooperation among similar institutions (law enforcement, health, and prevention)  Establishing local action plan and coordination councils in provinces (65/81)

27. 3. Data Collection  Strengthen the data collection system in national level  Helps to reestablish the working groups of EMCDDA indicators  Receiving good quality of data

28. Negative Factors 1. Insufficiant institutional capacity 2. Obstacles in communication and collaboration with some institutions 3. Inedequate scientific research on drugs

29. 1. Insufficiant institutional capacity  Heavy workload and lnedequate number of assigned staff  Lack of expert working for drug problem  Rotation of experts into a different position  Inedequate working system to implement the tasks of action plan  Infavorouble field of expertise (Addiction) in Turkey

30. 2. Obstacles in communication & collaboration  Conflict in drug law in practice  Unable to use relavent IT Technologies  Inedequate collaboration and coordination among responsible institutions to implement the relavent tasks on the action plan  No certain meetings among institutions to monitor the actions and policy document during 3 years  No work definiton among the liable institutions (uncertainty) about the actions  Assigning more than one institution for coordination

31. 3. Inedequate scientific research  Inedequate scientific research on all areas of drugs  Lack of knowledge in GPS and prevelance of drug use in national and local level  New field of study for many institutions

32. The weaknesses of the Plan  No work definition amongst the stakeholders (coordinators & Implementers)  No evaluation meeting (interim report) conducted in 3 years period  No awareness in the preparation phase (No comments and objection at the first stages but later)  Too many actions in the plan (wishes) and very detailed program  Some of the actions are not measurable  No institutional independency of TUBİM  Budgetary concerns of the institutions

33. What we learnt  First Action Plan and its evaluation  Good progress in drug policy (EU Progress report)  Second action plan will be more professional  Awareness already increased in this field  Work definition amongst the stakeholders (coordinators & implementers) is crucial

34. Thanks for your attention Arif Akgul Turkish Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction arif.akgul@tubim.gov.tr +90 312 412 7532