1. ITALIAN ACTION PLAN
ON DRUGS
2008

2. 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.)

3. 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???

4. 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
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?

5. 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?

6. 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?

7. 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?

8. 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?

9. 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?

10. 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?

11. 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?

12. 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?

13. 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?

14. 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?

15. 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?

16. 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?

17. 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

18. 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
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