Accepted Manuscript Title: Peer, professional, and public: an analysis of the drugs policy advocacy community in Europe Author: Aileen O’Gorman Eoghan Quigley Frank Zobel Kerri Moore PII: DOI: Reference:

S0955-3959(14)00096-6 http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2014.04.020 DRUPOL 1380

To appear in:

International Journal of Drug Policy

Received date: Revised date: Accepted date:

15-11-2013 17-4-2014 30-4-2014

Please cite this article as: O’Gorman, A., Quigley, E., Zobel, F., and Moore, K.,Peer, professional, and public: an analysis of the drugs policy advocacy community in Europe, International Journal of Drug Policy (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2014.04.020 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Introduction Since drugs policy became a defined area of public administration, a broad range of stakeholders advocating from personal, professional, public or economic interests have sought to influence its development (Bruun, Pan, & Rexed, 1975; Musto, 1999). More recent developments in policy governance, such as the expansion of formal mechanisms through which policymakers can be

ip t

accessed, have broadened the possibilities for civil society to engage in advocacy at national, European and international levels. In the drugs policy arena, a wide range of individuals and

organisations are now involved in campaigning on drug-related issues and actively engaging with

cr

policymakers to address issues ranging from the scope and content of drug policies and strategies, to the availability of specific services.

us

In this context, the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA)

commissioned an exploratory study of drug policy advocacy organisations in Europe to contribute to our understanding of policy actors in the drugs area (O’Gorman & Moore, 2012; O’Gorman, Quigley,

an

Zobel, & Moore, 2013). This research study provided the basis for the following exploration of the drugs policy advocacy community in Europe; examining the aims, scope, organisational structure, tactics, targets, purpose of engagement, and policy constituencies of these organisations grounded in

M

an analysis of the meaning, theory and practice of advocacy.

Advocacy: from representation to transformation

d

Advocacy (from the Latin advocare to summon, or call to one’s aid) is popularly understood as

te

support for, or recommendation of, a particular cause or policy. At the core of this definition lies the notion of representation - of oneself, or, of others - and having or enabling people to have ‘voice’ - a concept Sen (1999, 2002) views as a central component of political and civil freedom: one which

Ac ce p

includes the space for critical, dissenting, voices.

Traditionally, the literature draws a distinction between different forms of advocacy relevant to particular needs. A key differentiation is made on the basis of the social relationship between the advocate and the people they are advocating for, and the level of representation embedded in this relationship. In this respect, advocates are seen to speak for, represent the interests of, or defend the rights of oneself (self or peer advocacy); another person or specific group of people who are not in a position to do so (professional advocacy); or the general public (public advocacy) (see King & Tadros, 1998; Weafer & Woods, 2003). An additional distinction is drawn between case and cause advocacy, with case advocacy focusing on securing the services or resources to which an individual is entitled to and cause advocacy advancing the cause of a group in order to establish a right or entitlement to a resource or opportunity (McLaughlin, 2009; Sheafor & Horejsi, 2008). In practice, however, advocacy can span across these types and few are mutually exclusive categories.

1     

Page 1 of 30

Further distinctions are noted between advocacy groups that focus on holding systems accountable such as the many non-governmental organisations that attempt to impact on a specific decision, law, policy, or practice on behalf of a client or group of clients (Ezell, 1994), and those involved in systemic reform by seeking changes and modifications to a structure, policy or legislation that adversely impacts on people, or in order to establish a right or entitlement to a resource or service (see Carlisle,

ip t

2000; Compton, Galoway, & Cournoyer, 2005; Hepworth & Larsen, 1986; McLaughlin 2009; Miley, O’Melia, & DuBois, 2007; Van Voorhis & Hostetter, 2006 ).

cr

The concept of advocacy as a transformative practice is also deeply embedded in the literature. Advocacy as a strategy for achieving social justice, empowerment, and social reform is rooted

historically in sites of ‘active citizenship’ and community organising with and on behalf of individuals

us

and marginalised groups for a just society (Alinsky, 1971; Hammer, Rooney, & Warren, 2010; Hoefer, 2006). These nonprofit advocacy groups are viewed as being motivated by values and ideals

an

stemming from moral, ethical or faith principles.

Advocacy in practice

Advocacy may be seen as both a method and a process employed to influence decision-makers and

M

public perceptions about an issue of concern in order to achieve social change, including legislative and policy reform. Though by and large, independent of formal political institutions, advocacy is grounded in the premise that social change occurs through politics and that the power of the state can

d

be moved to act on behalf of people (Reid, 1999). To this end, advocacy groups adopt what Carbert (2004) terms as ‘insider’ or ‘outsider’ strategies, that is either participating within the official political,

te

economic, and social policy making systems; or operating outside the formal policy making processes. Insider strategies, for example, include writing submissions, sitting on government

Ac ce p

committees, lobbying, working directly with power holders, developing alliances, gathering and disseminating data, and producing research and analysis (see Cohen, de la Vega, & Watson, 2001; Kübler, 2001; MacGregor, 2009). In contrast, through their use of ‘outsider’ strategies, such as protests, public demonstrations, and grassroots organising, advocacy groups appear more akin to social movements by seeking to make their demands public and act outside of institutional or organisational channels for the purpose of challenging or defending extant authority (Kübler, 2001; McAdam , McCarthy & Mayer, 1996; Snow, Soule, & Kriesi, 2004; Tilly, 1984). The various strategies employed by advocacy organisations are seen to derive from a ‘theory of change’ paradigm with specific strategies and interventions drawn from the canon of political science and adopted to effect the desired social change (see Coffman, Hendricks, Kaye, Kelly, & Masters, 2007; Mansfield, 2010; Reisman, Gienap, & Stachowiak, 2007). These strategies are targeted at a broad range of stakeholders including policy-makers, civil and public servants, social partners, and

2     

Page 2 of 30

the public and employed to change or maintain existing customs, norms and value systems, or conversely, change attitudes, beliefs and laws, for example, regarding drugs control.

More recently, observers have noted the growth of electronic advocacy and social networking media as a means to influence stakeholders to effect policy change (McNutt, 2000; Schwartz, 1996; Turner,

ip t

1998). McNutt & Boland (1999) see these new technologies, in particular ‘free’ social media tools, as revolutionising the practice of political advocacy and as representing a force to be considered in

nonprofit advocacy. These tools have been effectively used to frame issues and shape agendas for

cr

policy debates in order to mobilise for, or capitalise from, political opportunities or ‘policy windows

(McAdam et al., 1996; Reisman et al., 2007; Stachowiak, 2007) which can lead to rapid shifts in issue

us

definitions (Baumgartner & Mahoney, 2008) and subsequent policy change.

Advocacy contexts

Notwithstanding the strategies advocacy organisations may employ, the extent to which they can

an

mobilise and influence policy in the nation state in which they operate is seen to reflect the level of ‘enabling environment’ that exists for civil society - the space between the state and the market where people associate to advance common interests (CIVICUS, 2013). In the context of the model of

M

statehood in operation (such as liberal, corporatist, social democratic and emerging) different arrangements and sets of relationships have been forged between civil society and the state and its institutions (Casey, Melville, Onyx, & Dalton, 2008). Subsequently, different ‘enabling environments’

d

have evolved that either actively help or restrict the functioning of civil society organisations1. Other influences include new public management models of governance, political ideologies, and welfare

te

regimes and entitlements of social citizenship. In addition, in the case of drugs policy advocacy, the prevailing norms and values regarding drug use; the extent and range of public health services

Ac ce p

addressing drug use and drug related harm; and the national level of drug regulation and law enforcement also shape the contexts in which drug policy advocacy organisations operate and the concerns that exercise them.

The expansion of ‘democratic spaces’ where civil society can participate and have ‘voice’ in formal policy making fora, particularly at European and International level, has had a major influence on the development of the drugs advocacy policy community. When the international drug control system was initially developing, under the League of Nations, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) were not afforded formal recognition in the League’s covenant. This changed, however, under the United Nations after the Second World War, where NGOs were given a statutory basis under the UN charter                                                                   1

In this respect, CIVICUS (the World Alliance for Citizen Participation) has identified five essential factors for an enabling environment for civil society - respect for human rights; acceptance of the role of civil society as actors in their own right: democratic political and policy dialogue; accountability and transparency; and adequate resourcing (2013, p.19).

3     

Page 3 of 30

and allowed access to the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) the UN platform on economic and social issues (Bruun et al., 1975). Further mechanisms for the inclusion of advocacy organisations have emerged since then, such as the Vienna NGO committee (VNGOC) facilitating accesss to the UN General Assembly Special Sessions (UNGASS) on the world drug problem; the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime; and the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) the central

ip t

drug policy-making body within the UN.

At a European level, the shift towards multi-level governance and citizen participation in policy has

cr

been a guiding principle in EU governance since the 1992 Treaty of Maastricht (Chatwin, 2007). In the drugs arena the EU Civil Society Forum on Drugs was established in 2007 following a 2006 European Commission conference and green paper. Since then, the Forum on Drugs has provided a platform

us

for dialogue and interaction between the Commission and civil society (Charlois, 2009; European Commission, 2006) and for feeding grassroots experience, expertise, and recommendations into EU policy making on drugs such as the European Drugs Strategy 2013–2020 and its associated Action

an

Plan 2013-2016 (see Council of the European Union, 2012; Council of the European Union, 2013).

The level and scope of influence that can be exercised in these mainly consultative forums is,

M

however, subject to certain limitations. For example, demand reduction and treatment issues receive more focus than supply reduction topics, and discussions are shaped by the paradigm of drug controls enshrined in the international conventions. In addition, Mahoney (2004) suggests that the

d

shift from traditional ‘supply-side’ influences that push groups to organise and become active in policy debates, to ‘demand-side’ influences by governmental institutions that draw in groups to certain policy

te

areas, allows governance institutions to shape the patterns of participation in policy debates and the level and nature of interest group activity. Notwithstanding these limitations, these ‘democratic

Ac ce p

spaces’ are colonised by a broad range of civil society actors. The questions we now address are: who are these organisations, where are they located, and what are their policy strategies and objectives?

Methods

For the purposes of this exploratory study, advocacy organisations were defined as organisations with a website-based Internet presence that contained a clearly stated aim to influence drug policy. Data on these organisations were collected from three key sources: i)

a systematic tri-lingual (English, French and Spanish) internet search for advocacy websites in each of 30 European states (the EU 28, Norway and Turkey - the 30 countries that provide data to the EMCDDA);

ii)

information provided by each of the EMCDDA REITOX National Focal Points on the drug policy advocacy organisations known to them in their country and that met our inclusion criteria (see below); and

4     

Page 4 of 30

iii) a search of the membership or contacts lists, and web-links, of the organisations identified in stage i) and ii) above, as well as those of known national, European and international drugrelated organisations.

At the outset, a number of exclusion criteria were defined to help focus the search and produce the

ip t

most relevant results. Organisations concerned with drug issues, but not explicitly established to influence drug policy were excluded. These included political parties, research centres, scientists,

government advisory bodies, REITOX National Focal Points, and HIV/AIDS advocacy organisations

cr

that did not specifically advocate on behalf of drug users. International organisations with a presence and a voice in Europe were not included unless they were based in the geographical area covered in the study. Using the internet as the data collection site precluded organisations without websites, as ©

us

well as those with social media sites only (such as Blogs, Facebook etc.) as these could not be searched systematically.

an

The internet search was conducted using a ‘search string’ - a series of keywords and search commands that link terms and phrases and search for variations of words. The search string was informed by the literature review and an assessment of the current phrases and terminology used by

M

advocacy groups from different standpoints so that organisations would have an equal chance of being captured in the search regardless of their viewpoint. A series of these search strings was developed and piloted until a ‘killer search string’ was found, namely one that maximised the capture

d

rate of relevant sites. The same process was repeated for each of the three languages (used in the

te

internet search (English, French and Spanish).

During the process of refining the search string a preliminary assessment was made on the type and

Ac ce p

detail of data that was consistently available on the websites (the ‘home’ and ‘about us’ sections proved most fruitful) so that the same level of detail could be systematically collected on all the organisations identified and a comparative analysis conducted. This assessment also facilitated the development of three key typologies - type of advocacy; type of organisation; and advocacy objective and orientation – grounded in an analytical review of the advocacy and drugs policy literature. In the subsequent process of assigning organisations to a category within these typologies a degree of overlap was inevitably found. Organisations that could be classified in more than one category were assigned to the group they most closely resembled.

Step-by-step guidelines were designed for the search process to ensure consistency and replicability in future repeat studies. The killer search string was entered into the national version of the Google® search engine in each country and the results generated were ‘sampled to exhaustion’. This latter process involved reviewing the first 100 links in the results (and identifying the advocacy websites within) and then continuing to assess subsequent links until 20 successive links yielded no new

5     

Page 5 of 30

advocacy websites (Hillebrand, Olszewski, & Sedefov, 2010; Solberg, Sedefov, & Griffiths, 2011). The same process was conducted systematically for each of the three search languages.

During the pilot phase of this study a Data Entry Form was designed to capture the key categories of organisations identified as well as basic details on the organisations, including county located, their

ip t

scope of operation, and advocacy tools and strategies. Information from the websites was entered into these forms and subsequently entered into a mirror image Excel database with drop down menus

cr

for ease and accuracy of data entry. Pivot Tables were used to cross-tabulate the data for analysis.

Data collection was carried out between March and July 2012. The findings of this study reflect the

us

advocacy organisations active in Europe at that time.

In the following discussion of results, examples of advocacy groups are cited for illustrative purposes

this study can be found in O’Gorman & Moore, 2012.

Results and Discussion

an

and as broad a sample as possible is used. The complete list of advocacy organisations identified in

M

Overall 218 drug policy advocacy groups based in Europe were identified in the data collection exercise. These organisations were mainly based in pre-2004 EU Member States in the north and west of Europe. Almost half of the organisations (48%), were located in countries where the search

d

languages were the main language spoken, namely, the United Kingdom (18%), Spain (14%), France (11%) and Ireland (5%). Smaller clusters were located in Germany (6%), Sweden (6%) and Finland

te

(5%), with the remainder dispersed thinly among the other countries. No advocacy organisations were identified in six countries: Cyprus, Estonia, Luxembourg, Malta, Slovakia and Turkey (Table 1- all

Ac ce p

subsequent data can be found in Table 2 unless otherwise stated). Though the spatial distribution of the advocacy organisations reflects the three languages used in the internet search, the supplementary information provided by the EMCDDA REITOX National Focal Points and the search of ‘links’ and ‘membership’ pages suggest that this bias has been minimised.

The great majority of these advocacy organisations were concerned with influencing drugs policy at a national level (69%). A small proportion (17%) focused on local or regional (sub-national) issues and the bulk of these were based in Spain (51%) reflecting that country’s system of governance through regional autonomous communities (comunidad autónoma). A further small proportion (14%) focused specifically on influencing drugs policy at a European or international level.

The parameters of this research study entail that all of the 218 advocacy organisations identified fit under the rubric of civil society. However, this cohort encompassed a diverse collection of non-state,

6     

Page 6 of 30

non-private, not-for-profit, third sector organisations with different institutional capacities and structures. From our analysis, three main types of organisations emerged: i)

Civil society associations (32%). Typically voluntary associations, activist groups, and family support groups such as Parents Contre La Drogue, France.

ii)

NGOs or third sector organisations (32%). These included operational NGOs engaged in the

ip t

delivery of welfare related services (such as La Huertecica, Spain); and campaigning NGOs seeking public health approaches to drug use, and rights-based and social justice reforms (such as the Drug Equality Alliance, UK) that were legally constituted with formal rules of

cr

operation and paid employees.

iii) Alliances, coalitions and networks (26%). Including like-minded groups working collaboratively to achieve common goals such as ENCOD – the European Coalition for Just and Effective

us

Drug Policies, Belgium.

A smaller number of ‘professional or representative bodies’ such as medical unions and associations

an

of lawyers or law enforcement officers were identified (6%). These included the Svenska Narkotika Polisföreningens Hemsidd (Swedish Narcotics Officers Association) concerned with addressing drugrelated crime; and Gadejuristen (Street lawyers) in Denmark who provide legal aid to marginalised

M

drug users. Somewhat surprisingly a small number of drug user groups were identified (5%) such as the Austrian Verein Starke Süchtige (Association of Strong Addicts). The prevailing conditions in

d

some countries may have discouraged groups from publically identifying themselves as drug users. In seeking to tease out the nature of European groups involved in drugs policy advocacy and explore

te

their activities, goals and objectives, a tripartite typology of advocacy was developed from the review of that literature to reflect the type of work carried out by organisations in the drugs field– namely,

Ac ce p

peer; professional; and public policy advocacy. The use of this typology provided an analytical framework from which to explore the nature of these groups and the basis of the social relationship, and the social distance, between the advocate and the person or cause they are advocating.

Peer Drugs Policy Advocacy Organisations Peer (or self) advocacy groups engage in representing the interests of, or defending the rights of, themselves and/or their peers. This type of advocacy was the least common among the organisations identified (17%). Though arguably these groups would be less likely to use a public ‘shop-front’ such as a website to promote their views and would consequently be less likely to be captured by this search process. Members of such groups were bound by a common experience of drug use and associated harms and a shared understanding of the issues and difficulties experienced by drug users, their families and communities.

7     

Page 7 of 30

Typically, these organisations included self-organised user groups and family support groups alongside community (of place and of interest) activist groups, voluntary and faith-based groups who campaign to advance or defend their cause, mainly at local (25%) and national (67%) levels. Collectively, these organisations are characterised by a low level of formal organisation and are often membership based and reliant on self or philanthropic funding; almost three-fifths (58%) were civil

ip t

society associations. Examples of peer advocacy groups included: Keep-Smiling, a French voluntary organisation providing risk reduction information at music festivals; the International Network of

People who Use Drugs (INPUD), UK; and the Citywide Drug Crisis Campaign, Ireland, a network of

cr

groups responding to drug issues in their communities.

Professional Drugs Policy Advocacy Organisations

us

Over one-third of the advocacy groups identified in the internet search engaged in professional advocacy (35%). This type of advocacy is characterised by helping professions representing and speaking out of caring or social justice interests on behalf of a specific person, or a specific group

an

often not in a position to do so. They seek to ensure that needs are met and entitlements to services secured often seeking the removal of structural barriers hindering their constituency’s needs being

M

met.

Over half of the Professional advocacy groups (57%) were operational NGOs, legally constituted service providers in the drugs or related social fields with staff, structures, and often in receipt of

d

public funding. Typically these groups have front-line service contact with drug-users, families and communities and focus on issues linked to practice and service provision, such as Proyecto Hombre a

Ac ce p

in the UK.

te

therapeutic community in Spain; and Turning Point a nationwide public health and social care provider

Public Drugs Policy Advocacy Organisations The majority, almost half (49%), of the organisations identified were engaged in public policy advocacy representing the interests of, or defends the rights of, a group of people or the general public. These advocacy organisations are mainly concerned with establishing rights or entitlements to services and resources though the legislative system, and seeking large scale policy change by influencing the political system; they are strongly influenced by values and ideals shaped by moral, ethical, faith and social justice principles and by insights gained from research.

In the drugs area, public policy advocacy is largely undertaken by civil society associations (45%), typically larger activist associations such as the Asociación Cannabica Valenciana, Spain, campaigning for the normalisation of cannabis use. Indeed, one-third (33%) of these public policy organisations campaigned specifically for cannabis regulation. A sizeable proportion of these advocates were alliances and networks (28%) who co-ordinated their activities to achieve their policy

8     

Page 8 of 30

goals and mainly operated at national and European levels such as the Nordic Alcohol and Drug Policy Network (NORDAN), Finland, which campaigns for a restrictive drugs and alcohol policy. A smaller proportion of public policy groups were campaigning NGOs (18%) such as Harm Reduction International.

ip t

Although these organisations have a predominantly national focus (70%), (such as Project Konoplja, Slovenia), a higher proportion of these groups operate at an international or European level (18% in total) compared to their peer and professional counterparts, for example, Mainline, Netherlands, an

cr

international NGO campaigning for harm reduction practices.

Advocacy Tools and Strategies

us

Organisations engaged in peer, professional and public policy advocacy used a broadly similar set of advocacy tools and strategies to promote and secure support for their case, or cause, and achieve their goals. The main advocacy tools used by each organisation (to a maximum of three) were noted

an

from their websites. These tools included activism, awareness raising, education and training, legal advocacy, lobbying, and research.

M

Awareness raising was the most common strategy across all types of advocacy groups (82% of all). This strategy was used to influence the attitudes and beliefs of both the public and policymakers, as well as to develop drug policy discourses and disseminate information in support of their cause. Tools

d

included participating in media debates, monitoring and providing commentary on drug-related news and using social media platforms such as blogs, Facebook® and Twitter® to promote their views. The

te

European Drug Policy Initiative (EDPI), a project established by the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union

Ac ce p

(HCLU), for example, used innovative videos to promote debate and influence public opinion.

Lobbying was particularly favoured by professional (57%) and public policy (52%) advocacy organisations to influence service provision and drugs control legislation at a national level (such as the Harm Reduction orientated Polska Siec Polityki Narkotyowej (PSPN), the Polish Network on Drug Policy) or at EU–UN level (such as Europe Against Drugs (EURAD), Belgium). Lobbying advocates targeted and forged formal and informal organisational relationships with a broad range of stakeholders. These included EU and UN institutions, policymakers, civil and public servants, social partners, and public commentators in order to promote dialogue and connect policy, practice and research. They focused on ‘insider strategies’ (Carbert, 2004) by participating in, and/or making submissions to the institutional mechanisms which facilitate civil society involvement in drug policy formation, such as the EU Civil Society Forum on Drugs, and the Vienna NGO Committee on Narcotic Drugs.

9     

Page 9 of 30

Education and training tools, such as seminars, conferences, and training programmes were used by a large proportion of groups for knowledge exchange and transfer, as well as a source of revenue. Almost half (45%) of all advocacy organisations used this strategy which was particularly favoured by professional advocacy groups (61%), such as EDEX a Spanish prevention oriented organisation

ip t

which designs and implements education intervention programmes on drugs.

Research and evidence building were identified as central components of the work of almost one-third of the advocacy organisations, mainly professional (40%) and public policy (35%) advocacy groups.

cr

At the public policy level, the Beckley Foundation, the International Drug Policy Consortium, the

Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs (all based in the UK), and the Transnational Institute, Netherlands. were particularly prolific in undertaking, commissioning and publishing original research

us

that highlighted the broad set of harms arising from extant drug policies, and provided objective evidence to inform drug policies. Other groups focused on collating and disseminating research that illustrated the dangers of drugs to individuals, families and society (for example FMR - Forbundet Mot

an

Rusgift/League against Intoxicants, Finland); conducted and disseminated research on drug-free recovery (such as the Addiction Recovery Foundation, UK); and/or promoted information-based prevention with young people (for example, FAD - Fundación de Ayuda contra la

M

Drogadicción/Foundation Against Drug Addiction, Spain). A very small proportion of peer groups (3%) used research evidence to argue their cause - this may reflect resource capacity.

d

The level of activism, such as public marches and demonstrations, was low among advocacy organisations in general (11%). Peer (17%) and public policy (13%) advocates were much more likely

te

to use these ‘outsider’ strategies than professional advocacy groups (3%). By and large, advocacy activists focused on campaigns for the regulation of cannabis consumption and organising the annual

Ac ce p

national Global Marijuana March (for example, the Marcha Global da Marijuana Lisboa, Portugal; and Legalizace.cz, Czech Republic).

Legal advocacy, focusing on a rights-based approach to drugs policy, was used by a small proportion of advocacy groups (4%) though to different effect. Professional advocacy groups from a public health and harm reduction perspective (such as INDRO e.V, Germany) based their campaigns on the rights of drug users to health and medical care enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In contrast, IOGT International argued that drugs constituted a threat to the dignity and freedom of people - rights also enshrined in the UN Charter.

Advocacy Objectives and Orientation In analysing the issues that motivate civil society advocacy organisations to influence drugs policy, two key domains were identified - professional practice and drug control legislation. Two thirds (65%) of the advocacy groups identified focused their energies campaigning on issues related to

10     

Page 10 of 30

professional practice and the development of service provision in the drugs field; the remaining onethird (35%) focused on changing or maintaining drug control legislation.

Within each of these domains, two distinct advocacy orientations were observed. Groups focusing on the domain of professional practice could be differentiated by their promotion of a public health and

ip t

harm reduction response to drug problems (60%), or, the promotion of a prevention, abstinence and drug free-recovery response (40%). Groups advocating on legislation issues either campaigned for reforms such as decriminalisation, regulation of consumption, and legalisation (66%), or the

cr

preservation and strengthening of the current drugs regulatory system (34%) (Figure 1).

us

[Insert Figure 1 here]

Though not all of the above categories of policy objectives and orientation are neat discrete entities their use as a framework of analysis facilitates an assessment of the views and standpoints that

an

motivate organisations to strive to influence drugs policy. Organisations may comfortably straddle both domains and see legislative reform and service reform as interconnected struggles. Nonetheless, a distinction was noted from the websites regarding the level of emphasis placed on

M

these domains, particularly by the different types of advocacy groups. For example, almost all of the professional advocacy groups (99%) and two-thirds (69%) of the peer advocacy groups focused their campaigns on service development, and the majority of these campaigned for harm reduction

d

measures (each 64%). Conversely, the majority of public policy groups (60%) campaigned on

(66%).

te

legislative matters, with the majority of these campaigning for a reform of the drug control legislation

Ac ce p

Likewise, collapsing a broad set of views and standpoints, such as drawing those advocating for prevention, abstinence and drug–free recovery into a ‘Use Reduction’ category may lose the subtle distinctions between these orientations. Similarly, groups advocating for ‘Control Reduction’ encompassed those seeking more radical change regarding the regulation of consumption or legislation of drugs, and those campaigning for the decriminalisation of cannabis solely. Nonetheless, alliances and networks were observed between the groups in each of these categories and more similarities than differences were noted between them.

Close alliances were also observed between many of the groups campaigning for the reform and reduction of drug controls (23% of all) and the development of harm reduction services (39% of all). Together these groups accounted for almost two-thirds (62%) of all the advocacy groups. A similar network of alliances was observed between those seeking the reinforcement of drug controls (12% of all) and those campaigning for abstinence and drug–free recovery services (26% of all) who together accounted for over one-third of all the advocacy groups (38%) (Table 3).

11     

Page 11 of 30

On a spatial level advocacy groups campaigning for drug control reform were mainly based in the UK (30%), Germany (12%), France (10%), and Spain (8%) whereas those campaigning for more restrictive drug controls were mainly based in Sweden (31%), the Czech Republic (11%), and Spain (11%). Those advocating for a Harm Reduction ethos in drug services were mainly located in the UK

ip t

(23%), Ireland (13%), and Spain (10%) while those focusing on Prevention/Abstinence/Drug Free Recovery were primarily located in Spain (28%), France (17%), and Finland (12%) (Table 3). The case of Spain is illustrative in terms of the distinction between harm reduction and prevention or

cr

abstinence approaches being less marked than in other counties with groups advocating harm reduction generally also championing prevention and drug-free recovery, as in the case of the

us

Fundación Atenea Grupo GID organisation, which works on prevention and social reintegration programmes as well as providing an opioid substitution service. Overall, even allowing for some bias in this study due to the small number of languages used in the Internet search, these findings indicate

an

a spatial divide on drug policy positions across Europe.

Conclusion

As a result of this exploratory study, we have for the first time a sense of the extent of the drugs policy

M

advocacy community in Europe (notwithstanding the methodological limitations identified earlier in this paper), as well as an understanding of where and how advocacy groups operate, and the causes and concerns that motivate them to mobilise. The picture emerging from this research is of a diverse

d

range of organisations spanning from local grassroots activism to European networks operating

te

centre stage in EU and UN drugs policy governance fora; and a plurality of voices and views united in their aim to influence the policy making process.

Ac ce p

These findings highlight the complexity and challenge of opening up governance spaces to civil society inclusion in particular with regard to whose voices are selected or deemed eligible to participate in these spaces; and the legitimacy of advocacy groups to act on behalf of an individual or group of constituents. This study provides some answers to these predicaments. Firstly, by illustrating a level of convergence among the policy community in terms of the proportion advocating for a public health and harm reduction ethos in service provision, and a more liberal drug regulatory system. Secondly, by providing a typology from which to assess the legitimacy of groups to represent the drug-related concerns of their policy constituency, namely peer, professional and public policy representation. The power of personal and professional experiences, and values and ideals, which underlie these forms of advocacy and contribute to the shaping of policy positions in the drugs field, flags a further challenge as to how these issues may be reconciled with evidence-based policy making.

12     

Page 12 of 30

Some concerns are also warranted in relation to the resources, capacity or connections required by civil society groups to participate in governance spaces at national, EU and UN levels. The preponderance of public and professional advocacy organisations in this study suggests that NGOs and large-scale civil society organisations have more capacity to access and engage in such structural mechanisms. Consequently, the issues and voices these organisations represent may be

ip t

better served by this form of governance. However, it is evident from our analysis of the tools and tactics used by this advocacy community that such ‘insider’ tactics are but one strategy in their

toolbox. The majority of advocacy groups in this study focused on influencing both public and political

cr

opinion though awareness raising via different media platforms. In particular, the growth of free, easily accessible and rapid social media tools now offer a level of ‘voice’ and the means to engage in dialogue and disseminate information that was previously difficult and resource-heavy to acquire and

us

sustain. It will remain to be seen if information technology-based advocacy, as opposed to more traditional methods, will provide the main means for the advocacy community to shape drugs policy

an

and service provision in the future.

M

Role of Funders

The EMCDDA’s 2011 work programme recommended that a mapping study of drug policy advocacy organisations in Europe be undertaken so as to improve understanding of drug policy actors and the

d

context in which drug policy is developed in Europe. An invitation to tender to complete this mapping study was issued in August 2011, the contract awarded to the lead author (the Principal Investigator)

te

in November 2011 [Contract CT.11.POL.045.1.0], and the study completed in July 2012. The initial parameters of the methodological framework for this research study were designed in the tender brief

Ac ce p

by Eoghan Quigley and Frank Zobel from the Policy, Evaluation and Content Coordination (POL) unit of the EMCDDA. This framework was subsequently reviewed and refined, implemented and analysed in an iterative and collaborative process between all of the authors. The information and views set out in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the funders.

References Alinsky, S. (1971). Rules for radicals. New York: Random House. Bateman, N. (2000). Advocacy Skills for Health Care Professionals. London: Jessica Kingsley. Baumgartner, F. R., & Mahoney, C. (2008). The Two Faces of Framing. Individual-Level Framing and Collective Issue Definition in the European Union. European Union Politics, 9(3), 435-449. Bruun, K., Pan, L., & Rexed, I. (1975). The gentlemen’s club: International control of drugs and alcohol. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Carbert, A. (2004). Learning from experience: Activist reflections on ‘insider- outsider’ strategies, Montreal, Canada: Association for Women’s Rights in Development, Spotlight No. 4. www.awid.org Carlisle, S. (2000). Health promotion, advocacy and health inequities: A conceptual framework. Health Promotion International, 15(4), 369-376.

13     

Page 13 of 30

Ac ce p

te

d

M

an

us

cr

ip t

Casey, J. & Dalton, B. (2006). The Best of Time, the Worst of Times, Australian Journal of Political Science 41(1), 23–38. Casey, J., Melville, R., Onyx, J., & Dalton, B. (2008). Advocacy in the Age of Compacts: Regulating Government-Community Sector Relations – International Experiences. Sydney: Centre for Australian Community Organisations and Management, University of Technology, Sydney. Working Paper Series 76. Charlois, T. (2009). The EU civil society forum on drugs. European Drug Policies Consulting, Available online at: http://thierry-charlois.typepad.com/files/thierry-charlois---civil-society-forum-ondrugs.pdf. Chatwin, C. (2007). Multi-level governance: The way forward for European illicit drug policy? International Journal of Drug Policy, 18, 494–502. CIVICUS. (2013).The State of Civil Society 2013: creating an enabling environment. Johannesburg: CIVICUS World Alliance for Citizen Participation. Coen, D. (2007). Empirical and Theoretical Studies in EU Lobbying. Journal of European Public Policy, 14(3), 333–45. Coffman, J., Hendricks, A., Kaye, J., Kelly, T., & Masters, B. (2007). The Advocacy and Policy Change Composite Logic Model to Guide Evaluation Decisions. Seattle, WA: Advanced Practice Institute conducted at the 58th Annual Conference of the Council on Foundations. Retrieved from: http://www.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/eval/issue34/index.html 12 March 2012. Cohen, D., de la Vega, R., & Watson, G. (2001). Advocacy for Social Justice: A Global Action and Reflection Guide. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press. Compton B., Galoway, B., & Cournoyer, B. (2005). Social work processes (7th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing. Council of the European Union, (2012). European Union Drugs Strategy, 2013-2020, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. Available online at: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/12/st17/st17547.en12.pdf. Council of the European Union, (2013). EU Action Plan on Drugs 2013-2016, CORDROGUE 37, doc 12809/13. Available online at: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/13/st12/st12809.en13.pdf. European Commission (2006), Green paper on the role of civil society in drugs policy in the European Union, COM (2006) 316 final. Ezell, M. (1994). Advocacy practice of social workers. Families in Society, 75(1), 36–46. Hammer, M., Rooney, C. & Warren, S. (2010). Addressing Accountability in NGO Advocacy: Practice, Principles and Prospects of Self-Regulation (Briefing paper No. 125). One World Trust. Available online at: http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/bitstream/10625/49891/1/IDL-49891.pdf. Hedrich, D., Alessandro Pirona, A., & Wiessing, L. (2008). From margin to mainstream: The evolution of harm reduction responses to problem drug use in Europe. Drugs: Education, Prevention, and Policy, 15 (6), 503-517. Hepworth, D. H., & Larsen, J. A. (1986) Direct social work practice: Theory and skills (2nd ed.). Chicago, Ill: Dorsey Press. Hillebrand, J., Olszewski, D. & Sedefov, R. (2010). Legal highs on the internet. Substance Use & Misuse, 45 (3), 330–340. Hindess, B. (2002). Deficit by design. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 61(1), 30–38. Hoefer, R. (2006). Advocacy practice for social justice. Chicago: Lyceum Books Inc. Kickert, W. J. M., Klijn, E. H., & Koppenjan, J. F. M. (Eds.). (1997). Managing Complex Networks, London: Sage. King, R. and Tadros, N. (1998). Introduction to Advocacy; Unpublished paper. America’s Development Foundation, Cairo, Egypt. Available at: http://www.advocate-forchildren.org/advocacy. Kübler, D. (2001). Understanding policy change with the advocacy coalition framework: an application to Swiss drug policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 8(4), 623-641. MacGregor, S. (2009). Experts and Advocates: mobilising evidence to influence the development of policy internationally. Paper presented at the International Society for the Study of Drugs Policy, 3rd annual conference, Vienna. Availabe at: http://www.issdp.org/conferences/2009/papers/MacGregor_%20ISSDP_2009_conference_paper.d oc. Mahoney, C. (2004).The Power of Institutions: State and Interest Group Activity in the European Union, European Union Politics, 5, 441 - 442.

14     

Page 14 of 30

Ac ce p

te

d

M

an

us

cr

ip t

Mansfield, C. (2010). Monitoring & Evaluation of Advocacy Campaigns: Literature Review. Geneva: Ecumenical Advocacy Alliance. McAdam, D., McCarthy, J.D., & Mayer N. Z. (Eds.). (1996). Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McLaughlin, A.M. (2009). Clinical Social Workers: Advocates for Social Justice. Advances in Social Work, 10 (1), 51-68. McNutt, J. G. (2000). Coming Perspectives in the Development of Electronic Advocacy for Social Policy Practice. Critical Social Work, 1 (1). Retrieved on March 4, 2012, from: http://www.criticalsocialwork.com/00_1_coming_mcn.html. McNutt, J.G., & Boland, K.M. (1999). Electronic advocacy by non-profit organization in social welfare policy. Non-profit andVoluntary Sector Quarterly, 28(4), 432-451. Miley, K. K., O’Melia, M., & DuBois, B. (2007). Generalist social work practice: An empowerment approach (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Musto, D. F. (1999). The American Disease: Origins of Narcotics Control (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. O’Gorman, A., & Moore, M. (2012). Mapping study of drug policy advocacy organisations in Europe (final report). Lisbon: EMCDDA. Available at: http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/advocacy/mapping-study. O’Gorman, A., Quigley, P., Zobel, F., & Moore, K. (2013). European Drug Policy Advocacy Organisations. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, EMCDDA Papers. Reid, E. (1999). Nonprofit advocacy and political participation. In E. T. Boris & C.E. Steuerle’s (Eds.), Nonprofits and government: Collaboration and conflict. Washington, D.C: Urban Institute Press. Reisman, J., Gienap, A., & Stachowiak, S. (2007). A guide to measuring advocacy and policy. Baltimore, Maryland: Annie E. Casey Foundation. Sabatier, P. A. (1991). Toward Better Theories of the Policy Process. Political Science and Politics, 24 (2), 47-156. Schwartz, E. (1996). NetActivism: How Citizens use the Internet. Cambridge, MA: O'Reilly Media. Sen, A. (1999) Development as Freedom Oxford University Press Sen, A. (2002) Rationality and Freedom, Harvard University Press Sheafor, B.W., & Horejsi, C. R. (2008). Techniques and guidelines for social work practice (8th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Snow, D. A., Soule, S. A., & Kriesi, H. (2004). The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, Blackwell Companions to Sociology. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell. Solberg, U., Sedefov, R., & Griffiths, P. (2011). Developing a sound methodology to monitor the online availability of new drugs/‘legal highs’. In J. Fountain, V. A. Frank, & D.J. Korf’s (Eds.), Markets, methods and messages: Dynamics in European drug research. Lengerich: Pabst Science Publishers. Stachowiak, S. (2007). Pathways for change: 6 theories about how policy change happens. Seattle, WA: Organizational Research Services. The Advocacy Initiative. (2010). The Advocacy Initiative Project Report. Dublin: Montague and Middlequarter. Tilly, C. (1984). Social Movements and National Politics. In C. Bright & S. Harding’s (Eds.), Statemaking and Social Movements: Essays in History and Theory, Ann Arbor, Mich: University of Michigan Press, 297–31. Turner, R. (1998). Democracy at work: Non-profit use of Internet technology for public policy purposes. Washington, DC: OMB Watch. Van Voorhis, R., & Hosteller, C. (2006). The Impact of MSW Education on Social Worker Empowerment and Commitment to Client Empowerment through Social Justice Advocacy. Journal of Social Work Education, 42 (1), 105-121. Weafer, J., & Woods, M. (2003). The Jigsaw of Advocacy. Dublin: Comhairle.

15     

Page 15 of 30

8

3.7

Bulgaria

6

2.8

Croatia

1

0.5

Cyprus

0

0.0

Czech Republic

7

3.2

Denmark

4

1.8

Estonia

0

0.0

Finland

11

5.0

France

23

10.6

Germany

13

6.0

Greece

2

0.9

Hungary

5

2.3

Ireland

11

5.0

Italy

4

1.8

Latvia

1

0.5

5

2.3

Luxembourg

0

0.0

Malta

0

Netherlands

7

4

3.2

te

4

Poland

0.0

1.8

1.8

Ac ce p

Norway

d

Lithuania

Portugal

4

1.8

Romania

6

2.8

Slovakia

0

0.0

Slovenia

3

1.4

Spain

31

14.2

Sweden

12

5.5

Turkey

0

0.0

40

18.3

United Kingdom NCS

cr

Belgium

us

1.4

an

3

M

Austria

ip t

Table 1: Number of Drug Policy Advocacy † Organisations (DPAO) by Country located Number %

Total

3

1.4

218

100.0

†

The languages used in the internet search may have influenced the spatial location of the DPAOs – see discussion in the methods section

16     

Page 16 of 30

Table 2: Advocacy Organisation by Scope, Type of advocacy, Type of Organisation, Constituency Base, Objec Peer N

Professional %

Type of Advocacy

N

16.5

%

76

ip t

36

Scope of Operation Local/Regional National

25.0 66.7

15 53

19.7 69.7

3

8.3

8

10.5

5 21 3

13.9 58.3 8.3

22 0 43

28.9 0.0 56.6

0 7

0.0 19.4

10 1

13.2 1.3

6 33 16 2 16

16.7 91.7 44.4 5.6 44.4

2 50 46 3 43

2.6 65.8 60.5 3.9 56.6

1

2.8

30

39.5

cr

9 24

European/International

us

Type of Organisation

an

Alliance, coalition, network Civil society association NGO, third sector Professional representative body User group

34.9

d te

Activism Awareness Raising Education and training Legal Advocacy Lobbying

M

Advocacy Tools (Up to 3 tools recorded per organisation. Columns do not add up to 100%)

Ac ce p

Research and Publications

17     

Page 17 of 30

  Main Constituency Base All drug users Cannabis Users Family of Drug Users

38.9 5.6 30.6

36 0 3

47.4 0.0 3.9

0 0 3 6

0.0 0.0 8.3 16.7

8 0 1 28

10.5 0.0 1.3 36.8

11

30.6

1

1.3

3 8 25

27.3 72.7 69.4

1 0 75

100.0 0.0 98.7

9 16 36

36.0 64.0 100.0

27 48 76

36.0 64.0 100.0

Advocacy Objective and Orientation Legislation

an

Prohibition, Increase Restrictions (as % of LC) Regulation, Decriminalisation, Legalisation (as % of LC) Practice and Service Development

us

cr

ip t

Marginalised Users Medicinal Cannabis Users PLWHA (People living with HIV/AIDS) Wider society

14 2 11

Ac ce p

te

d

M

Drug Free, Abstinence, Recovery, Prevention (as % of PSD) Harm Reduction, Risk Reduction, Public Health (as % of PSD) Total Advocacy Objective

Table 3: Primary Policy Advocacy Objective and Orientation by country located††

Orientation

N

%

26

11.9

Objective Legislative Change

Control Reinforcement

Prohibition/Increased Restrictions (Sweden 31%, Czech Rep. 11%, Spain 11%)

18     

Page 18 of 30

Control Reduction

Regulation/Decriminalisation/Legalisation (UK 30%, Germany 12%, France 10%, Spain 8%)

50

22.9

Practice Development Prevention/Abstinence/Drug Free Recovery (Spain 28%, France 17%, Finland 12%)

57

26.1

Harm Reduction

Public Health/Harm and Risk Reduction (UK 23%, Ireland, 13%, Spain 10%)

85

39

218

††

cr

Total

ip t

Use Reduction

100

Ac ce p

te

d

M

an

us

The languages used in the internet search will have influenced the spatial location of the DPAOs – see discussion in the methods section

19     

Page 19 of 30

Legislative Change

Control Reduction

Ac ce p

te

d

M

an

us

Control Reinforcement

Public Health; Harm and Risk Reduction; Health Promotion Liberalisation; Decriminalisation; Regulation; Legalisation Prohibition; Increased restrictions; Criminalisation

cr

Harm Reduction

ip t

Figure 1: Objectives and orientations of drug policy advocacy organisations Objectives Orientation Measures Practice Use Reduction Prevention; Abstinence; Development Drug Free recovery

20     

Page 20 of 30

Conflict of Interest  Role of Funders 

us

cr

ip t

The EMCDDA’s 2011 work programme recommended that a mapping study of drug policy advocacy  organisations in Europe be undertaken so as to improve understanding of drug policy actors and the  context in which drug policy is developed in Europe. An invitation to tender to complete this  mapping study was issued in August 2011, the contract awarded to the lead author (the Principal  Investigator) in November 2011 [Contract CT.11.POL.045.1.0], and the study completed in July 2012.  The initial parameters of the methodological framework for this research study were designed in the  tender brief by Eoghan Quigley and Frank Zobel from the Policy, Evaluation and Content  Coordination (POL) unit of the EMCDDA. This framework was subsequently reviewed and refined,  implemented and analysed in an iterative and collaborative process between all of the authors. The  information and views set out in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect  those of the funders.  

Ac ce p

te

d

M

an

 

21     

Page 21 of 30

ip t

an

us

cr

Keywords: civil society; advocacy; drug policy; governance; harm reduction; drug controls

Ac ce p

te

d

M

Abstract: Background: In recent decades a range of advocacy organisations have emerged on the drugs policy landscape seeking to shape the development of policy at national and international levels. This development has been facilitated by the expansion of 'democratic spaces' for civil society participation in governance fora at national and supranational level. However, little is known about these policy actors - their aims, scope, organisational structure, or the purpose of their engagement. Methods: Drug policy advocacy organisations were defined as organisations with a clearly stated aim to influence policy and which were based in Europe. Data on these organisations was collected through a systematic tri-lingual (English, French and Spanish) internet search, supplemented by information provided by national agencies in the 28 EU member states, Norway and Turkey. In order to differentiate between the diverse range of activities, strategies and standpoints of these groups, information from the websites was used to categorise the organisations by their scope of operation, advocacy tools and policy constituencies; and by three key typologies - the type of advocacy they engaged in, their organisational type, and their advocacy objectives and orientation. Results: The study identified over two hundred EU-based advocacy organisations (n=218) which included civil society associations, NGOs, and large-scale alliances and coalitions, operating at local, national and European levels. Three forms of advocacy emerged from the data analysis - peer, professional and public policy. These groups focused their campaigns on practice development (harm reduction or abstinence) and legislative reform (reducing or strengthening drug controls). Conclusion: The findings from this study provide a nuanced profile of civil society advocacy as a policy community in the drugs field; their legitimacy to represent cases, causes, social values and ideals; their focus on both insider and outsider strategies to achieve their goals. The level of convergence and divergence in Europe in relation to policy positions on service provision ethos and drug control regulation is indicated.

Page 22 of 30

Title: Peer, professional, and public: an analysis of the drugs policy advocacy community in Europe Type of Contribution:

Research Paper

Authors:

Aileen O’Gorman , Eoghan Quigley , Frank Zobel and Kerri Moore .

a

b

b

a

a

School of Applied Social Sciences, University College Dublin, Ireland.

b

Policy, Evaluation and Content Coordination Unit, European Monitoring

ip t

Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, Lisbon, Portugal. Corresponding author: Dr Aileen O’Gorman, School of Applied Social Sciences, University College

00 353 87 415 8691

Email:

[email protected]

an

us

Tel:

cr

Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland.

Emails:

M

Aileen O'Gorman ; [email protected]

ed

Eoghan Quigley Frank Zobel

Ac

ce pt

Kerri Moore

Page 23 of 30

Figure(s)

Harm Reduction

Legislative Change

Control Reduction

Ac

ce pt

ed

M

an

us

cr

Control Reinforcement

Public Health; Harm and Risk Reduction; Health Promotion Liberalisation; Decriminalisation; Regulation; Legalisation Prohibition; Increased restrictions; Criminalisation

ip t

Figure 1: Objectives and orientations of drug policy advocacy organisations Objectives Orientation Measures Practice Use Reduction Prevention; Abstinence; Development Drug Free recovery

Page 24 of 30

us

cr

ip t

Table(s)

Belgium

8

3.7

Bulgaria

6

2.8

Croatia

1

0.5

Cyprus

0

0.0

Czech Republic

7

3.2

Denmark

4

1.8

Estonia

0

0.0

Finland

11

5.0

France

23

Germany

13

Greece

2

Hungary

5

Italy

11

10.6

6.0 0.9 2.3 5.0

Ac c

Ireland

4

1.8

1

0.5

5

2.3

0

0.0

0

0.0

Netherlands

7

3.2

Norway

4

1.8

Poland

4

1.8

Portugal

4

1.8

Romania

6

2.8

Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta

M

1.4

d

3

ep te

Austria

an

Table 1: Number of Drug Policy Advocacy Organisations (DPAO) by Country located† Number %

Page 25 of 30

ip t 3

1.4

Spain

31

14.2

Sweden

12

5.5

Turkey

0

0.0

40

18.3

3

1.4

218

100.0

United Kingdom NCS Total

ep te

d

The languages used in the internet search may have influenced the spatial location of the DPAOs – see discussion in the methods section

Ac c

†

cr

Slovenia

us

0.0

an

0

M

Slovakia

Page 26 of 30

ip t cr us

Table 2: Advocacy Organisation by Scope, Type of advocacy, Type of Organisation, Constituency Base, Objectives and Orientation Peer

%

an

N

Type of Advocacy

Professional N

%

Public N

Total %

N

%

36

16.5

76

34.9

106

48.6

218

100.0

9

25.0

15

19.7

13

12.3

37

17.0

24

66.7

53

69.7

74

69.8

151

69.3

3

8.3

8

10.5

19

17.9

30

13.8

5

13.9

22

28.9

30

28.3

57

26.1

21

58.3

0

0.0

48

45.3

69

31.7

3

8.3

43

56.6

23

21.7

69

31.7

Professional representative body

0

0.0

10

13.2

2

1.9

12

5.5

User group

7

19.4

1

1.3

3

2.8

11

5.0

Scope of Operation

M

Local/Regional National

d

European/International

Alliance, coalition, network Civil society association

Advocacy Tools

Ac c

NGO, third sector

ep te

Type of Organisation

(Up to 3 tools recorded per organisation. Columns do not add up to 100%) Activism

6

16.7

2

2.6

14

13.2

22

10.1

Awareness Raising

33

91.7

50

65.8

96

90.6

179

82.1

Education and training

16

44.4

46

60.5

37

34.9

99

45.4

2

5.6

3

3.9

4

3.8

9

4.1

16

44.4

43

56.6

55

51.9

114

52.3

1

2.8

30

39.5

37

34.9

68

31.2

Legal Advocacy Lobbying

Research and Publications

Page 27 of 30

ip t cr us

Main Constituency Base All drug users

14

Cannabis Users Marginalised Users Medicinal Cannabis Users

M

PLWHA (People living with HIV/AIDS)

Advocacy Objective and Orientation

ep te

Legislation Prohibition, Increase Restrictions (as % of LC)

d

Wider society

Regulation, Decriminalisation, Legalisation (as % of LC)

Practice and Service Development Drug Free, Abstinence, Recovery, Prevention (as % of PSD) Harm Reduction, Risk Reduction, Public Health (as % of PSD)

47.4

26

24.5

76

34.9

2

5.6

0

0.0

19

17.9

21

9.6

30.6

3

3.9

1

0.9

15

6.9

0

0.0

8

10.5

2

1.9

10

4.6

0

0.0

0

0.0

2

1.9

2

0.9

3

8.3

1

1.3

1

0.9

5

2.3

6

16.7

28

36.8

55

51.9

89

40.8

11 3

30.6 27.3

1 1

1.3 100.0

64 22

60.4 34.4

76 26

34.9 34.2

8

72.7

0

0.0

42

65.6

50

65.8

25 9

69.4 36.0

75 27

98.7 36.0

42 21

39.6 50.0

142 57

65.1 40.1

16

64.0

48

64.0

21

50.0

85

59.9

36

100.0

76

100.0

106

100.0

218

100.0

Ac c

Total Advocacy Objective

36

11

an

Family of Drug Users

38.9

Page 28 of 30

ip t us

cr Orientation

N

%

an

Table 3: Primary Policy Advocacy Objective and Orientation †† by country located

Objective

M

Legislative Change Prohibition/Increased Restrictions (Sweden 31%, Czech Rep. 11%, Spain 11%)

26

11.9

Control Reduction

Regulation/Decriminalisation/Legalisation (UK 30%, Germany 12%, France 10%, Spain 8%)

50

22.9

Prevention/Abstinence/Drug Free Recovery (Spain 28%, France 17%, Finland 12%)

57

26.1

Public Health/Harm and Risk Reduction (UK 23%, Ireland, 13%, Spain 10%)

85

39

218

100

ep te

d

Control Reinforcement

Use Reduction

Harm Reduction

Total ††

Ac c

Practice Development

The languages used in the internet search will have influenced the spatial location of the DPAOs – see discussion in the methods section

Page 29 of 30

Highlights

Extent of drug policy advocacy community in Europe

•

Typology of advocacy groups: peer, professional and public policy

•

Level of convergence on service provision and drug regulatory system in EU

•

Role of values and evidence in shaping drugs policy

•

Advocacy groups focus on influencing both public and political opinion

Ac ce p

te

d

M

an

us

cr

ip t

•

Page 30 of 30